Here's my ballot (in alphabetical order):

1) Harry Dalton - GM

2) Doug Harvey - Umpire

3) Whitey Herzog - Manager

4) Marvin Miller - MLBPA Leader

5) Walter O'Malley - Owner

6) Dick Williams - Manager

Harvey
Miller
O'Malley
Richards

In the rough order that I'd vote them in, with the adjacent names virtually equal:

No Brainers who should've been in the HOF long ago
O'Malley
Miller

Solid Choices, though not nearly as clearcut as the above group
Dalton
Herzog

Marginal Choices, more like 60-40, but not inherently unworthy
Kuhn
Harvey

Andy - is this your ballot?

Walter O'Malley
Marvin Miller
Harry Daulton
Doug Harvey
Whitey Herzog
Dick Williams
Charles O. Finley

Charlie O. was a real jackass, but he not only was the owner of one of the most tremendously talented teams ever assembled, but he essentially served as his own GM in those years as well. Players drafted by Finley's Athletics or claimed by them when they were still minor leaguers include: Catfish Hunter, Mike Morgan, Bert Campaneris, Rickey Henderson, Reggie Jackson, Rick Langford, Rollie Fingers, Steve McCatty, Joe Rudi, Mike Norris, Gene Tenace, Dwayne Murphy, Sal Bando, Rick Monday, Vida Blue, Blue Moon Odom, Phil Garner, Claudell Washington, Ernie Camacho, Champ Summers, Denny Walling, Brian Kingman, Chet Lemon, Mitchell Page, Darrell Evans (who he let go as a Rule V guy), Glenn Abbott, Manny Trillo, George Hendrick, Jose Morales, Dave Roberts, Chuck Dobson, Felix Millan, Skip Lockwood, Dave Duncan, Paul Linblad, Deron Johnson, Lew Krausse, Fred Norman, and maybe Curt Young (if he still had the club during the '81 draft). Also, his club drafted but did not sign Danny Jackson, Scotty Fletcher, Hubie Brooks, Bob Horner, Warren Cromaritie, Floyd Bannister, Rich Dauer, Jim Sundberg, and Eric Soderholm.

Include his savvy as a GM, and I think he's deserving induction despite his serious limitations as an owner.

Andy - is this your ballot?

Yeah, all six.

In no meaningful order:

1) Doug Harvey - How many older umps have you heard of?
2) Marvin Miller - This is a peak vote. What he worked for has affected every young boy from Newfoundland to Osaka. I also come from a union background.
3) Bill White - Not sure what he actually did as NL President, but he was a HOVG as a 1B only. Add some service to the game and the total value of his case should be clear.
4) Dick Williams - Got the A's to win in spite of Chuck Finley (conspicous by his absence here).
5) Whitey Herzog - If Lasorda, why not Herzog. His teams carried his brand and were very successful.
6) Walter O'Malley - I'm not comfortable with owners in the Hall, but I think the move out of Brooklyn was at least partially inevitable, and he had a direct hand in building a dynasty.
7) Gabe Paul - Contributions to baseball in Houston and to rebuilding the Yankees to perennial championship contenders in the late 70's.

Doug Harvey, umpire
Whitey Herzog, manager
Marvin Miller, executive
Walter O'Malley, owner

These are the four that I am fully convinced belong in the Hall of Fame. I'm not necessarily voting against the other candidates and I could see myself including some of them on another ballot in two years, but I just wasn't convinced enough to vote for any of them this time around.

Looks like this one was lost in the ether so I'll try again:

Doug Harvey, umpire
Whitey Herzog, manager
Marvin Miller, executive
Walter O'Malley, owner

These are the four that I am fully convinced belong in the Hall of Fame. Leaving the other candidates off of my ballot is not so much a vote against them- I may even include some of them on a ballot two years down the road- so much as my way of saying that I am not convinced enough to include them.

And now my first ballot is there. Argh! Please ignore the double post.

I can vote for 10, and I'm voting for 8. I think Dag Nabbit (Chris J)'s reasoning is almost compelling enough for me to vote for Finley, but I can't pull the trigger. In alpha order

Buzzie Bavasi: architect of at least one Dodger dynasty and of a winner in Cal.

Harry Dalton: architect of one dynasty and one team that was outstanding for several years.

Doug Harvey: oustanding ump.

Whitey Herzog: did fabulous job in KC and STL of adapting to home park, recognizing the importance of defense and bullpen, and of emphasizing OBP to help the speed make use of it.

Billy Martin: nearly interhangeable with Williams; he turned more bad teams into good ones than almost anyone.

Marvin Miller: long overdue.

Walter O’Malley: the vision and gumption to make the jump to California was hugely important in ushering in the modern era of major league baseball. And he hired smart people.

Dick Williams: nearly interchangeable with Martin; he turned more bad teams into good ones than almost anyone.

In alphabetical order, assuming the six I picked on the players ballot and these four equal the ten we are allowed:

Harvey
Herzog
O'Malley
Williams

pocket,

No. You get up to 10 each, so you might want to clarify.

Marvin Miller - lasting impact on the game; recognition is long overdue.
Doug Harvey - I don't really know how to evaluate umpires, but I agree they deserve recognition and will go with the consensus that he's the most deserving.
Whitey Herzog - Cooperstown has a pretty distinct bar for managers, and he's the only candidate who is clearly above it.

I'm not convinced that any post-1950 owners merit recognition at Cooperstown.

I'm not convinced that any post-1950 owners merit recognition at Cooperstown.

If you're from Brooklyn, or know people whose families were forcibly displaced from the old Chavez Ravine neighborhood, no need to explain. But otherwise, how can you possibly omit O'Malley? Once he got to LA, what more could he have done? He built and meticulously maintained what still is one of the great baseball stadiums, kept the ticket prices way below the norm for most big market franchises, kept his team at or fighting for the top in the great majority of his years there, and for better or worse was universally acknowledged to be baseball's most influential owner for the better part of 20 years. And this doesn't even take into account that he was one of the main driving forces in west coast expansion, as opposed to the many who had talked about it for 15 years prior to that, and that he was in great part responsible for talking Horace Stoneham into coming along with him to make the whole venture feasible.

(So OK, if you're a New York Giants fan, you don't have to explain your omission, either....)

But again, unless you're simply opposed to electing any owners, how could O'Malley not be qualified?

Harry Dalton
Charlie Finley
Doug Harvey
Marvin Miller
Walter O'Malley
Dick Williams
Bill White

Just Missed: Billy Martin

I'll vote for these four:

Doug Harvey
Walter O'Malley
Marvin Miller
Whitey Herzog

If you're from Brooklyn, or know people whose families were forcibly displaced from the old Chavez Ravine neighborhood, no need to explain. But otherwise, how can you possibly omit O'Malley?

Actually, I spent my childhood in LA during the Koufax-Drysdale-Wills era and was a die-hard Dodgers fan for the first half of my life. However, as I said on the discussion page, I see MLB's move to the west coast in the late 1950s as inevitable -- it came as soon as the air transportation was ready to handle it, and if the Dodgers hadn't moved first, the Giants or Senators or someone else would have made the move within a year or two. He did build a nice stadium using his own money (we forget that that used to be the norm) and was generally benevolent when it didn't hurt his pocketbook too much. But mostly he was just a good businessman. He fielded competitive teams because it was good business and--controlling the second largest market--he could afford to. To me, the HoF ought to be about more than just making good business decisions.

1. Marvin Miller
2. Whitey Herzog
3. Doug Harvey
4. Charlie Finley

O'Malley was also known as the man who essentially ran baseball for decades. Comissioners Frick and to some extent Kuhn were seen as his men. He was smart, did his homework, presented his ideas in a clear, concise, and non-belligerent manner, and for about 15-20 years got the rest of the owners to follow his lead.

The same smarts he showed in dealing with his fellow owners pervaded the entire organization. Under O'Malley the Dodgers won 4 titles, and 7 other pennants. The hallmark of the O'Malley Dodgers was stability. They had remarkable consistency under two managers for 40 years. They had among the most stable starting pitching for over 20 years. They had the longest lasting starting infield in baseball history as Garvey-Lopes-Russell-Cey anchored the line up for 8 straight years. From 1976-80 they had 7 of the same starting 8 players the entire time - Cey, Garvey, Lopes, Russell, Yeager, Smith, and Baker. And of course the game's most respected announcer describing it all. The team maintained one of the largest farm system organizations in baseball. They helped pioneer the move to a modern 4-man-rotation (where the pitchers routinely went in ABCDABCD manner instead of the previous system of numerous swingmen, spot starters, and only 1-2 real full-time starters). In the 1970s the franchise just plain did pioneer the 5-man rotation. Thus the same notion of regularity and dependability shown in their lineups and managerial consistency played out in their usage of starting pitchers. Including 1979, when he died mid-season, he ran the club for 30 years. They had 5 losing seasons in that time; one of those was 1979. Two of those losing seasons were barely under .500 (1964, and 1979) and their worst season (1967) they still topped .450. That 30 year stretch was longer than any player, any manager, any GM or front office figure. O'Malley was the only constant from 1950-79.

Moving west inevitable? Sure, but he should still get credit for being the one to first do it. And by taking one (and convincing a second) highly talented and successful team to go outside, they maximized the success of the opertion. Going south was a matter of time - it didn't happen for another decade. Moving to Florida was inevitable; but it still took MLB 25 years longer than the NFL to go down there. Prior to moving out west he made the first serious call for a domed stadium. While out west he built what has long been considered to be one of the best stadiums made between Wrigley and Camden Yards. By paying for it with his own money, and providing tons of parking, he ensured a huge chunk of money coming in that allowed him to maintain his farm system, consistenly field a good team and maintain market dominance over the Angels. It wasn't just market size keeping the Dodgers afloat, it was how he used it.

He did a great job running the franchise, was influential was his fellow owners, was the central figure in at least one of the most important changes over the last 60 years . . . Yea, I don't see how you keep him out.

Fair enough, Brent. I just wanted to get your full reasoning. Out of curiosity, then, do any pre-1950 owners merit HOF inclusion in your opinion, and why?

Sorry for posting this on the balloting thread, BTW. If you want to answer it on the discussion thread, I'll look for it there.

Harry Dalton
Doug Harvey
Whitey Herzog
Marvin Miller
Walter O’Malley
Dick Williams

Please give me Billy Martin, Marvin Miller, and Dick Williams.

If Mayo Smith was on the ballot, I could say, and hold the Mayo.

No changes for this ballot, thanks.

I'll vote for these guys:

Harvey
Herzog
Miller
O'Malley
Richards

Doug Harvey is an easy choice for me, and my only choice on this ballot.

I'm convinced that the changes credited to Marvin Miller would have happened without him, in large part because the players were finally ready to go out on a limb and make sure that things did change. Miller's great talents were in educating the players on the role of labor vs management, and in letting the players dictate the pace of events, and maybe that helped facilitate the changes to some extent, but I have little doubt that if it hadn't been Miller, it would have been someone else; the players were driving the effort, and Miller was more like their tour guide than anything else.

As for the managers, Martin and Williams were great short-term managers, but they couldn't hold it together for more than a year or two before their personality issues came to the fore and they self-destructed. Herzog's a cut above them, but his period of sustained excellence was a little too short for me.

O'Malley's the only other person I considered, and what it came down to for me was that, ultimately, his behind-the-scenes operations to get to LA and to exploit the market at the expense of others were enough to keep him off the ballot.

-- MWE

Fair enough, Brent. I just wanted to get your full reasoning. Out of curiosity, then, do any pre-1950 owners merit HOF inclusion in your opinion, and why?

Without thinking it through exhaustively, here's my short list:
Hulbert and Spalding - for essentially creating major league baseball as we know it.
Rube Foster - the organizing force behind Negro League baseball.
JL Wilkinson and maybe Cum Posey - for keeping Negro League baseball going after Foster's death and during the depression.

My problem with Dag Nabbit's list is that it credits O'Malley with everything good that happened in the organization. Alston is deserving of much of the credit, and I'm not sure how to split the remaining credit between O'Malley and Bavasi. I might be persuaded that they're both deserving, but for now I'm passing.

I like that list, Brent, and having read Sam Lacy's autobio and Brad Snyder's book on the Grays (maybe one of the top 20 or so baseball histories ever), I'm particularly glad you included Posey.

I still think, though, that you underrate The Big Oom. I'm not arguing with the credit you give Bavasi or Alston, but O'Malley hired both of them in the first place and stuck with them both for decades, giving the Dodgers a terrific advantage in continuity over teams that were forever changing managers and GMs on a whim. And I shouldn't probably harp on this again, since it's obviously a side issue from the HOF standpoint, but how many other owners, given the overwhelming demand for tickets that the Dodgers had during his reign, would have resisted the temptation to raise ticket prices? I know that the disgusting auction mentality we have today with respect to ticket prices wasn't there in the 60's and 70's, but if any baseball owner would have had a credible excuse for succumbing to it, it would have been O'Malley. And yet he resisted gouging the LA fans all the way to his retirement, and to this day the Dodgers are still one of the best ballpark bargains in the game. In that respect he was a role model among owners.

But mainly I think you don't give him enough credit not only for the LA move, but for bringing the Giants out there with him, as Stoneham would likely never have done it on his own, even given his dire financial straits---Stoneham was much more likely to have just settled for Minneapolis.

Baseball people had been talking about moving out west since the war. They knew the tremendous potential of the market. They could foresee the advances in air travel. They saw the Rams and the 49ers prospering in the NFL and even in the old AAFC. They weren't blind and dumb. But it still took O'Malley to actually make the move, and do it with such skill that the Dodgers were not just an instant success a la Milwaukee but an ongoing NL powerhouse both on the field and at the gate. You could say that all this would have happened eventually anyway, but what if some klutz like Calvin Griffith or Lou Pereni or Stoneham himself, had beaten him to it? The point being that LA's success was not so foreordained as it might appear with hindsight, and that lots of other owners might have completely screwed it up.

But instead, by the way O'Malley handled the move the NL got a huge boost, which along with its (relatively) enlightened racial attitudes put it into position as the dominant league for a good 20-25 years. And while none of this is of any particular social importance in and of itself, I think you'd have to have an almost impossibly high bar for HOF owners not to let O'Malley get over it. You could pretty much use the same sort of "it all would have been inevitable anyway" arguments to deconstruct the historic roles of such social pioneers as Martin Luther King or Betty Friedan, but at some point you have to concede that history is also driven by what Sidney Hook called "heroes," and not just by impersonal historic forces.

Of course by that term Hook didn't only mean heroes in the positive sense, so again, all dissents from Brooklyn and the old Chavez Ravine neighborhood are hereby granted a tip of the hat. But take away O'Malley and the progress of baseball would IMO have been seriously retarded during the 60's and 70's. I just don't see any way around that.

>if it hadn't been Miller, it would have been someone else

Well, you could say that about just about anybody. If Doug Harvey wasn't behind the plate, somebody woulda called balls and strikes. If O'Malley hadn't gone west... If Branch Rickey hadn't signed Jackie, and if it wasn't Jackie... Withe the introduction of the lively ball, somebody woulda been Babe Ruth even if Ruth had never lived. And so forth.

I'm a little surprised that some of these guys managed to live long enough for a second VC election. Every four years? Really? Well, since it comes along so infrequently, I'll be generous and vote for six. Alphabetical, as always:

<u>2007 Veterans' Committee - Composite Ballot</u>

Harry I. Dalton
Created the conditions for success with three different teams, none of which had a history of winning. Including the Brewers. The Brewers, people.
Harold Douglas Harvey – “God”
I think when the majority of players have tremendous respect for an umpire, he must be good at his job. After this, maybe we can elect Dutch Rennert.
Dorrel Norman Elvert Herzog – “Whitey”
A manager who learned to play to the strengths of his ballclubs. Ironically, sending Ted Simmons away to Milwaukee may be the best example of how he built a winning ballclub.
Alfred Manuel Martin – “Billy”
I can’t think of anyone else who could turn teams around quite like he did. He made winners out of the Rangers, for crying out loud. He definitely couldn’t stick around for years, but he made an immediate impact.
Marvin Julian Miller
The most influential man in baseball for the last third of the 20th century. In his induction speech, Nolan Ryan talked about going from pumping gas in the off-season to becoming the game’s first million-dollar man. He gave Marvin Miller credit for that, and I agree.
Walter Francis O’Malley
Compared unfavorably to Stalin and Hitler, and yet an astute figure in the growth of the game. Veeck – As in Wreck makes it clear that O’Malley was one of the true powers in the game, and the fact that he built one of baseball’s most enduring franchises earns him recognition.

if it hadn't been Miller, it would have been someone else

Would he have been as successful? Would he have done as good a job guiding the players? You mention Miller's great talent was educating the players, and that's not a minor issue. The info about Marvin Miller and the early players' union was among the most illuminating bits of info in Alex Belth's book on Curt Flood. The rank'n'file were no more militant than their counterparts in the NFL, NBA, or NHL . . . until Miller started doing a skillful job getting them to work together and point out how managment lied to them repeatedly. There's a reason why MLB got free agency two decades before any other sport, had arbitration, and why they're still the strongest union with the best overall labor package.

My problem with Dag Nabbit's list is that it credits O'Malley with everything good that happened in the organization. Alston is deserving of much of the credit,

I agree about Alston. But when I look at the Dodgers I see a team that for decades had a well run on-field teams, well-run front office, well-run business plan, well-run public relations in the LA area, well-run minor league system . . . and I don't see how the owner deserves a lot of credit. Is it the people below him doing great jobs all the time? Well, someone's hiring them for 30 years. No one else was there the entire time.

Harry Dalton
Doug Harvey
Whitey Herzog
Marvin Miller
Walter O'Malley
Dick Williams

Dalton
Finley
Harvey
Herzog
Martin
Miller
O'Malley

Doug Harvey
Bowie Kuhn
Marvin Miller
Walter O’Malley
Dick Williams

I'm a little disappointed post 35 isn't from the real Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. That'd be really cool.

Harry Dalton
Charlie Finley
Doug Harvey
Whitey Herzog
Billy Martin
Marvin Miller
Walter O’Malley
Dick Williams

Wow, this is really really tough. Not only have I not done previous work on these guys like I had for the players ballot, but I also have no idea exactly what tools should be used. I feel like I am doing this seat of my pants, BBWAA player ballot style!

Whitey Herzog - coached two teams that were very good for a long time.
Billy Martin - Great at turning teams around
Marvin Miller - Made an indelible impact on the game. I don't like the 'someone would haev done it eventually' argument. I mean some black player would have been playing MLB eventually, why do we even honor Jackie Robinson?
Gabe Paul - Put together the 'Bronx Zoo' Yankees
Buzzie Bavasi - Much better than his son, though that is no reason to put someone into the HOF.

Just missed
Dick Williams - He is very similar to Billy Martin, but I dont' feel comfortable with him in. If we ever do a HOM for managers, I could easily be convinced otherwise.
Doug Harvey - How can I be sure that he was a great Ump? I have no idea how I could even come close to measuring that.
Walter O'Malley - I guess you could say that he brought baseball to the west coast be he also took baseball away from my area of residence. Then again he did it 24 years before I was born and 49 before I moved out here. Still, one positive, one negative.

short and sweet.

marvin miller
buzzie bavasi
doug harvey
dick williams

The point I'm making about Miller is this: Miller couldn't have been successful without leadership and commitment from the players of that era. It was the players - not Miller - who took the lead in the actions leading up to the Messersmith/McNally case. Miller was visible, true, but he makes it pretty clear in his own writings that almost without exception, the players were the driving force behind what happened, and Miller really didn't have to do very much.

-- MWE

short and sweet
1. Whitey Herzog
2. Dick Williams
and voting for with great reservations
3. Doug Harvey
4. Billy Martin

Adam Schafer Posted: February 25, 2007 at 01:34 AM (#2303004)
short and sweet.
I don't remeber seeing him say that when I wrote it

Doug Harvey
Walter O'Malley
Marvin Miller

Herzog came close, as did Martin and Williams (but less so).

Just a reminder that the election will end at 8 PM EDT tonight.

Miller is an easy choice. After that, picking one owner, one GM, and one manager seems reasonable to me. Doug Harvey? Well, he umpired almost 5,000 games and if the HoF is honoring umpires, why not him?

Marvin Miller
Walter O'Malley
Harry Dalton
Whitey Herzog
Doug Harvey

In allocating credit between Rickey and O'Malley, I think it's very instructive to look at Rickey's years in Pittsburgh in the 1950's. Though he was there for just a few years, the foundation Rickey built around Joe L Browne and Howie Haak was so strong that the Pirates remained a league power for 20 years after Rickey was gone.

None of the above.

Empty ballot.

Whitey Herzog
Dick Williams
I waffled on O'Malley all week, but I am not voting for him. The arguements made in his behalf have been very enlightening, mostly things I knew, but never strung all together in an arguement for his place in the BBHOF. Thanks to everyone that chipped in on both side.

Doug Harvey
Marvin Miller
Walter O'Malley
I guess I should have at least one manager - Whitey Herzog

I thought we were only allowed to vote for 5 on this portion of the ballot - are you sure it's ten?

Harry Dalton
Whitey Herzog
Billy Martin
Marvin Miller
Bill White
Dick Williams
Phil Wrigley

I'll admit, I'm shooting a little blind here . . . but it is what it is.

I thought we were only allowed to vote for 5 on this portion of the ballot - are you sure it's ten?

Reading their rules, it sure looks like 10 for each ballot, Joe. Anyone else have a different interpretation?

The election is now over. Results will be posted shortly.