PDA

View Full Version : Veteran's Committee Says NO again



cumberlandreds
02-27-2007, 03:12 PM
No one elected again by the veteran's committee. I think it's time to shut this part of the process down since it seems like they will never elect anyone again from this committee. Santo was the closest just five votes short.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070227&content_id=1817871&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

pedro
02-27-2007, 03:14 PM
There is no excuse IMO for Santo and Bert Blyleven to not be in the HOF.

Danny Serafini
02-27-2007, 03:14 PM
The veteran's committee is a joke, plain and simple.

Matt700wlw
02-27-2007, 03:33 PM
There goes Pete's chances....



As if he ever had one...

kheidg-
02-27-2007, 04:18 PM
IMO Jim Kaat should definitely be in the hall of fame as well. Why he is not is beyond me. He has 283 career wins with a 3.43 ERA. He was probably only the best pitcher in his league once or twice but was by and far the best defensive pitcher of all time. He won 16 consecutive gold gloves. That is unheard of for a pitcher (or any player for that matter).

remdog
02-27-2007, 05:13 PM
I'd add Blyleven and Katt but not Santo.

Rem

chicoruiz
02-27-2007, 06:43 PM
I read Joe Morgan's thoughts on the matter, and I have to vent a bit: Every time Joe Morgan opens his pompous, underinformed pie hole I cringe as a Reds fan. How could such an amazingly smart ballplayer turn into such an amazingly ludicrous bag of wind? OK, I'm better now...

Always Red
02-27-2007, 06:54 PM
The grumpy old men have spoken again...

...no one could possibly be as good as they were, and no one ever will be that good again! Why? Because they say so, that's why!!

They need to trash the whole electing process, and start over again.

All of the ballplayers mentioned above were HoF'ers, in my book. Blyleven, Kaat, Santo. Concepcion, too, once he gets off the regular ballot. There could be a different level of distinction, between those voted in regularly, and those voted in via 2nd chance, by the veterans committee.

It simply should not be so restrictive, like no one is worthy.

MrCinatit
02-27-2007, 07:24 PM
So, since this new voting process has begun, they have voted in no one?
How long does this charade go on before they deem it a failure?

steig
02-27-2007, 07:49 PM
I'm fine with the veterans not voting in any of the players listed. Jim Kaat would have been the closest one in my mind but he also pitched in a very pitcher friendly period of time. I agree that ego may end up playing to large of a part for the veterans when it comes to voting but it should be a very rare case that any player gets voted in by the veterans committe. Players have 15 years to be voted on by the writers, if they do not vote a player into the HOF, then the probably do not deserve to be elected into the HOF.

An interesting scenario will be if the players implicated in steroid abuse go through the voting process and do not get voted into the HOF by the writers. What will the veterans take on players who used steroids be?

Cyclone792
02-27-2007, 08:12 PM
While I'm not surprised with the results - I believe the Vets' Committee will be modified again in some fashion before they elect somebody again - what does surprise me are the people who really believe that Ron Santo isn't a deserving Hall of Famer.

IMO, if someone's among the top 10 players all-time at their respective position, that player is a sure-fire Hall of Famer. Plus, I don't think I've ever seen anybody argue that there are 10 other third baseman in the history of the game who were greater than Ron Santo, and I bet those who feel Santo doesn't belong would find it very difficult at best to list 10 third baseman they believe were greater players.

remdog
02-27-2007, 09:22 PM
IMO, if someone's among the top 10 players all-time at their respective position, that player is a sure-fire Hall of Famer.

Certainly you are welcome to your opinion but it's not one that I share. Third base is the most under representated position in the HOF if IRC. IMO, that's because there were simply not a lot of great players there. (Shrug) Being top 10 of a bad lot doesn't cut it for me.

When I think of a Hall Of Famer I think of someone that made me shake in my boots when my team was playing against him or someone on my team that I prayed would be given a chance with the game on the line.

Ron Santo never did that for me. (Shrug)

Rem

Col_ IN Reds fan
02-27-2007, 10:11 PM
I say good for them for not electing anyone. The HOF is already watered down. It is for the great players.

RedsBaron
02-27-2007, 10:36 PM
Players have 15 years to be voted on by the writers, if they do not vote a player into the HOF, then the probably do not deserve to be elected into the HOF.



Frank "Home Run" Baker, Orlando Cepeda, Bobby Doerr, Lefty Gomez, Goose Goslin, Burleigh Grimes, Ernie Lombardi, Johnny Mize, Hal Newhouser, Pee Wee Reese, Edd Roush, Amos Rusie, Enos Slaughter and Arky Vaughan all say "hi."

RedsBaron
02-27-2007, 10:39 PM
While I'm not surprised with the results - I believe the Vets' Committee will be modified again in some fashion before they elect somebody again - what does surprise me are the people who really believe that Ron Santo isn't a deserving Hall of Famer.

IMO, if someone's among the top 10 players all-time at their respective position, that player is a sure-fire Hall of Famer. Plus, I don't think I've ever seen anybody argue that there are 10 other third baseman in the history of the game who were greater than Ron Santo, and I bet those who feel Santo doesn't belong would find it very difficult at best to list 10 third baseman they believe were greater players.

Probably most of those people who believe that Santo doesn't belong in the HOF have no argument with Brooks Robinson being there, yet there wasn't much to chose from between Santo and Robinson in their respective primes.

RedsManRick
02-27-2007, 10:40 PM
Giving Hall of Famer's the ability to vote other people in is just a stupid idea. Basically, you're asking them to choose who is as good as, or better than them. How many of these guys have egos that let them do that?

Jr's Boy
02-27-2007, 10:43 PM
How about Buck O Neal for crying out loud!

remdog
02-27-2007, 11:37 PM
Frank "Home Run" Baker, Orlando Cepeda, Bobby Doerr, Lefty Gomez, Goose Goslin, Burleigh Grimes, Ernie Lombardi, Johnny Mize, Hal Newhouser, Pee Wee Reese, Edd Roush, Amos Rusie, Enos Slaughter and Arky Vaughan all say "hi."

And, if I were the doorman, to most of those players I would say, "Bye". :)

Rem

Yachtzee
02-27-2007, 11:47 PM
How about Buck O Neal for crying out loud!

No kidding. He should have gone in with the Negro Leaguers last year.

westofyou
02-27-2007, 11:55 PM
Certainly you are welcome to your opinion but it's not one that I share. Third base is the most under representated position in the HOF if IRC. IMO, that's because there were simply not a lot of great players there. (Shrug) Being top 10 of a bad lot doesn't cut it for me.

When I think of a Hall Of Famer I think of someone that made me shake in my boots when my team was playing against him or someone on my team that I prayed would be given a chance with the game on the line.

Ron Santo never did that for me. (Shrug)

Rem
Third up until the 40's was considered a "defensive position" most guys who played there were judy hitters with good gloves and the stars were guys like Willie Kamm.

In over 850 at bats Santo vs the Reds .289/.367/.507 Aside from the Phillies (.301/.389/.506) Santo owned no other team more.

Yachtzee
02-27-2007, 11:56 PM
And, if I were the doorman, to most of those players I would say, "Bye". :)

Rem

I don't understand the notion that only the great of the greats should get in. If that were the rule, then I don't think the HOF would be what it is today. Just from a funding standpoint, the HOF probably makes a sizable portion of its admissions during the HOF induction week. I think the HOF needs to have an induction every year, and I think they need to have multiple players inducted every year to generate enough interest to get folks to drag themselves out Cooperstown for a visit. It truly is a wonderful museum, but it's rather inaccessible, so a lot of people need some kind of reason to go out there. Without the annual induction ceremony, I don't think many people would go there.

The thing is, it's a museum where people learn about the great players of eras past. Thats why I think players, managers, executive and umpires need to be considered not just for their "all-time" greatness, but for their place within their own time. I've been to the HOF multiple times and I for one enjoy going there and reading the plaques about the different players. I've learned more about someone new every time I go there.

Col_ IN Reds fan
02-28-2007, 12:07 AM
Yachtzee

This is exactly why it should be for the greatest of greats. I see no reason to have inductions every year. The Hall has too many members as is. I don't think members of the Hall should have a say in who gets in ( are you listening Bob Feller). I am glad Dawson , Rice, Blyleven and Trammell are not in. These four are more deserving than some already in , but since we cannot remove players from the Hall , at least keep it from being diluted with just good players.

Cyclone792
02-28-2007, 12:13 AM
Certainly you are welcome to your opinion but it's not one that I share. Third base is the most under representated position in the HOF if IRC. IMO, that's because there were simply not a lot of great players there. (Shrug) Being top 10 of a bad lot doesn't cut it for me.

When I think of a Hall Of Famer I think of someone that made me shake in my boots when my team was playing against him or someone on my team that I prayed would be given a chance with the game on the line.

Ron Santo never did that for me. (Shrug)

Rem

If I were alive in the 60s, Ron Santo would have made me shake in my boots when my team was playing against him. He was only one of the three or four greatest third basemen the game had ever seen in its already long history while his career was ongoing.

Cyclone792
02-28-2007, 12:14 AM
Yachtzee

This is exactly why it should be for the greatest of greats. I see no reason to have inductions every year. The Hall has too many members as is. I don't think members of the Hall should have a say in who gets in ( are you listening Bob Feller). I am glad Dawson , Rice, Blyleven and Trammell are not in. These four are more deserving than some already in , but since we cannot remove players from the Hall , at least keep it from being diluted with just good players.

I'm curious to know where you would draw the line at for which players should be inducted and which players shouldn't be inducted.

Spitball
02-28-2007, 12:30 AM
A few years ago Johnny Sain's daughter told me that she had been given indications (by someone she felt had knowledge)that her father would be inducted into the HOF as a coach after his death. I have lost contact with her (though I have had recent contact with other family members), and I'm sure she is majorly disappointed that his name does not even appear in the consideration list. He is certainly deserving, and I feel for her.

Yachtzee
02-28-2007, 12:30 AM
Yachtzee

This is exactly why it should be for the greatest of greats. I see no reason to have inductions every year. The Hall has too many members as is. I don't think members of the Hall should have a say in who gets in ( are you listening Bob Feller). I am glad Dawson , Rice, Blyleven and Trammell are not in. These four are more deserving than some already in , but since we cannot remove players from the Hall , at least keep it from being diluted with just good players.

I don't follow you. Have you been to the Hall of Fame? I didn't find it to be any less of a great place just because some guys had plaques that some folks feel don't belong. And since most of us weren't around when a large portion of the players in the HOF played, we really don't have an idea of how famous or "great" they were in their time. Since we don't have a meaningful stat to show defense, how can we who the great defenders were in an era before TV? It's not the Hall of Famous Hitters and Pitchers, is it? If we're talking about greats of the greats, there would only be about 10 members and the entire Hall of Fame could fit inside the lobby of the Bud Selig's Milwaukee offices.

I've been to both the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Pro Football Hall of Fame. As much as I love the Baseball Hall of Fame, I think they really need to get with the times by 1) making the Inductions an event, a celebration of baseball, and 2) making the actual Hall where the plaques are hung more living and interactive. As it was the last time I visited, that area seemed more like a mausoleum for dead ballplayers. The Pro Football Hall of Fame features bust upon bust of great football players, coupled with interactive consoles that give you the opportunity to learn more about each player. I could spend a half-hour in the actual room honoring members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. I could spend half a day just in the same room of the Pro Football Hall of Fame and I actually like baseball better.

cincinnati chili
02-28-2007, 12:37 AM
I say good for them for not electing anyone. The HOF is already watered down. It is for the great players.

I agree. It's nothing personal against Santo. Haven't given too much thought to his candidacy, but I'd much rather see a few guys like Santo NOT get in, than to see more of the Rizzuto types get elected for being popular.

One of the best players of my generation - Albert Belle - will never get in. One of the greatest of my generation - Barry Larkin - will probably never get in either. The latter is due to the electorate's failure to understand positional scarcity.

Both players were more valuable and "feared" by their generation than was Santo.

Outshined_One
02-28-2007, 01:19 AM
Speaking as a Cubs fan, this hurts quite a bit. While Santo is a beloved radio broadcaster, I can't for the life of me understand why Santo hasn't been inducted into the HOF yet. We've all heard about "hitters who make you quake in your boots" and the usual cliches...but seriously, Ozzie Smith made pitchers fear for their ERA? Bill Mazeroski? People keep advancing arguments about keeping the HOF from being the Hall of the Very Good...but in all honesty, Santo was great. You want proof?

Of the 13 people who were inducted as primarily 3Bs in the Hall of Fame right now, 10 of them were in the majors: Frank Baker, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Jimmy Collins, George Kell, Freddy Lindstrom, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt, and Pie Traynor.

Here (http://mvn.com/mlb-cubs/2007/01/16/why-ron-santo-belongs-in-the-hall-of-fame-part-1/) is an article written by Bill James regarding Santo in the Hall of Fame. Some choice things worth mentioning:


During his career Ron Santo was a nine-time All-Star. He finished in the top ten in MVP voting four times. He had the fifth highest RBI total of all major league players during the 1960s (topped only by Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Harmon Killebrew and Frank Robinson). During that period no player in the National League drew more walks. 3 He won five consecutive Gold Gloves at third base, and led NL third basemen in putouts, assists, chances and double plays in many seasons. He was among the league leaders in on base percentage and slugging percentage throughout the 1960s; he finished in the top 10 in both categories in his league in every season from 1964 through 1967. He hit more home runs in his career than any third baseman currently in the Hall of Fame other than Mike Schmidt and Eddie Mathews.

Some more stats comparing Santo with those ten compiled from a post on another forum:


Santo's 342 homeruns would rank him third among HOF thirdbasemen behind only 500 HR club members Mike Schmidt and Eddie Matthews.

Santo's 1331 RBI would rank him fourth among the current HOF third sackers.

His .277 BA might be one of the knocks on him as six of the ten HOF third basemen have hit over 300. However, there still would be four HOF thirdbasemen with lower batting averages.

Santo has five Gold Gloves. Only two HOF thirdbasemen (Schmidt and Robinson) have more, and six have none.

Santo's 954 Fielding % ranks him at sixth would be middle of the pack.

Santo scored 1138 runs which places him in the middle of the pack at fifth.

His 362 OBP would rank him sixth and his 464 SLG would rank him fourth.

Finally, his OPS+ of 125 would rank him fifth.

There's not a single category that would rank him in the lower third. Most metrics place him squarely in the middle of the pack among HOF thirdbasemen.

I understand how people place different values on different eras from a statistical standpoint. However, when you stack up Santo with other third basemen in the HOF, he compares quite nicely. When you compare him to other players in his era, he comes off really well. The man played with diabetes, yet still holds the consecutive games played for a third baseman. His body deteriorated at a much more accelerated rate as he aged than other people (as evidenced by his amputated legs today).

If you don't believe that the Veterans Committee shouldn'tl et anyone in, fine, I won't pick that fight with you. But the purpose of the VC since it was established was to induct players who just missed the cut for various reasons, especially since allegations of cronyism (see: Mazeroski) got people riled up. However, since their inception in 2001, they have not elected a single person into the Hall of Fame.

Why have the Veterans Committee in the first place if they have no interest in voting anyone in? It makes no sense.

RedsBaron
02-28-2007, 07:47 AM
I agree. It's nothing personal against Santo. Haven't given too much thought to his candidacy, but I'd much rather see a few guys like Santo NOT get in, than to see more of the Rizzuto types get elected for being popular.

One of the best players of my generation - Albert Belle - will never get in. One of the greatest of my generation - Barry Larkin - will probably never get in either. The latter is due to the electorate's failure to understand positional scarcity.

Both players were more valuable and "feared" by their generation than was Santo.

Albert Belle had three seasons in his career in which he had at least 30 win shares: 1995 (30), 1996 (31) and 1998 (37). He also had seasons where he achieved win share totals of 27, 24 and 24. in the 1990s Belle ranked 11th in all of major league baseball with 222 total win shares. For his career Belle had 243 career win shares.
Barry Larkin had three seasons in his career where he had at least 30 win shares: 1992 (32), 1995 (30), and 1996 (31). He also had seasons when he achieved win share totals of 26, 25 and 24. In the 1990s Larkin ranked 8th in all of major league baseball with 242 total win shares. I don't have his career total, but through 2001 Larkin had 320 career win shares.
Ron Santo had four seasons in which he had at least 30 win shares, leading the league one season (something Belle and Larkin never did): 1964 (36), 1965 (32), 1966 (30) and 1967 (38). He also had seasons when he achieved win share totals of 28, 26 and 26. In the 1960s Santo ranked 6th in all of major league baseball with 249 win shares, behind only Aaron, Mays, Frank Robinson, Clemente and Killebrew. In his career Santo had 324 career win shares.
Neither Belle nor Larkin was any more valuable or "feared", other than perhaps the fear that reporters and children had of Belle, than Santo. Santo was at least the equal of Belle and Larkin in both peak value and career value. I'm a Reds fan, I loathe the Cubs, and I want Larkin in the HOF--but Santo belongs there too.
Barry Larkin should make the Hall of Fame. He was a better shortstop than Ozzie Smith. However it is quite possible that the sportswriters, noting Larkin's lack of backflips, may not vote Larkin into the HOF. I wonder how happy everyone here would then be if the Veterans Committee is still constituted as it is now, because Larkin wouldn't have a prayer of being inducted by that self-important group.

kheidg-
02-28-2007, 03:12 PM
Third up until the 40's was considered a "defensive position" most guys who played there were judy hitters with good gloves and the stars were guys like Willie Kamm.

In over 850 at bats Santo vs the Reds .289/.367/.507 Aside from the Phillies (.301/.389/.506) Santo owned no other team more.


As long as we are talking defense how about we talk about Jim Kaat who had 16 consecutive gold gloves. How many gold gloves does Santo have?

westofyou
02-28-2007, 03:41 PM
As long as we are talking defense how about we talk about Jim Kaat who had 16 consecutive gold gloves. How many gold gloves does Santo have?

Yet he only lists two times in the top assists list by season during his career span


SEASON
1960-1980
P

ASSISTS YEAR A
1 Mel Stottlemyre 1969 88
2 Larry Jackson 1964 85
3 Fred Newman 1965 83
T4 Claude Osteen 1965 82
T4 Wilbur Wood 1972 82
6 Randy Jones 1976 81
7 Mel Stottlemyre 1965 74
8 John Denny 1978 73
9 Jim Kaat 1962 72
10 Warren Spahn 1963 71
11 Randy Jones 1975 70
T12 Bob Purkey 1961 69
T12 Claude Osteen 1969 69
T12 Bill Lee 1974 69
T15 Don Drysdale 1964 68
T15 Lew Burdette 1960 68
T17 Wilbur Wood 1974 67
T17 Gaylord Perry 1970 67
T17 Clyde Wright 1971 67
T17 Gaylord Perry 1969 67
T17 Glen Hobbie 1960 67
T22 Claude Osteen 1971 66
T22 Tommy John 1969 66
T22 Jerry Garvin 1977 66
T25 Wilbur Wood 1971 65
T25 Jack Sanford 1963 65
T25 Tommy John 1970 65
T25 Phil Niekro 1978 65
T29 Jim Kaat 1965 64
T29 Don Drysdale 1967 64
T29 Gaylord Perry 1967 64
T29 Juan Marichal 1969 64
T29 Tommy John 1973 64
T29 Juan Marichal 1968 64
T29 Larry Jackson 1967 64
T29 Mike Caldwell 1979 64
T37 Al Jackson 1966 63
T37 Fredie Arroyo 1977 63
T37 Clyde Wright 1973 63
T37 Warren Spahn 1961 63
T37 Steve Rogers 1977 63
T42 Don Drysdale 1963 62
T42 Wilbur Wood 1973 62
T42 Gaylord Perry 1968 62
T45 Gaylord Perry 1972 61
T45 Clyde Wright 1972 61
T47 Mel Stottlemyre 1967 60
T47 Randy Jones 1979 60
T47 Don Drysdale 1960 60
T47 Don Drysdale 1962 60
T47 Lew Burdette 1961 60
T47 Steve Barber 1961 60
T47 Roger Craig 1963 60
T47 Dick Ellsworth 1963 60

M2
02-28-2007, 05:06 PM
Yachtzee

This is exactly why it should be for the greatest of greats. I see no reason to have inductions every year. The Hall has too many members as is. I don't think members of the Hall should have a say in who gets in ( are you listening Bob Feller). I am glad Dawson , Rice, Blyleven and Trammell are not in. These four are more deserving than some already in , but since we cannot remove players from the Hall , at least keep it from being diluted with just good players.

Diluted how?

It's a museum devoted to baseball. In the late 1970s, every kid in New England had a Jim Rice poster on the wall. People in Chicago used to bow to Andre Dawson when he took the field. They weren't "just good," they were great by any meaningful measure of greatness you want to cook up. To use the "Did they make you quake in your shoes when they came up against your team?" standard, the answer is if you really cared and were paying a reasonable amount of attention, they should have.

Alan Trammell is one of the top 10 shortstops ever to play the game. Top 10. Shortstop. Bert Blyleven was as good a pitcher as Nolan Ryan (Ryan's just overrated while Blyleven's underrated).

Not having players like that in the HOF just means that future generations will go to Cooperstown and never realize the gaps they're missing in baseball history. Not having so many of the best baby boomers and gen x-ers only dilutes the quality of the museum, turning it into a shrine of the early-to-mid 1900s. Cooperstown is supposed to grow, perpetually. There's no such thing as "too many members."

You could have a HOF with 30-40 inductees. My guess is it would be out of business in short order. It would be so perfect, so pristine that no one would care.

Always Red
02-28-2007, 05:09 PM
Diluted how?

It's a museum devoted to baseball. In the late 1970s, every kid in New England had a Jim Rice poster on the wall. People in Chicago used to bow to Andre Dawson when he took the field. They weren't "just good," they were great by any meaningful measure of greatness you want to cook up. To use the "Did they make you quake in your shoes when they came up against your team?" standard, the answer is if you really cared and were paying a reasonable amount of attention, they should have.

Alan Trammell is one of the top 10 shortstops ever to play the game. Top 10. Shortstop. Bert Blyleven was as good a pitcher as Nolan Ryan (Ryan's just overrated while Blyleven's underrated).

Not having players like that in the HOF just means that future generations will go to Cooperstown and never realize the gaps they're missing in baseball history. Not having so many of the best baby boomers and gen x-ers only dilutes the quality of the museum, turning it into a shrine of the early-to-mid 1900s. Cooperstown is supposed to grow, perpetually. There's no such thing as "too many members."

You could have a HOF with 30-40 inductees. My guess is it would be out of business in short order. It would be so perfect, so pristine that no one would care.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

my sentiments, exactly.

RedsBaron
02-28-2007, 05:22 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap:

my sentiments, exactly.

Mine too.:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

remdog
02-28-2007, 11:29 PM
Diluted how?

It's a museum devoted to baseball. In the late 1970s, every kid in New England had a Jim Rice poster on the wall. People in Chicago used to bow to Andre Dawson when he took the field. They weren't "just good," they were great by any meaningful measure of greatness you want to cook up. To use the "Did they make you quake in your shoes when they came up against your team?" standard, the answer is if you really cared and were paying a reasonable amount of attention, they should have.

Alan Trammell is one of the top 10 shortstops ever to play the game. Top 10. Shortstop. Bert Blyleven was as good a pitcher as Nolan Ryan (Ryan's just overrated while Blyleven's underrated).

Not having players like that in the HOF just means that future generations will go to Cooperstown and never realize the gaps they're missing in baseball history. Not having so many of the best baby boomers and gen x-ers only dilutes the quality of the museum, turning it into a shrine of the early-to-mid 1900s. Cooperstown is supposed to grow, perpetually. There's no such thing as "too many members."

You could have a HOF with 30-40 inductees. My guess is it would be out of business in short order. It would be so perfect, so pristine that no one would care.

Total Bullbleep.

You use your definition of 'great' while distaining other peoples' definition of great. Only you and your opinion count, I guess. These are players that are discussed, disected and voted on by numbers of people that have spent a lot more time and focus on baseball than anyone on this board. That vote doesn't include any of the members of Redszone that I'm aware of. It may not be a perfect situation but it also doesn't come down to one 'imperial' vote. Interesting that Nolan Ryan is 'overrated' but Bert Blyleven is 'underrated'. Is that your opinion or do you know that for a fact? Since there is no 'fact' there, I'll assume that it's simply your opinion.

And if there is no such thing as too many members, let's just induct everyone that ever pulled on a jockstrap in a major league clubhouse.

Rem

KoryMac5
02-28-2007, 11:52 PM
Why even have a Veterans Committee, once your eligibility is up with the writers that should be it. It's not like you have done anything to improve your stats to increase your chances with the veterans committee. The only reason I could see keeping this around would be for achievements made after the game. Service after your playing days are over should count for something with the Veteran's Committee. Coaching, Broadcasting, GM, Historian, etc...

cincinnati chili
03-01-2007, 12:07 AM
Total Bullbleep.

You use your definition of 'great' while distaining other peoples' definition of great. Only you and your opinion count, I guess. These are players that are discussed, disected and voted on by numbers of people that have spent a lot more time and focus on baseball than anyone on this board. That vote doesn't include any of the members of Redszone that I'm aware of. It may not be a perfect situation but it also doesn't come down to one 'imperial' vote. Interesting that Nolan Ryan is 'overrated' but Bert Blyleven is 'underrated'. Is that your opinion or do you know that for a fact? Since there is no 'fact' there, I'll assume that it's simply your opinion.

And if there is no such thing as too many members, let's just induct everyone that ever pulled on a jockstrap in a major league clubhouse.

Rem

Um. I didn't think his tone came off as "distaining" at all. Not sure that rant was necessary.

Even though I disagree with M2 about the size of the HOF (I think it would be be just as good a draw with 150 players, rather than 300, but more legit), I completely agree that Ryan is overrated. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but he was much more inconsistent than a lot of people remember. Some nights he was untouchable, others he walked the ballpark. I would bet that if you polled people on the streets and asked, who was the better pitcher, Seaver or Ryan, they'd say the latter. Even baseball "experts" would mostly say the latter.

However, Seaver gave his team a better chance to win on most nights, as evidenced by his decided edge in winning percentage, WHIP, and park-adjusted ERA.

Intimidation and effectiveness are both important. But I'll take the latter.

pedro
03-01-2007, 12:13 AM
Total Bullbleep.

You use your definition of 'great' while distaining other peoples' definition of great. Only you and your opinion count, I guess. These are players that are discussed, disected and voted on by numbers of people that have spent a lot more time and focus on baseball than anyone on this board. That vote doesn't include any of the members of Redszone that I'm aware of. It may not be a perfect situation but it also doesn't come down to one 'imperial' vote. Interesting that Nolan Ryan is 'overrated' but Bert Blyleven is 'underrated'. Is that your opinion or do you know that for a fact? Since there is no 'fact' there, I'll assume that it's simply your opinion.

And if there is no such thing as too many members, let's just induct everyone that ever pulled on a jockstrap in a major league clubhouse.

Rem

I think you're overreacting.

That's my opinion.

remdog
03-01-2007, 12:33 AM
Um. I didn't think his tone came off as "distaining" at all. Not sure that rant was necessary.

It wasn't a rant, it was an opinion. The same lattitude that you give M2 will be cheerfully accepted. Anything else will be considered within that same definition.


Even though I disagree with M2 about the size of the HOF (I think it would be be just as good a draw with 150 players, rather than 300, but more legit), I completely agree that Ryan is overrated. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but he was much more inconsistent than a lot of people remember. Some nights he was untouchable, others he walked the ballpark. I would bet that if you polled people on the streets and asked, who was the better pitcher, Seaver or Ryan, they'd say the latter. Even baseball "experts" would mostly say the latter.

Well, once again, that's an opinion. An opinion, btw, that I disagree with. Which, again, is the point of the first post: M2 offerers nothing more than a viewpoint, an opinion if you will. Similar to what I offer. Anyone is free to choose among the two or even other opinions. I'm simply saying that M2's opinion is total bullbleep from my vantage point. (shrug)

Rem

remdog
03-01-2007, 12:38 AM
I think you're overreacting.

That's my opinion.

And I think you're covering for your buddy. That's my opinion.

Rem

Yachtzee
03-01-2007, 12:55 AM
Ryan and Blyleven both belong in the Hall. Ryan Ked the most batters by far, but he also gave up the most BB by far. Blyleven is 5th all-time for Ks, but only 29th all-time for BB. Blyleven had a career win percentage of .534. Ryan had a career win percentage of .526. Ryan had a career ERA of 3.19, Blyleven, 3.31. Ryan pitched 222 complete games and 61 shutouts. Blyleven pitched 242 complete games and 61 shutouts. Ryan is known for his tremendous fastball. Blyleven is known for his tremendous curve. They're both great players. However, Ryan stuck around long enough to get 300 wins. If he would have retired at the same point in his career that Blyleven did, he wouldn't have made it. He also almost lost 300 games in getting there and is 3rd all-time in losses (to be fair, Blyleven is 10th).

Why is it that the Hall is somehow degraded if guys like Blyleven and Ron Santo get in? I think that the Hall would be fine letting in 2 guys a year from the "15 year" contingent and 1-2 Veterans Committee (15+ guys, Umps, Execs, Contributors, etc.) a year. I think it would be a while before we get to the point where unworthy players are considered and I think the Veterans Committee serves a purpose, at least when it comes to balllplayers. I think that, for some players, changes in the style of play makes them look bad. It's like what is happening to players like Concepcion or Alan Trammel. Changes in the SS position mean that sportwriters of today are now comparing SS who were the best in their era against some of these guys who are great offensively (but maybe not as much defensively). The Veterans Committee should be used to correct such oversights.

As it's currently constructed, I don't think it serves the purpose it should. I think it's hard to imagine them electing a player who didn't get in through the sportswriters, and I don't think they'll ever vote in a non-player.

RedsBaron
03-01-2007, 07:19 AM
Total Bullbleep.

You use your definition of 'great' while distaining other peoples' definition of great. Only you and your opinion count, I guess. These are players that are discussed, disected and voted on by numbers of people that have spent a lot more time and focus on baseball than anyone on this board. That vote doesn't include any of the members of Redszone that I'm aware of. It may not be a perfect situation but it also doesn't come down to one 'imperial' vote. Interesting that Nolan Ryan is 'overrated' but Bert Blyleven is 'underrated'. Is that your opinion or do you know that for a fact? Since there is no 'fact' there, I'll assume that it's simply your opinion.

And if there is no such thing as too many members, let's just induct everyone that ever pulled on a jockstrap in a major league clubhouse.

Rem

Since we are just just expressing opinions from our vantage points, allow me to say that, in my opinion, Rem's post is utter bullbleep, and I'm not covering for M2, who isn't my buddy.
One item of bullbleep, in my opinion, from my vantage point, is the assertion that these are "players that are discussed, disected and voted on by numbers of people that have spent a lot more time and focus on baseball than anyone on this board," which is essentially a rehash of the old "I played the game" argument.
First, many of the sportswriters who initially get to vote for the Hall of Fame, even though they may know how to write (some don't), have not as a group demonstrated any greater understanding of what it takes to win than many of the more knowledgable posters here. As for the actual players, while they know more than posters here about how to physically play the game, not a lot of them have necessarily given a lot of thought to concepts such as runs created, OPS, or anything new, and parrot cliches handed down over the decades. There has been a revolution in baseball in baseball thought and analysis over the last two decades, but while people steeped in sabermetrics such as Bill James are now being brought into team building by more forward thinking organizations such as the Red Sox, sabermetricians don't get to vote for the HOF.
I have no seen no indication that people such as M2 or WOY or Cyclone need to take a back seat and respect their betters when it comes to discussing the HOF. That's my opinion, from my vantage point.

RedsBaron
03-01-2007, 09:58 AM
I believe that there is a misconception that because someone may be gifted in one aspect of baseball, such as hitting a curveball or broadcasting a game, that same person is therefore an expert in all aspects of the game. Perhaps a few are, but many are not. I can remember Sparky Anderson commenting that Dan Driessen, who could hit a curveball, usually didn't even know what town he was in.
Joe Morgan knows how to physically play the game, so if Joe Morgan starts to talk about how to hit a curveball or pick up a pitcher's move to firstbase, I'm going to attentively listen. If Joe Morgan starts talking about what a terrible book Billy Beane's "Moneyball" is, a book that Beane didn't write and that Morgan hasn't read, then I will not be nearly as attentive.
I've never had the impression that most major league players are students of the history of the game. Curt Schilling may be, perhaps Tony Gywnn was, but I do not believe that most players sit around the clubhouse regularly discussing whether or not Catfish Hunter belongs in the Hall of Fame while Luis Tiant does not. I do not believe that most of the members of the veterans committee carefully anaylzed the statistics of Home Run Baker, Harlond Clift, Pie Traynor, Al Rosen, Ken Boyer, Eddie Mathews and Brooks Robinson, compared them to Ron Santo, and then made a reasoned decision that Santo fell into the group of good thirdbasemen who were not HOF worthy as compared to those who were HOF worthy.
Nobody knows it all, even in his or her chosen occupation. I'm a lawyer. If you need a personal injury lawyer to try your case in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, WV, then, to use a phrase from the movie "Tombstone," "I'll be your huckleberry". However, if you need a lawyer to handle an anti-trust matter in New York and want to retain me, then "you're a daisy if you do.";)

M2
03-01-2007, 10:55 AM
Career ERA+

Nolan Ryan - 112
Bert Blyleven - 118

Win Shares, career

Nolan Ryan - 334
Bert Blyleven - 339

Win Shares, per season

Nolan Ryan - 23.84
Bert Blyleven - 26.36

Win Shares, top 5 seasons

Nolan Ryan - 102
Bert Blyleven - 114

Ryan was a great pitcher, no arguing that. His longevity and counting stats are superlative. Yet, when you boil down how effective he was, normalize the numbers to weed out circumstance (Ryan got to spend a big portion of his career in a pitcher's haven known as the Astrodome), Blyleven's actually ahead of him.

I don't have a problem with putting a higher priority on Ryan's advantages, but hopefully those who do can recognize that Blyleven's excellence was masked in many cases by the parks and teams he played for.

redsmetz
03-01-2007, 11:39 AM
Why is it that the Hall is somehow degraded if guys like Blyleven and Ron Santo get in? I think that the Hall would be fine letting in 2 guys a year from the "15 year" contingent and 1-2 Veterans Committee (15+ guys, Umps, Execs, Contributors, etc.) a year. I think it would be a while before we get to the point where unworthy players are considered and I think the Veterans Committee serves a purpose, at least when it comes to balllplayers. I think that, for some players, changes in the style of play makes them look bad. It's like what is happening to players like Concepcion or Alan Trammel. Changes in the SS position mean that sportwriters of today are now comparing SS who were the best in their era against some of these guys who are great offensively (but maybe not as much defensively). The Veterans Committee should be used to correct such oversights.

I agree with this completely and I think MLB is missing a real opportunity to sell the game's long history to your average fan when players who have been previously overlooked get the credit that is duly deserved. It doesn't, IMO, cheapen the hall, it builds up the game.