Minoso, O'Neil On Special HOF Ballot

[MFS62]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AoMF8CmJXbl5k4ArQj0ACmERvLYF?slug=ap-halloffame-negroleagues&prov=ap&type=lgns

Comments?

Later

[metirish]

No Pete Rose ?

[Guest SwitchHitter]

Cum Posey. What an ... unusual name.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Mule Suttles is listed as "Miles."

I like continuous historical review. I just fear that the longer this committee and the Vets Committee don't provide an inductee, the more pressure there will be for them to provide one the next year, and the more changes there will be to facilitate that.

Not building enough consensus around one candidate shouldn't be regarded as a failure.

[MFS62]

Speaking of Pete:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AiGTDLSmNXPPRaLOw4ZyB.wRvLYF?slug=ap-halloffame-rose&prov=ap&type=lgns

the article indicates that he won't be going into the Hall under a Selig regime.

But the "special election" for Minoso, et al, might start us down a slippery slope. A future Commissioner could have a similar, single purpose, special election with Pete as the sole candidate.

Later

[Elster88]

62 cracks the 5,000 post barrier.

[Frayed Knot]

I don't see the point in having a special vote just to vote on the guys who you've already voted down.
It reeks of: the process has already decided that these guys don't really deserve it, but since they're nice old guys who we like let's concoct a different method that could get them in because it's less crass than rigging the original process.



"62 cracks the 5,000 post barrier"

Half way to the top in posts but already through 80% of the names on the list.

[MFS62]

Elster88 wrote: 62 cracks the 5,000 post barrier.

Didn't notice. Thanks for the recognition.
I have to thank the other posters on the board who have stimulated me to share my thoughts (and bad one liners),

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

]I don't see the point in having a special vote just to vote on the guys who you've already voted down.

Well the process should be the same year after year, I agree, because by tweaking it, you're manipulating it to pre-determine the outcome. But I have no problems with reviewing old candidacies from time to time. Forever, as Prince would remind us, is a long, long time.

[Frayed Knot]

Of course they already have a Vet's committee to review the past.
This sounds like they don't like the results of that board so they concoct a system that's more likely to produce the results that'll net them some good pub by making it eaiser to elect a pair of charming and popular older players while at the same time claiming that they didn't rig the process to do it.

Bah.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Then it sounds like we're agreed. O'Neil is a long time member of the Vet's Committee, isn't he? The VC was expanded in recent years to include all living HoF members, but O'Neil isn't a member. That suggests to me that he'll become one.

Congratulations then to Ken Burns.

[Willets Point]

I think O'Neil should get a special Emmy for his performance.

[nymr83]

the only thing this reeks of to me is another attempt to put of those "poor oppressed negro leaguers" into the hall of fame.
it is time to do away with the veterans committee as a whole. there was a time when it served the useful purpose of inducting those who never had the chance at induction before the HOF existed, that time is long past

give the writers, not the committee, one last shot at everyone who hasn't been inducted (an up or down shot requiring 75%, not "pick 10") and then close the process of retroactive induction once and for all, if someone wasn't good enough to get in in their frst 20 tries (or 20 passes of the veterans committee, or whatever else) then they don't belong in the hall of fame!

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, that's where I break with you.

Allowing the entire living membership to vote has been wise, as they stand the most to lose by watering down the honor through capricious inductions. And they've been wisely miserly in handing them out. And the breadth of the committee allows various candidacies fueled by frateral support to cancel each other out.

But setting any historical decsion in stone forever isn't how historical scholarship of any sort works. Nothing, as Kansas would tell us, lasts forever but the immense ttime.

[Theoldmole]

These two will both do the HOF proud.

[Theoldmole]

], if someone wasn't good enough to get in in their frst 20 tries (or 20 passes of the veterans committee, or whatever else) then they don't belong in the hall of fame!

Except for Gil Hodges.

[Valadius]

Gil Hodges, who remains the only person (except Bruce Sutter, who should get in this year or next) to garner at least 60% of the vote and not eventually get into the Hall.

With that statistic in mind, knowing that everybody except Hodges who's crossed that threshold has made it in, should the BBWAA and the Hall of Fame amend the threshold to 60%? If they're just going to make it in anyway, why not spare these players the anguish of waiting another year or two?

[seawolf17]

Nah, voters like anguish. And besides, if they vote Gil Hodges in, then who will the old-timers rally around?

[Valadius]

Ron Santo, Roger Maris, Joe Torre, Maury Wills, Johnny Pesky, or Joe Gordon, perhaps?

[seawolf17]

Valadius wrote: Ron Santo, Roger Maris, Joe Torre, Maury Wills, Johnny Pesky, or Joe Gordon, perhaps?

Maybe, no, someday, no, no, and no.

[Frayed Knot]

]With that statistic in mind, knowing that everybody except Hodges who's crossed that threshold has made it in, should the BBWAA and the Hall of Fame amend the threshold to 60%? If they're just going to make it in anyway, why not spare these players the anguish of waiting another year or two?

And then all the talk would be about those who were the only 50%+ yet not in guys, and then 40%+, ...
Point is, there's always going to be someone who has the most votes yet is short of induction. Wherever the line is it should be adhered to or the honor becomes meaningless. The reaction to the election of the Phil Rizzuttos of the world should be not to let it happen again, rather than to also let in all the other Rizzutto level players in some sort of attempt to 'make things fair'.
And if that keeps Hodges out than so be it. Non-election is not the same thing as being "dissed".

[nymr83]

i dont see any problem with barring guys forever. their statistics don't change after they don't get in the first few times and the further you get from the time they played the less and less accurate any other information about them will be.
finally, if you cant do away with the veteran committee, at least stop changing the rules. let them meet once every 4 years, let them only elect one player and one non-player at any given meeting, and let that be the end of it. it seems to me that every time nobody gets in for a few years they rush to find a way to force feed someone in.

[Valadius]

I think it's ridiculous for the Veteran's Committee to only meet every two years, and for managers, executives, etc. to only be considered every four years. Come on now. Do it every year, so MAYBE these guys will get in before they pass away!

[Guest Edgy DC]

]their statistics don't change after they don't get in the first few times

Wisdom and understanding changes. Known facts change. Historical persepctive and general context change. Old prejudices die and, sadly, new ones are born.

]and the further you get from the time they played the less and less accurate any other information about them will be.

I don't really understand that. We're not working with an exclusively oral tradition here.

]finally, if you cant do away with the veteran committee, at least stop changing the rules. let them meet once every 4 years, let them only elect one player and one non-player at any given meeting, and let that be the end of it. it seems to me that every time nobody gets in for a few years they rush to find a way to force feed someone in.

Well, I agree on a quota for the number of inductees, but I think it should be a set percentage of the overall baseball population, not X number per year.

[Theoldmole]

There's always gonna be someone who doesn't get in, but it shouldn't be Gil.

[nymr83]

in by opinion the only people not in the hall who belong there are Pete Rose and Bert Blyleven

[Valadius]

What about Shoeless Joe?

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I totally agree with the point about perspectives changing. In 2100, it's entirely possible that a guy like Dave Kingman, for one bad example, will be seen as Hall-worthy. And if the baseball establishment at the time feels that way, then they're entitled to put him in the Hall of Fame.

But if you believe in changing standards, then it also makes sense that you allow for the removal of players too. Not only wouldn't I put Blyleven in, I'd also like to take Don Sutton (and others) out. But part of the charm of a Hall of Fame is that it means "permanent enshrinement" so I don't suppose you could do that. It would be less of an honor for future inductees if they thought that their place could some day be revoked.

[HahnSolo]

Without going to too much trouble, can someone give me Minoso's Hall qualifications in a nutshell? Other than his "guest pinch hits to play in however many decades" I never really thought much about him. and this is the first time I'm ever hearing his name and Hall of Fame in the same sentence.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Minnie was an on-base machine over a long period who was pretty comparable to Tim Raines. His OPS+ was 130 over his career, while Raines' was 123. Of course, he had 600 fewer stolen bases.

He started his career in the Negro Leagues while Jackie Robinson was softening up the big leagues for players like him, and he was and All Star in the Negro leagues and a seven-time All-Star in the bigs. He didn't debut until 26 and didn't really get a chance until he was 28, at which point he hit the ground running.

He was a long-time coach at the end of his career, which you may or may not want to consider.