Hall of Fame Voting: This Year, Next Year, and Beyond

[MFS62]

Valadius wrote: I disagree with Bill James. Being an ass ought not exclude you from the Hall of Fame if you were that good of a player.

That logic will be severely put to the test with Bonds, steroids or no steroids.

As for Allen, I still remember that the Mets could have selected him for $12,500 (or maybe less in those years) in one year's equivalent of the Rule V Draft. Oh, and they could have also chosen Luis Tiant that same year. A few years later, after both players had made an impact on theur major league clubs, George Weis was asked why he had not selected either of them. His response was "they were too colorful". Maybe that referred to Allen's off field antics/ personality that have been mentioned above. But I always had the impression that Tiant was a good guy in the clubhouse - well liked by his teammates.

Later

[nymr83]

MFS62 wrote: ="Valadius"]I disagree with Bill James. Being an ass ought not exclude you from the Hall of Fame if you were that good of a player. That logic will be severely put to the test with Bonds, steroids or no steroids.

i have to agree with Val on that, if lawrence taylor and ty cobb are in their respective sports' halls personality and off-field antics shouldn't be keeping other people out.

as for Dick Allen, i'd put him in.
Simmons should remain out imo.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Why shoudn't being a negative and divisive personality count? If a voter is observing that the player's behavior hurt the team, then he should count it. The voters are asked to consider character and it makes no sense to arbitrarily ignore certain election criteria.

Dick Allen wasn't that good a player. He has a strong case, but his case isn't so compelling as to put his personality beyond issue.

In order for these elections to mean anything, somebody has to fall short.

[nymr83]

there are guys who are in that should have fallen short- Tony Perez and Richie Ashburn amongst others. i'm also against guys that have been advocate for here like juan gonzalez

[Valadius]

If Ted Simmons hadn't been playing most of his career in the shadow of Johnny Bench in the NL and Carlton Fisk in the AL, I think he would be in Cooperstown by now. It seems as if he never had a chance to be perceived as great because of his contemporaries. While he played, however, Ted Simmons put up some numbers at his position better than anyone else in the major leagues during that time. The two players he can best be compared to in looking at his stats are Bench and Fisk, who were playing at the same time.

During Simmons' peak of 1971 to 1983, which was Bench's last season, here's how the three catchers compare:

Simmons - 901 runs scored, 2043 hits, 405 2B, 40 3B, 219 HR, 1168 RBI, 3185 TB, 681 BB, 537 K

Bench - 747 runs scored, 1309 hits, 241 2B, 14 3B, 269 HR, 933 RBI, 2385 TB, 674 BB, 858 K

Fisk - 773 runs scored, 1367 hits, 239 2B, 38 3B, 199 HR, 722 RBI, 2279 TB, 509 BB, 733 K

[DocTee]

A nine-time all-star who never once finished in the top-five in his league's MVP vote...curious.

[nymr83]

even in a league full of catch-and-throw guys you're going to have 4 catchers named to all-star teams each year at a minimum.

in 1981 he hit .207/.275/.404 in the first half and was named an all-star, not sure how that happened.

[Valadius]

I'd like to discuss closers again.

Because changes in Hall of Fame voting often occur at a snail's pace, the closer has for the most part been ignored until recently. In the last few years, we have seen the door begin to open a bit in terms of closers making it into the Hall of Fame. But what about those early closers that were passed over before the baseball writers finally decided to embrace the role of the closer? I think they deserve another look. Furthermore, which closers of the more recent era deserve enshrinement in the Hall of Fame?

Let's start by looking at which closers are currently in the Hall of Fame:

Dennis Eckersley - 1975-98 (closer from 87-97)
Rollie Fingers - 1968-85
Bruce Sutter - 1976-88
Hoyt Wilhelm - 1952-72

There are only four closers currently in the Hall. I think that's a disgrace. There are some worthy closers who missed their chance because of anti-closer bias that existed when their names came up. I submit the following names for your consideration:

Dan Quisenberry
Sparky Lyle
Tom Henke
Roy Face
Tug McGraw
Jeff Reardon
John Wetteland
Dave Righetti

I don't consider them all Hall-worthy, but some of them are, especially Quisenberry. Also, here are some names of people who are currently on the ballot or will be on the ballot that I think really merit a look:

Rich Gossage (who should be elected next year)
Lee Smith
John Franco
Trevor Hoffman
Mariano Rivera
Billy Wagner

[Frayed Knot]

]Dan Quisenberry Sparky Lyle Tom Henke Roy Face Tug McGraw Jeff Reardon John Wetteland Dave Righetti

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no.

]Rich Gossage (who should be elected next year) Lee Smith John Franco Trevor Hoffman Mariano Rivera Billy Wagner

Maybe, no, no, eventually, Yes, and no.



P.S. I wouldn't have put Sutter in either.

[seawolf17]

It's more than numbers, and more than being good. It's about being great, being dominant. None of those guys -- with the exception of Goose, who should be there, and Rivera, who will be -- really fits that. You can't put everyone in the Hall; you just can't. Elite needs its own level.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Valadius wrote: Because changes in Hall of Fame voting often occur at a snail's pace, the closer has for the most part been ignored until recently.

The closer has for the most part been ignored until recently largely because the closer has for the most part not existed until relatively recently.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

MFS62 wrote: ="Valadius"]I disagree with Bill James. Being an ass ought not exclude you from the Hall of Fame if you were that good of a player. That logic will be severely put to the test with Bonds, steroids or no steroids. As for Allen, I still remember that the Mets could have selected him for $12,500 (or maybe less in those years) in one year's equivalent of the Rule V Draft. Oh, and they could have also chosen Luis Tiant that same year. A few years later, after both players had made an impact on theur major league clubs, George Weis was asked why he had not selected either of them. His response was "they were too colorful". Maybe that referred to Allen's off field antics/ personality that have been mentioned above. But I always had the impression that Tiant was a good guy in the clubhouse - well liked by his teammates. Later

I think you have to take Weis at his word -- and slightly change the word to the one I believe be really meant -- they were "colored."

The Yankees were among the last teams to add a black player. And as Yankees president Weis routinely traded black prospects when it became apparent that they were too good to leave on the farm. There were protests about getting Horace Clarke on the team.

So you would think that he would keep that same mentality when he came to the Mets -- and we are poorer for it.

[Guest Edgy DC]

How many black players would the Mets have to have had during the Weiss era to discredit that theory?

[Guest Edgy DC]

I mean, during the 1962 season alone, when Weiss had pretty broad control over which players he wanted, his roster included the following colored men:

Charlie Neal
Felix Mantilla
Elio Chacon
Joe Christopher
Choo Choo Coleman
Sammy Drake
Al Jackson
Roadblock Jones

That's pretty much their top three infielders in there, despite having a Hall of Fame infield coach widely regarded as having been a racist during his playing career.

I really don't know how that compares to other teams, but I'm guessing not too many others could field an all-black battery.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Is this satire?

http://jc_baseball_analysis.mlblogs.com/jc_baseball_analysis/2006/12/wally_joyner_a_.html

[MFS62]

Edgy DC wrote: Is this satire? http://jc_baseball_analysis.mlblogs.com/jc_baseball_analysis/2006/12/wally_joyner_a_.html

I certainly hope it is.
If not, I'd suggest the writer re-check the dosage of his medications.

Later

[Valadius]

I certainly hope it is satire.

WALLY JOYNER? Come on. Give me a break.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, you don't want his like dragging down Tom Henke's legacy.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Edgy DC wrote: I mean, during the 1962 season alone, when Weiss had pretty broad control over which players he wanted, his roster included the following colored men: Charlie Neal Felix Mantilla Elio Chacon Joe Christopher Choo Choo Coleman Sammy Drake Al Jackson Roadblock Jones That's pretty much their top three infielders in there, despite having a Hall of Fame infield coach widely regarded as having been a racist during his playing career. I really don't know how that compares to other teams, but I'm guessing not too many others could field an all-black battery.

Those were fill-ins and stop-gaps when baseball was very much integrated. But when it came to stars -- was Weis the one who passed on Reggie Jackson? Again, that was a guy who was "colorful" in addition to being black.

Who was the Mets first black star? Cleon Jones?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: ="Edgy DC"]I mean, during the 1962 season alone, when Weiss had pretty broad control over which players he wanted, his roster included the following colored men: Charlie Neal Felix Mantilla Elio Chacon Joe Christopher Choo Choo Coleman Sammy Drake Al Jackson Roadblock Jones That's pretty much their top three infielders in there, despite having a Hall of Fame infield coach widely regarded as having been a racist during his playing career. I really don't know how that compares to other teams, but I'm guessing not too many others could field an all-black battery. Those were fill-ins and stop-gaps when baseball was very much integrated. But when it came to stars -- was Weis the one who passed on Reggie Jackson? Again, that was a guy who was "colorful" in addition to being black. Who was the Mets first black star? Cleon Jones?

Real compelling argument. The Mets didn't have any stars at all in their first years. Jones was signed in 1963. Paul Blair was signed before they evben had a team in 1961.

Weis apparently did express some sentiments that would be considered strongly racsist back when he oversaw the Yankees and they had yet to integrate. But you're talking years down the road. And as discussed here ad nauseum, the Reggie Jackson "slight" was perpetuated by Reggie himself, a decade after after the fact. At the time, GMs were split over Jackson v. Chilcott.

Bing Devine, handpicked by Weis as his successor, was one of the most forward thinking and colorblind executives in the game.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Tommy Davis in 1967 could be called a star. I wouldn't say Cleon had attained stardom by that point.

[nymr83]

]Those were fill-ins and stop-gaps when baseball was very much integrated.

if an executive was being racist, and i dont care to form an opinion on this particular case one way or the other, wouldn't you expect him to show his 'racial preference' exactly there- at the level of interchangeable stop-gap guys- as opposed to at the "star" level where there just isn't a white barry bonds or black tom seaver?

[Guest Edgy DC]

That was the argument against the eighties Celtics (see The Selling of the Green, that it wasn't the whiteness of the stars, but the whiteness of the bench that was incriminating.

I don't know what kind of self-destructive maniac Weiss would be if his animus against blacks was focused on talented blacks. Besides, his boss was Mrs. Payson and her ownership was initiated by the heartbreak of losing the Giants and, most specifically, Willie Mays. I don't think it's been categorically established that they weren't lovers.

Since we're speculating.

The argument is shifting. We go from Weiss using "colorful" as euphemism for "colored" to Weiss (two s's) actually objecting specifically to colorful people, but only colored colorful people.

Jimmy Piersall, colored man.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

What would be interesting would be for MFS to provide any documentation whatsoever regarding his "too colorful" quotes to begin with.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I would say that there were indeed "stars" on those early teams -- Hall of Famers, even. Just well past their prime, ala Ashburn, Snider, Hodges, Spahn.

Didn't mean to start a melee. Sorry about that. I was only speculating what Weis was saying based on what I had read about his days with the Yankees. I have no proof whatsoever and really didn't intend to get folks riled up.

[MFS62]

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]What would be interesting would be for MFS to provide any documentation whatsoever regarding his "too colorful" quotes to begin with.

You know I can't. But I recall from the Weiss interviews I read at the time (circa 1964/ 65 after both Allen and Tiant had become valuable contributors at the major league level) that he did use the words "too colorful". I used it above to talk about off-the-field antics. Michigan gave it the different meaning.

But since my recollection is the only thing available (unless you can find to the contrary) here's something about "best evidence":

[Valadius]

The ballot for the Veterans' Committee voting on managers, umpires, and executives was announced today. On the ballot:

Managers

Whitey Herzog
Davey Johnson
Billy Martin
Gene Mauch
Danny Murtaugh
Billy Southworth
Dick Williams

Umpires

Doug Harvey
Hank O'Day
Cy Rigler

Executives

Buzzie Bavasi
Barney Dreyfuss
Bob Howsam
Ewing Kauffman
Bowie Kuhn
John McHale
Marvin Miller
Walter O'Malley
Gabe Paul

Your thoughts?

[DocTee]

Some powerful names there:

O'Malley
Kauffman
Kuehn
Miller
Herzog

all deserve long consideration I think

[Guest sharpie]

Miller, yes, certainly.

Herzog, maybe.

No one else.

Especially Bowie Kuhn.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It'd be fuckin' goofy to put Miller and Kuhn in together.

The best thing I can say about Bud Selig is Bowie Kuhn.