Veterans select none [merged threads]

[Rinkster]

According to ESPN (and I know the official announcement will not come out for another two hours) the Veterans Committee did not select anyone.

Like I predicted months ago, they are reporting that Gil Hodges was the closest, falling 11 votes shy. I thought Hodges would be elected (which would be a shame as many others are more deserving), so I was half-right.

From ESPN...

Report: Big Whiff On Hall Calls
Joe Torre, Ron Santo and Marvin Miller will have to wait at least another two years. The revamped Veterans Committee did not elect any new members to the Baseball Hall of Fame today, SportsTicker is reporting. Former Brooklyn first baseman Gil Hodges came the closest, falling 11 votes shy.

[SmedIndy]

Hodges the closest?

Geez-o-pete! Why can't anyone besides us know who great Santo was? What did he do to deserve this?

[JamesI]

I hope this isn't right. Elections with no winner are no fun. They'll revamp the way the comittee works to ensure members if this happens.

Of course, its probably better to elect no one than to make a mistake (which Hodges would have been I belive)

[Max Power]

If true, would there be much outcry? Like the All-Star game last year? This is a baseball version of a CT to some, I bet.

[KCBOOMER]

Well, guys, maybe we need to examine the other side of this coin. Maybe we are the ones who are wrong. Afterall Santo is not even in the top 150 players in terms of RCAA (Hodges is even lower). Maybe we are making too much of this position thing.

The good side of this is that at least the VC didn't elect a totally undeserving person as they have in the past.

[rcartman28]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Hodges the closest?

Geez-o-pete! Why can't anyone besides us know who great Santo was? What did he do to deserve this?

I agree with Smed. I was also a bit dissapointed that Miller didn't get more support, especially for all he did for the players.

[KCBOOMER]

Over at Baseball Prospectus they just released there balloting on the STATL-G voting for veterans and Santo passed that test by a thin margin (77%). No other player came close. On the composite side of the ballot no one was elected though Marvin Miller got 69%.

I would wager that the STATL-G voters are more informed on baseball than the average VC voter, but Santo's thin margin means that there is ample room to debate his candidacy.

The full article is at:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20030226traven.shtml

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
Well, guys, maybe we need to examine the other side of this coin. Maybe we are the ones who are wrong.

Never! :p

[WiredTiger]

There are a lot better 1B out ther than Hodges so it is a little scary that he got so close to being elected.

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by Rinkster
Marvin Miller will have to wait at least another two years.

People on the composite ballot (managers, execs, umpires, contributors, etc.) have to wait four years. Players eligible for VC voting get voted on every two years but the composite crowd only gets a quadrennial shot at it (which I still think is way too often).

[Rinkster]

Players Ballot

Candidate
Votes
% of Votes

Gil Hodges
50
61.7

Tony Oliva
48
59.3

Ron Santo
46
56.8

Joe Torre
29
35.8

Maury Wills
24
29.6

Vada Pinson
21
25.9

Joe Gordon
19
23.5

Roger Maris
18
22.2

Marty Marion
17
21.0

Carl Mays
16
19.8

Minnie Minoso
16
19.8

Allie Reynolds
16
19.8

Dick Allen
13
16.0

Mickey Lolich
13
16.0

Wes Ferrell
12
14.8

Ken Boyer
11
13.6

Don Newcombe
11
13.6

Curt Flood
10
12.3

Ken R. Williams
8
9.9

Rocky Colavito
7
8.6

Elston Howard
6
7.4

Bob Meusel
6
7.4

Bobby Bonds
5
6.2

Ted Kluszewski
4
4.9

Thurman Munson
4
4.9

Mike Marshall
3
3.7


Composite Ballot
The list below contains the names and voting results for the 15 candidates on the composite ballot who were eligible for election via the Veterans Committee in 2003. In order to be elected, eligible candidates were required to garner at least 75% of the votes on ballots cast. With 79 ballots cast, candidates needed 60 or more votes to be elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

Composite Ballot

Candidate
Votes
% of Votes

Doug Harvey
48
60.8

Walter O’Malley
38
48.1

Marvin Miller
35
44.3

Buzzie Bavasi
34
43.0

Dick Williams
33
41.8

Whitey Herzog
25
31.6

Billy Martin
22
27.8

Bill White
22
27.8

Bowie Kuhn
20
25.3

Gabe Paul
13
16.5

August Busch
11
13.9

Paul Richards
10
12.7

Charles O. Finley
9
11.4

Phil Wrigley
9
11.4

Harry Dalton
6
7.6

[poorme]

bummer on Santo. more than a bummer.

[Rinkster]

Taking a look at the results (and this really should be a separate thread as the other thread was pre-election results posts)...

The one consistent thing is that there apparently was quite a bit of non-consistent voting.

I will write a quick opinion on where each of the players ended up, and possibly why they finished where they did.

1. Gil Hodges--50 votes--61.7%
Hodges is, in my opinion, not a Hall of Fame caliber players. I think he was a very good manager, and since he was part of one of the most romanticized teams in baseball history (the 1950s-era Brooklyn Dodgers) and manager of the 1969 Miracle Mets, I had predicted he would get the most votes and get elected. I was half-right. I am not surprised he finished first.

2. Tony Oliva--48 votes--59.3%
I am shocked he finished second. I think he was a great player, a HOF caliber player, perhaps one of the top-5 on the VC ballot. I suspect that he got a lot of votes because of WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, but that is not what it's about.

3. Ron Santo--46 votes--56.8%
As I told Rob Neyer, Santo may sadly be a player that will have to pass away before the masses really look at the man. I do know some players had a hard time electing another Cub for Santo's era to the HOF since they never won a thing. This may come as a bit of a shock to some of you, but I don't think Ron Santo belongs in the HOF, I really don't. I freakin' know he does. Sad!

4. Joe Torre--29 votes--35.8%
I will forever believe that if he had not been lucky enough to mangage the Yankees he would have finished in the middle of the pack. You simply did not hear a lot about him as a great player (which he was bouncing around from position to position) UNTIL he became a successful manager with the Yankees. I am surprised that he was not in the top-3 with over 50% of the vote.

5. Maury Wills--24 votes--29.6%
Shocked he finished so high. Wills had very little influence on the game. It is one of the most fabricated lies that Wills led the charge of bringing the stolen base back into the game. He did not. Wills was a little slap hitter, but he was for the most part the ONLY player of his type among the NL Stolen Base leader boards. In fact, the true beginning of the stolen base craze began right before Willis entered the league and was actually spurned by three events: 1) the synthysis of a power hitter and base stealer (which should be attributed to Vada Pinson), and, 2) the enlargements of the strike zone in the early 1960s, and finally, 3) the move from smaller, homer-friendly parks (like Ebbets Field) into larger parks.

6. Vada Pinson--21 votes--25.9%
Pinson's high ranking will come as a shock to most pundits who had lumped him in with the joke candidates such as Bob Meusel and Ted Kluszewski, but not to me. There is simply too much there to dismiss him or not give him support. There are several HOFers from his era who have stated they think he belongs. For those of who frequent this board it is no surprise that I strongly support his selection. I did provide a lot of material in support of Pinson's selection to the HOF to be available to the voting members, but it did not get there until January so it may, or may not, have helped.

7. Joe Gordon--19 votes--23.5%
I am surprised he finished this high--not because he doesn't deserve to, but rather because I can only imagine that most of his votes came from the HOFers from his generartion.

8. Roger Maris--18 votes--22.2%
It would be different if he still had the single-season HR record, but he just didn't last long enough. Several players should have received more votes than Maris.

9. Marty Marion--17 votes--21.0%
Has no business being in the Hall of Fame in my opinion. He ranks near the bottom of every stat among the 20 position-players who made the final ballot except for one: LEADERSHIP.
That is why he won an MVP, that is why the players from his generation continue to look back so fondly and talk with great respect about him...and that can be the ONLY excuse for him ranking this high.

10. Carl Mays--16 votes--19.8%
One can make a easy arguement that he belongs, but seriously, how many of the voters took the time to look closely at his record since he played so long ago? I know Jim Palmer did, but who else?
He finished higher than I thought he would for that reason. Perhaps the current HOF players/voters did study a bit?

10. Minnie Minoso--16 votes--19.8%
What the hell? 11th? Freakin' 11th? A guy who should already be IN the HOF, a guy who should have finished 2nd on this ballot...and the best they could do was vote him 11th? Did I just say that perhaps the current HOF players/voters did study a bit? I must have been drinking...

10. Allie Reynolds--16 votes--19.8%
A quiet warrior who was a money-pitcher. I've always liked reading about him. Finished about where he should have, perhaps a bit hig.

13. Prick Allen--13 votes--16.0%
Awesome performer, but half of his teammates hated him and he divided a clubhouse as much as any player in history. For all of the current pampered a-holes we cuss at when they disrupt the clubhouse of a team we hold near-and-dear, multiply that player's disruptiveness by 10 and you will still fall a bit short of Allen. If he would have played more (only 1749 games) even I would support him. Damn, he's a hard case. I guess his 12th place finish, despite his great stats, will prove to my fellow sabermetrically-inclined thinkers who support his induction that Allen was indeed viewed as a jerk by his peers.

13. Mickey Lolich--13 votes--16.0%
As pleasant and funny as a person as Richie (hehe) Allen was a borish cuss and downright ass; as tubby as a person as Dick Allen was a physical stud, it is fitting they both received the same number of votes.

15. Wes Ferrell--12 votes--14.8%
Yes, he is more deserving than his brother Rick for induction into the HOF...but no matter who explains it, no pitcher is going in with an ERA over 4.00. That is a figure embetted into the minds of most players, a negative figure. It is as important of a negative figure in the minds of players and traditional journalists as a .300 batting average is a positive figure.

16. Ken Boyer--11 votes--13.6%
Shocked he finished so low. I'd put him in the top 7. I don't understand this one. Clearly deserves to be higher. He was a great all-around player, a five-tool player believe it or not...and a leader for some fine Cardinals' teams. I have no idea how he finished this low.

16. Don Newcombe--11 votes--13.6%
I lump him in with Maris--he did something unique--but just did perform at even an All-Star caliber level for very long. The 1950s era Dodgers had to have a pitcher get his due, and that is why he is there.

18. Curt Flood--10 votes--12.3%
A better player than most remember him for, but he finished where he should have.

19. Ken R. Williams--8 votes--9.9%
A fine player, but only the old voting members could have voted for him. I doubt anyone else had ever heard of him.

20. Rocky Colavito--7 votes--8.6%
I actually thought he would have finished higher, just as he was a bit of a cult player with a cool name, massive power, and a rifle for an arm. He is one of the forgotten stars of the 1960s.

21. Elston Howard--6 votes--7.4%
I great guy, yet another Yankee on the final list...if I had to chose a catcher from the 1960s between Howard and Bill Freehan, I'd chose Freehan. If I had to chose a Yankee catcher for the Hall of Fame between Elston Howard and Thurman Munson...I'd chose Wally Schang.

21. Bob Meusel--6 votes--7.4%
A cannon for an arm, but he would be the 1,769th HOF outfielder from his era elected to the Hall of Fame. Should have finished even lower.

23. Bobby Bonds--5 votes--6.2%
One of the better players on the ballot. It is interesting that while on the BBWAA ballot significantly increased when his son Barry became a Major League stud in the late-80s and early-90s. Now, he is just back to being Barry's dad. It's a shame that his teams could not decide if he should have been a leadoff hitter or a cleanup hitter. If he would have remained a leadoff hitter, I would bet he'd have eye-popping stats and already be in the HOF. He deserved a better showing.

24. Ted Kluszewski--4 votes--4.9%
A teddy bear with muscles, one of the best for a short time. Think of an Al Rosen-type of career, but at first base and not quite as high a peak.

24. Thurman Munson--4 votes--4.9%
A good player, a hard case, could have finished a bit higher, but not a HOFer.

26. Mike Marshall--3 votes--3.7%
Had an ability to pitch a lot of games, and spends most of his time now acting like an intellectual snob who knows everything about pitching mechanics.

[pathogan]

really. Despite the santo sentiment and all this postional nonsense.There are a bunch of players who dont belong in there. adding more doesnt solve it!

[Rajah]

The only player on the list who deserves induction is Santo. IMO, among eligible players, theres only a few who deserve to be in there. Oddly enough, both the ones I can think of are cubs. Ryne Sandberg and Mr. Santo. (and no, I'm not a cubs fan). The rest of the vets committee players should stay out. Although Torre could rake. I'm not sure about other omissions by the BBWAA right now, so no further comment on that end.

[SmedIndy]

Boom - I wish other talking heads could be as blunt as you were in your analysis.

And I wish those other talking heads would learn about baseball history. Crack open a book - don't just use your memory.

[pwdennis]

While I don't think that it is disgraceful that no one was selected, I do think it is ridiculous that Hodges was the leading vote getter. Hodges was a decent player (a good defensive player) who played most of his career in a bandbox which undoubtedly helped his stats to some degree. Significantly none of Hodges' comps are in Cooperstown:

Norm Cash (932)
George Foster (921)
Jack Clark (916)
Boog Powell (898)
Joe Adcock (895)
Lee May (894)
Rocky Colavito (893)
Willie Horton (888)
Roy Sievers (880)
Frank Howard (879)

None of Santo's comps are in Cooperstown either, but none of them are terribly close to Santo, who is somewhat unique. As a group Santo's comps were more fleet afoot than Hodges' comps

Dale Murphy (875)
Ken Boyer (875)
Gary Gaetti (875)
Bobby Bonilla (868)
Brian Downing (866)
Graig Nettles (861)
Chili Davis (856)
Ron Cey (853)
George Foster (840)
Don Baylor (839)

The other thing that annoys me is the lack of consideration given to Minnie Minoso. While none of his comps are HOF either, Minoso is comping THE BACK HALF OF HIS CAREER with his comps' prime seasons.

Carl Furillo (928)
Cy Williams (910)
Amos Otis (904)
Ben Chapman (898)
Ken Griffey Sr. (898)
Dixie Walker (895)
Gary Matthews (894)
Steve Finley (889)
Bernie Williams (887)
Gee Walker (886)

Oh well

[clemente21]

Jay Marriotti had an incredible piece of drivel in this morning's Chicago Sun Times, even by his standards.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay26.html

Essentially, we're just supposed to let Santo in because of his off-the-field medical troubles, whether we think he's qualified or not. I'll admit that I've always been on the fence when it comes to Santo; but you know, maybe we should let him in because he used to sell that Ron Santo pizza at Wrigley in the little square boxes, and as a 6-year-old, I thought it was pretty good pizza.

[Actually, Santo did admit in a recent radio interview that during mid-inning pitching changes, he'd look into the 3B stands and check out how his pizzas were selling. I found that pretty funny.]

I unfortunately agree with Joe Sheehan's column today: Santo will get in someday, but not in time to enjoy it.

[LeGrandOrange]

The thing that really bothers me about this new veteran committee most is that they've pretty much put a Masterlock on the hall for all the borderliners. The guys that went off of the ballot that were reinstated are going to get the same chance of making it as they did before, NONE.

Actually, the biggest joke about it is that they didn't select anybody, and now they don't have to select anybody for 2 years.

Just so I can be sure...how much of this crap was Selig's idea?

[sweaver]

No surprise, really. It's a lot harder to get a diverse group, who don't even get together to talk it over, to agree on a candidate or three.

Look for VC rules to get revised (again) so they vote more often, and perhaps even to allow for a meeting.

[Golden Bear]

Bad result. You're getting the same results the old VC did, but when you rule out cronyism and horsetrading, you also rule out deliberation. Consensus can only be reached by random chance, and it's not bloody likely.

The system was clearly designed to keep borderliners out. If that's what you like, it worked like a charm.

I think it stinks.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by pwdennis
While I don't think that it is disgraceful that no one was selected, I do think it is ridiculous that Hodges was the leading vote getter. Hodges was a decent player (a good defensive player) who played most of his career in a bandbox which undoubtedly helped his stats to some degree. Significantly none of Hodges' comps are in Cooperstown.

FYI - Heard on the radio that Hodges' "whole" career was under consideration for his vote - - his work as a MGR as well as a player. They also said that this was not the case for Torre - - because he is an active MGR - - so, only his playing career was considered for the vote. Once Torre retires, then they would look at him like Hodges, on a composite basis.

[LeGrandOrange]

Torre is still better than Gilbert Ray Hodge when you count his managing career...especially because it's below .500. Then again, with as high as Marty Marion finished in voting, I'm thinking that logic is optional in the new VC. Slats doesn't even has 1,500 hits, for crying out loud.

[KCBOOMER]

I've read several columns today and it is amazing the attitudes being copped by BBWAA members and the HoFers. The arrogance just drips off the page.

The BBWAA members are crowing that the VC vote validates their voting. The HoFers (led by Morgan and Schmidt) are solemnly on record as saying the Hall is just for the "greats". The only definition of "greatness" was that they had to be "no-doubters". SMED!!!! Put down that crowbar!!!

There is little doubt that the VC as a whole and probably the HoFers in particular spent very little time on average studying the case for the nominees. Hodges and Oliva over Santo and Minoso you must be kidding.

I think we can safely say that under the current VC structure there is zero chance of a player being elected to the Hall unless he goes the composite route. I really dislike this composite thing. I'd prefer a guy to be outstanding at something rather than merely good at several things.

[LeGrandOrange]

Would you expect the BBWAA to be anything less than assholes about it?

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I've read several columns today and it is amazing the attitudes being copped by BBWAA members and the HoFers. The arrogance just drips off the page.

The BBWAA members are crowing that the VC vote validates their voting. The HoFers (led by Morgan and Schmidt) are solemnly on record as saying the Hall is just for the "greats". The only definition of "greatness" was that they had to be "no-doubters". SMED!!!! Put down that crowbar!!!

There is little doubt that the VC as a whole and probably the HoFers in particular spent very little time on average studying the case for the nominees. Hodges and Oliva over Santo and Minoso you must be kidding.

I think we can safely say that under the current VC structure there is zero chance of a player being elected to the Hall unless he goes the composite route. I really dislike this composite thing. I'd prefer a guy to be outstanding at something rather than merely good at several things.

They are celebrating the results of a fundamentally rigged election.

Look, some of you know, I'm an academic, a political scientist. I study elections for a living. Elections are important to me. Rules matter; they affect outcomes in clearly definable ways.

This election makes me want to absolutely puke! This offends me in a deeply felt way.

Schmidt was my favorite player growing up. Morgan lives the next town over; I've seen him in church. But they're conspired to overturn the entire VC process, because Maz got in and they didn't like it. That's obnoxious, and incredibly arrogant. (Kudos to Boomer for picking the very best, most appropriate adjective.)

Jeez, I think we can all imagine how Santo feels. Minoso feels that way too, except his sadness is tinged with the knowledge that he's still suffering the effects of segregation, even today.

But how must Mazeroski feel? If he realizes the implications here, he's thinking, "Jeez, some people were so appalled by my selection that they basically changed the rules so NOBODY could make it." That's a hell of a slap.

And the huge thing is that a lot of people are missing is that there's a TWO year wit for players, and a FOUR year wait for non-players. Santo (63. diabetes) and Minoso (80) don't get another crack until 2005. Marvin Miller (86) and Doug Harvey (73, and a cancer survivor) don't get another crack until 2007. None of these guys, actuarily, are looking good at all to get in in their lifetimes. And that's bleeping ridiculous, because with a minimum of objective analysis, it is clear that they belong, and not as borderliners.

[LeGrandOrange]

I didn't miss the wait thing. That's another of the things that pisses me off about it.

:finger:

There, finally used the bird. Had to do it, that's basically all I really need to say to the people who made this "new" veteran's committee.

I sort of wish that all people who vote for the hall would just f****** go to hell...seriously...they're why we have the absolute WORST selection process for a hall. I mean, when you look forward to other elections, PEOPLE ACTUALLY GET ELECTED! *shock!* Only in baseball can you look forward to an election without an elector. And all because our voters have a combined IQ equal to Pete Rose's career hit total.

[pwdennis]

I already knew that sportswriters and sportscasters could be clueless, and yesterday's vote confirms that retired players can be clueless too.

While I have great respect for Mike Schmidt as a player, as an analyst he is questionable. Schmidt reported that he voted for no one. While this is his right apparently he gave his ballot no more than superficial thought.

Had he given the matter any real thought he might have recognized that from age 30 onward, Minoso had a better career than Mike Schmidt and that the only reason that Minoso doesn't have clear cut HOF credentials is because of racial discrimination. The sportswriters were too dumb to figure this out, and apparently the Mike Schmidts of this world are too. (Maybe Schmidt figures that Minoso should have had the sense to be born Causasian so as to not lose 40% of his career !). I could go on but I'll stop here

[Skip]

This result was not surprising at all. I was happy to see a change in the VC, and in general agree that the VC shouldnt be voting in a lot of people except for the occasional, rare miss by the writers. We're now caught in the question of dealing with what the VC 'should' do based on a true best-of-the-best HOF, versus what the VC 'should' do relative to the people already in the hall. So ... the debates go on and on and on .... Thats what makes it fun. I mean ... who gives a rat's hiney about the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. HOFs?

[pathogan]

Look, some of you know, I'm an academic, a political scientist. I study elections for a living. Elections are important to me. Rules matter; they affect outcomes in clearly definable ways.

Bear, that sounds like some depressing work to me...


I do think there is enough hubris to go around. I am certain, certain, that the people who voted are as sure they are correct as many people whoexpressed their opinions here.I think its sad that santo is so ill, and Minosos got screwed out of productive seasons,and that Harvey has to wait and that Miller{this one Im shocked over} didnt get in. That said,t6here is some room for doubt on many of the candidates{personal feelings aside} I think to trash others is useless.And counterproductive.:2cents:

[Ytown Tribe fan]

For once, I agree with Ray Ratto, up to a point. The VC is voting on guys who have had 15 years' worth of chances by the BBWAA and have been found wanting 15 times. What compelling reason do they have to vote for any of these candidates?

Like everyone else, I have my own list of players who should already be in the HoF but aren't. My own list is damned short: Blyleven, Santo, Minoso, Mullane. But will the HoF be found wanting if these players aren't elected? Is anyone here arguing that the VC should open the gates, rather than err on the side of caution?

Look -- to paraphrase Ratto again, the HoF is SUPPOSED to be exclusive, isn't it? Not exclusionary, but exclusive. I'd sure rather have no one elected than have Hodges elected over Santo. Might as well put Ken Keltner in there too. Put ol' Boogy in because he was my favorite player in the Old-Timer's games. Put Rocky in there for sentimental purposes. Put Herb Score in the broadcaster's wing. Put Steve Busby in for what he "might have" done, and throw in J R Richards too.

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of "guys who had really good careers for crummy teams and would be in but for a bad break or two."

[Fuzzy Bear]

I am surprised that Ron Santo was not selected for enshrinement. I thought the recent events pertaining to his health would push the envelope for him. I guess not.

I am happy for Tony O's strong showing. The shortness of his career does not diminish his high peak value. I would advocate his selection.

Many here are bent out of shape over the fact that Gil Hodges received the most votes. I am concerned about the power politics of those that seem to want to do for the Brooklyn Dodgers what Frankie Frisch did for the Gashouse Gang. Some observations need to be made.

(A) Hodges' record as a player AND manager, together, is such that his selection to the HOF on that basis would not be out of line at all.

(B) While active, Hodges was a well-regarded, pivitol player. He was an eight (8) time All Star, the best 1B in the NL from 1950-57, and had hit more lifetime home runs than any NL righthanded hitter in history at the time of his retirement. While active, Hodges was regarded as a great player; contemporary observers, IMO, found Hodges more relevant to the success of the Brooklyn Dodgers than 70s contemporaries found Tony Perez to be relevant to the success of the Big Red Machine.

I do not advocate Hodges' selection to the HOF as a player alone, but it is not as outrageous as some have suggested.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
Torre is still better than Gilbert Ray Hodge when you count his managing career...especially because it's below .500.

LGO, I disagree with your assessment of Hodges' managerial career. It really is better than Torre's.

Hodges managed the Washington Senators when they were, truly, a bottom of the barrel expansion team with no way to easily expand their talent base, yet they improved their record every year under Hodges, finishing 6th in 1967 (at a time where you just couldn't go sign a FA). The 1969 Mets are well documented; Hodges kept the Mets in contention in 70-71 as well.

Torre's managerial career is remarkable, but he has also had far more talent to work with.

[Max Power]

FYI, from:
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/whats_new/press_releases/2003/pr2003_02_26.htm

Fan Support: Fans wishing to voice their opinion in support of their favorite candidates may do so in two ways: by sending a single letter to Hall of Fame Veterans Committee, Post Office Box 590, Cooperstown, NY 13326, or by logging on to baseballhalloffame.org and sending us an e-mail. The Hall of Fame does not forward petitions to the voting members, but makes all correspondence known to any interested voting members, as well as to the Screening Committee members and Historical Overview Committee members.

in case anyone is interested.............

[SmedIndy]

I personally think studying elections is interesting, but I'm a number tinkerer, and I love looking at totals, especially third party candidates.

I think it's a fraud when you have people as qualified as Santo and Minoso out of the HOF and some of the chaff in the HOF. The BBWAA DOES screw up once in a while, just like the American public or the electoral college screws up elections too. (Hayes / Tilden anyone?)

[sweaver]

Some key numbers on this: I will concentrate on the voting for players.

81 VC members voted. They could vote for any of 26 players on the ballot, up to 10, or none at all if they chose.

A total of 433 votes were cast. That means of the 81 who submitted ballots, an average of 5.3 players were mentioned on the ballots.

Now, with 26 eligible to be elected and vote for 10, it seemed likely that someone could be elected. However, when you take into account that an average committee member voted for about 5 guys, it makes things much harder.

This is why it will be extremely difficult to get anyone elected by the VC under the current rules. Many, like Morgan and Schmidt, will see themselves as guardians against the less-than-great, and effectively bar the door.

[Rinkster]

I don't know how much they are "guardian's of the door."

For years Morgan publically campaigned for Tony Perez. Now, Morgan's big cause is Dave Concepcion.

There are probably a dozen candidates on the VC list I would have put in before Perez, and before I'd even consider Concepcion.

Schimdt's comments are ridiculous. As a third baseman you would have thought he would have understood just how great a player Ron Santo was. He's probably just upset that Bake McBride was not on the ballot.

[Golden Bear]

Exactly, Rinkster -- Morgan began flogging Concepcion ten minutes after Perez got inducted. (I'm part of a small minority that think Morgan might have a point, but never mind that for now.) And I guarantee the second Davey makes it, he'll be banging the drums for another of his old teammates.

Hard to say who else he could push from the Big Red Machine and keep a straight face -- Don Gullett, George Foster, Senior Griffey, Gary Nolan? My guess is he'd start to push some of his old teammates on the Astros from the 1960's -- Rusty Staub or Jimmy Wynn, maybe.

Schmidt is the biggest public advocate among HOFer's for admitting Rose. OK, that tells us a bit about where he's coming from.

The fact is, these guys aren't guarding anything but their own colossal egos and misty water-colored memories.

Huey Long (prominent governor and senator of Louisiana in the early 20th century) was asked shortly after the rise of Hitler and Mussolini if fascism could happen in America. His answer -- "Yes, sure it could -- but they'd call it anti-fascism."

Folks, they're calling this new VC anti-Frischism, but what is it really?

[LeGrandOrange]

Seeing how much support Marty Marion got, I'd think the spirit of Frisch never left.

How many ex-Cards voted BTW?

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
Seeing how much support Marty Marion got, I'd think the spirit of Frisch never left.

How many ex-Cards voted BTW?

Maybe - but Bill James at one time (I don't know how he feels about it now) regarded Marion as being more HOF worthy than Pee-Wee Reese or Phil Rizzuto , so unless you regard Reese and Rizzuto as ridiculous inductees then I don't think this shows "The Spirit of Frisch"

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
(1) I think it's a fraud when you have people as qualified as Santo and Minoso out of the HOF and some of the chaff in the HOF. The BBWAA DOES screw up once in a while, (2) just like the American public or the electoral college screws up elections too. (Hayes / Tilden anyone?)

(1) There are still sports writers who think a batting line of 14-71- .304 is more valuable than a batting line of 38-115- .267, so of course the BBWAA goofs occasionally. I was listing to a talking head recently opine that Keith Hernandez and Mark Grace were far better hitters than Mark McGwire

(2) The American electorate has made many errors and survived them all - that is the strength of Democracy - if we could survive Grant, Wilson, Nixon and Clinton we can survive anything !

[LeGrandOrange]

Originally posted by pwdennis
Maybe - but Bill James at one time (I don't know how he feels about it now) regarded Marion as being more HOF worthy than Pee-Wee Reese or Phil Rizzuto , so unless you regard Reese and Rizzuto as ridiculous inductees then I don't think this shows "The Spirit of Frisch"

I regard Rizzuto as a ridiculous inductee. Marion more so than Rizzuto. Frankly, Reese isn't even CLOSE to being ridiculous as far as I'm concerned...he is exceptionally worthy because he was a great hitter for his position, fielded slickly...of course he benefitted from playing in Brooklyn in 1947 and having respect for the guy on 1B there. But he is an exceptionally worthy candidate.

Bill James was CLEARLY smoking 3 bowls at once when he said that about Marion.

[sweaver]

Marion has value because of his superb defense, the hardest part of baseball to effectively quantify. I can't say with confidence where he should rank, but he was a truly exceptional shortstop, and the 1944 NL MVP, granted that was a war year.

The best players not in the Hall, by my rankings:
1. Barry Bonds
2. Rickey Henderson
3. Wade Boggs
4. Pete Rose
5. Tim Raines
6. Ryne Sandberg
7. Tony Gwynn
8. Roberto Alomar
9. Ron Santo

Now, the first five are not eligible, for obvious reasons. Ron Santo was the best player eligible for selection by the VC, by a wide margin, and did not get elected. That does not bode well for anyone getting elected in the future through the VC, especially since Santo is rather well-qualified.

Of course, he never played on a World Series winner, so that surely costs him votes.

[sweaver]

If you are interested, the next ten are:
10. Jeff Bagwell
11. Rafael Palmiero
12. Frank Thomas
13. George Davis
14. Will Clark
15. Bobby Grich
16. Ken Griffey, Jr.
17. Barry Larkin
18. Lou Whitaker
19. Darrell Evans
and for hmrsf,
20. Dwight Evans

[LeGrandOrange]

George Davis is already in actually.

[Golden Bear]

SWeaver: Where are Mark McGwire and Cal Ripken?

[Max Power]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
SWeaver: Where are Mark McGwire and Cal Ripken?

They're in NetShrine. ;)

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
SWeaver: Where are Mark McGwire and Cal Ripken?

That better have been an oversight....

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
Look -- to paraphrase Ratto again, the HoF is SUPPOSED to be exclusive, isn't it? Not exclusionary, but exclusive. I'd sure rather have no one elected than have Hodges elected over Santo. Might as well put Ken Keltner in there too. Put ol' Boogy in because he was my favorite player in the Old-Timer's games. Put Rocky in there for sentimental purposes. Put Herb Score in the broadcaster's wing. Put Steve Busby in for what he "might have" done, and throw in J R Richards too.

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of "guys who had really good careers for crummy teams and would be in but for a bad break or two."

I agree, but there's a world of difference between having a career short-circuited by an injury or being stuck in the minors because your parent organization is too loaded at your position, and another thing to be healthy and playing great baseball and not getting a chance to play, like happened to Minnie Minoso, because of racial discrimination. In the nine season between ages 30 & 38, Minoso had 146 Hr 840 Rbi and hit over .300 while being 1st or 2nd in SB four times. These are better numbers than many HOF members put up at those ages. I say simple fairness demands that you give Minoso credit for the missing half of his career

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
I regard Rizzuto as a ridiculous inductee. Marion more so than Rizzuto. Frankly, Reese isn't even CLOSE to being ridiculous as far as I'm concerned...he is exceptionally worthy because he was a great hitter for his position, fielded slickly...of course he benefitted from playing in Brooklyn in 1947 and having respect for the guy on 1B there. But he is an exceptionally worthy candidate.

Bill James was CLEARLY smoking 3 bowls at once when he said that about Marion.

Sounds like a Dodger fan. Marion was an 8 time All-Star, finished in the top ten in MVP balloting 3 times which is more than decent for shortstops of his era. I do think Reese was better, especially offensively, but Marion, according to all accounts, would have been a steady Gold Glove winner, had the award existed during his career

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
SWeaver: Where are Mark McGwire and Cal Ripken? On the original list, Cal should have been #3, while Big Mac is farther down the list, but still a worthy Hall-of-Famer.

[LeGrandOrange]

Originally posted by pwdennis
Sounds like a Dodger fan. Marion was an 8 time All-Star, finished in the top ten in MVP balloting 3 times which is more than decent for shortstops of his era. I do think Reese was better, especially offensively, but Marion, according to all accounts, would have been a steady Gold Glove winner, had the award existed during his career

How dare you call me a Dodger fan! :)

Reese has more all-star and MVP appearances. Marion did his MVP stuff when Reese and everyone else were in the service, although in 1942 not everyone good was drafted so I'll give you that.

Marion was a great defender, that's not to be argued. I'm just short-sighted and really can't see him being worthy of the hall at this time. When I do it'll be like as like my 20th choice to get in. He just doesn't seem like a guy who deserves a plaque.

[pwdennis]

I didn't say I advocated Marion for the HOF. I simply don't think he would be a totally ridiculous choice

[Hiawatha1]

It should be noted that Ron Santo is listed among "Baseball Immortals" http://www.baseballimmortals.net/players.shtml. It seems that Mike Schmidt should spend less time hyping convicts and more time voting for true Hall candidates.

[Skip]

Welcome to the site Hiawatha. Though I advocate Petey's induction to Cooperstown, I'll still be happy to have you here and invite you to post in the Icebreakers forum and tell us more about yourself.

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by Hiawatha1
It seems that Mike Schmidt should spend less time hyping convicts and more time voting for true Hall candidates.

Well, with one post Hiawatha has let us know how he stands on the Rose issue. Welcome aboard!

[Skip]

Welcome Hiawatha - though I disagree on the Rose thing. Different strokes and all that stuff. :)

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Originally posted by pwdennis
...simple fairness demands that you give Minoso credit for the missing half of his career

No argument from me. As I posted, my list of guys who should already be in Cooperstown is short and sweet: Blyleven, Santo, Minoso and Mullane.

And I'm not defending pigheaded arrogance on the part of VC members. I'm simply saying that it's too late to undue some of the bad selections of old, and if the new VC errs in the opposite direction for awhile, it's okay with me. That, too, is temporary. The Hall of Fame is for the long haul.

[SmedIndy]

Hiawatha - don't mind my friend Skip...Kentucky and all that you know. :p

[Skip]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Hiawatha - don't mind my friend Skip...Kentucky and all that you know. :p I started to rebut ... then noticed that I did the Welcome/Pete post twice and decided Smed just might be right. D'oh. Oh well, I'll go for the trifecta - Welcome Hiawatha, .... <sigh>

[pjl7]

First, a disclaimer. I am a Twins fan so if you want to skewer me for that, its out in the open.

I wasn't expecting more than two inductees from the VC this year although I was shocked that none got in. If I held the door today, I'd be working on behalf of five players- Santo, Oliva, Minoso, Blyleven and Kaat.

What I really wonder is who the "opinion leaders" are behind the scenes. We all know that the 19th century and lively ball eras are way overrepresented. No one wants to further pollute the HOF with more unqualified candidates. However, players who were perennial All-Stars (captial "A" as in the best at theie position in their league as opposed to those in the All-Star game) from any era are worthy of the Hall...as are those with worthy career achievements. Would Blyleven have 300 wins (and thus be a lock) if he had been traded for Catfish Hunter? Obviously.

To paraphrase Mr. James, its not Aaron, Williams and Ruth who define the Hall. If that's the standard, there are about 30 guys who should be in it. Someday the "immortals" will be separated from the others, which is fine with me. The lower rung already exists (and a rung that well below those we are debating for that matter).

As for Frisch-ing the Hall. While I have nothing against Concepcion, there are a few dozen guys ahead of him in my book. Considering that Morgan, Bench and Perez are in (and Rose only out for other reasons) more 1970s Reds would start to smell like "rotting Frisch".

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by pjl7
As for Frisch-ing the Hall. While I have nothing against Concepcion, there are a few dozen guys ahead of him in my book. Considering that Morgan, Bench and Perez are in (and Rose only out for other reasons) more 1970s Reds would start to smell like "rotting Frisch".

Good sense of humor

Quite true about the Reds, who weren't even the most dominant team of the 1970s. That honor would fall to the A's who won five straight AL West Titles (1971-1975 - they were 2nd in 70 & 76) and three straight World Series (72-74). That A's team has only three HOF members (Jackson, Fingers & Hunter); four if you count Billy Williams who was on the non-WS 75 & 76 teams . Any more Reds (other than Rose) would definitely stink of cronyism

[LeGrandOrange]

And considering that they're a dynasty, those Oakland A's don't even have a single borderliner who may get in even if they're not the worthiest of candidates.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by pjl7
We all know that the 19th century...are way overrepresented. No one wants to further pollute the HOF with more unqualified candidates.


We do? The 19th Century over-represented? Really?

Funny, I don't think that way myself....

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
And considering that they're a dynasty, those Oakland A's don't even have a single borderliner who may get in even if they're not the worthiest of candidates.

Campaneris has some backers, myself among them. (Although I'll readily acknowledge he's a tough sell.)

The other top candidates from those great teams are Dick Williams and Charlie Finley. There really isn't anyone else among the players.

Sal Bando, maybe, but he's mired in that backlog of 3b.

Vida Blue? Naah.

It is weird that there aren't more HOF caliber players on such a great dynasty.

Actually, though, most of the core players on the current Yankee dynasty aren't necessarily slam dunks. Name a slam dunk HOF from the 1998 Yankees. Jeter, Bernie, and Rivera are getting there, and Tim Raines was a part-timer in his last season as a serious contributor, but there's really no one else with a very realistic case. Cone, maybe...but probably not.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Golden Bear

Actually, though, most of the core players on the current Yankee dynasty aren't necessarily slam dunks. Name a slam dunk HOF from the 1998 Yankees. Jeter, Bernie, and Rivera are getting there, and Tim Raines was a part-timer in his last season as a serious contributor, but there's really no one else with a very realistic case. Cone, maybe...but probably not.

Jeter Bernie and Rivera will all make the hall, not certain they'll deserve it, but they'll all make it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
I regard Rizzuto as a ridiculous inductee. Marion more so than Rizzuto. Frankly, Reese isn't even CLOSE to being ridiculous as far as I'm concerned...he is exceptionally worthy because he was a great hitter for his position, fielded slickly...of course he benefitted from playing in Brooklyn in 1947 and having respect for the guy on 1B there. But he is an exceptionally worthy candidate.

Bill James was CLEARLY smoking 3 bowls at once when he said that about Marion.

As I recall, James was not advocating Marion's selection to the HOF, only comparing him to Rizzuto.

Marion, like Rizzuto, has one MVP to his credit. Unlike Rizzuto, Marion won his MVP on the strength of his glovework. (Marion is probably the defense-oriented MVP in history.)

James also seems to have backed off of his anti-Rizzuto position he took in The Politics of Glory. I personally didn't support Rizzuto's induction, but it's not the most egregious pick I've ever seen.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Campaneris has some backers, myself among them. (Although I'll readily acknowledge he's a tough sell.)

The other top candidates from those great teams are Dick Williams and Charlie Finley. There really isn't anyone else among the players.

Sal Bando, maybe, but he's mired in that backlog of 3b.

Sal Bando has a surprisingly good case. He played in a terrible park, but was the best 3B in the AL after Robinson faded, and was second to Robby in his late prime. His numbers are depressed due to both his stadium and his era.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
As I recall, James was not advocating Marion's selection to the HOF, only comparing him to Rizzuto.

Marion, like Rizzuto, has one MVP to his credit. Unlike Rizzuto, Marion won his MVP on the strength of his glovework. (Marion is probably the defense-oriented MVP in history.)

James also seems to have backed off of his anti-Rizzuto position he took in The Politics of Glory. I personally didn't support Rizzuto's induction, but it's not the most egregious pick I've ever seen.

Friendly amendment -- Rizzuto had a great season with the bat in 1950, but in addition he was almost certainly the finest fielding SS in the league at the same time. Rizzuto won his MVP on the basis of both his fine glovework and his career year at the plate.

Marion's 1944 was completely ordinary at the plate; not bad, I guess, but ordinary overall; for a shortstop of the day it was probably a little better than average. I think he also was considered the emotional leader of the team, yada yada, all that non-quantifiable, anecdotal stuff. The Cardinals won the pennant by abotu 15 games, so it had to be a Cardinal, as per the conventional wisdom. Musial had the best batting stats on the team, and probably the best in the league. (Some might make a case for Bill Nicholson of the 4th place Cubs, who led the NL in HR and RBI.) But Musial had won it last year with an even better season, and I suppose the writers wanted to spread it around a bit. And he sure could flash the leather.

[hmrsf]

Originally posted by Max Power
FYI - Heard on the radio that Hodges' "whole" career was under consideration for his vote - - his work as a MGR as well as a player. They also said that this was not the case for Torre - - because he is an active MGR - - so, only his playing career was considered for the vote. Once Torre retires, then they would look at him like Hodges, on a composite basis.


So say if Dwight Evans manages the Red Sox and bring the World Series back to Boston AND WINS........is he in?


You would think 14 RBI in 2 WS in 14 games, the most dominate right fielder in the 80's in addition to 8 GG. I think the ring will do it.:D

[Skip]

hmrsf - you must be Kenny Nolan's biggest fan.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Friendly amendment -- Rizzuto had a great season with the bat in 1950, but in addition he was almost certainly the finest fielding SS in the league at the same time. Rizzuto won his MVP on the basis of both his fine glovework and his career year at the plate.

Rizzuto was also runner up to the MVP in 1949 - finishing 2nd to Williams. In fact, was it not Williams that said, the one player in New York that would have made the difference for us, if we had him in Boston, was Rizzuto? Nice remark, considering who Phil played with in NY.

OK - For all :warn: here we go - - let's get this back on topic - - - which is the story of the VC selecting no one this year. Thanks.

[Bruce Markusen]

The voters could have considered Torre's managerial record in determining whether to give him their vote. I'm guessing that most of the voters felt better waiting because Torre is still active.

With regard to the A's of the early seventies, Sal Bando, Vida Blue, and Ken Holtzman all made the list of 200 originally being considered by the Veterans Committee. In the future, Bert Campaneris, Joe Rudi, and Gene Tenace will have a chance of making that list of 200?

Are any of those players Hall of Famers? Probably not, but Bando, Holtzman, and Tenace are all underrated; neither Bando or Tenace hit for high average, but they had secondary batting skills (walks and power) and played important defensive positions. Holtzman's personality has always hurt his case for recognition, as did the treatment he received from Leo Durocher in Chicago. Campaneris and Rudi simply weren't good enough offensive players, but each brought high value to the table defensively, (Rudi was a Gold Glover and Campy had great range) with Campy having the added bonus of speed. As for Blue, he had Hall of Fame talent, and several Hall of Fame seasons (most notably 1971), but wasn't consistent enough and didn't have the staying power of most Hall of Fame pitchers. In some ways, his career was like that of Dwight Gooden's; they both looked like Hall of Famers at the beginning of their careers, but their peaks just didn't last.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

What's Catfish Hunter doing in the Hall of Fame?

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Bruce Markusen
The voters could have considered Torre's managerial record in determining whether to give him their vote. I'm guessing that most of the voters felt better waiting because Torre is still active.


I belive this is true. Torre will get elected assuming he doen't leave the Yankees and have some horrid managerial years for another team. It is better to wait for his career to be over though.

[Max Power]

I thought this Joe Morgan quote was very interesting..........

"As vice chairman of the Hall of Fame, I think we have to give the Veterans Committee process one more chance before we say it doesn't work. I think it needs one more turn. As a player and HOFer, I wish there was voting again next year. I think a lot of people understand the process better now. Instead we have to wait two more years. Therefore, I'm not pleased with that. But as vice chairman, I do think the process will work in the long run." - Joe Morgan, from his Feb. 27 ESPN.com chat.

Almost implies a problem this time around, to me.

[Bruce Markusen]

There is also a statistical precedent with Torre and his Hall of Fame resume. Any manager who has won at least three World Championships has made it to the Hall of Fame. Torre's already at four, so that bodes well for him.

I think this is one factor that is hurting Dick Williams. He has two World Championships, but if he had picked up a third with either Boston or San Diego, he probably would be in already. But then again, Tommy Lasorda has only two rings--and he's already in. So go figure.

[Golden Bear]

Lasorda managed one team for twenty years -- a rare feat.

He's also a much more beloved figure than Williams, more of a classic ambassador for the game.

I'm not saying Williams doesn't belong -- he does, and it's been pretty widely reported that he would have gone in with Mazeroski in 2001 were it not for that strange public indecency incident just before the VC meeting.

But Lasorda definitely belongs as well.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Bruce Markusen

I think this is one factor that is hurting Dick Williams. He has two World Championships, but if he had picked up a third with either Boston or San Diego, he probably would be in already. But then again, Tommy Lasorda has only two rings--and he's already in. So go figure.

If Williams is who I think he is, he is probably hurt by winning world series with a powerhouse A's team, but also had some very bad years with other franchises. He has often compared himself with other hall of fame mangagers like Lasorda and Earl Weaver when claiming he should be in. Taking a look at his record, he doesn't match up to Weaver or Lasorda, even with 2 championships.

[Bruce Markusen]

A couple of points on Lasorda and Williams:

Lasorda deserves to be in the Hall. I don't think you have to have three titles to make it; four pennants and two World Championships, including that overachieving 1988 team, plus all of the other high finishes the Dodgers had during his years make for a pretty good resume.

Prior to Williams joining the A's, the team had never won anything. In his very first season with Oakland, he managed the team to a 100-plus win season and then won it all the next year. Yes, Williams had lots of talent to work with in Oakland, but a lot of that talent was there under John McNamara, who didn't finish any higher than second.

Of Williams' six managerial stops, he failed in two places (California and Seattle) and I don't know how much blame he could be assessed for the Angels' failures because they didn't win before or after him--not until a few years later in 1979, when they finally won the AL West. In his other four stops, Williams had varying degrees of success. He obviously had great results with the A's, with three division titles and two World Championships in three season. He took the Red Sox and the Padres to the World Series in seasons when no one felt they had a prayer of doing so. And with Montreal, he generally kept that team in contention, despite the fact that the Expos lacked a great bullpen or a bigtime closer.

[pwdennis]

I think that Williams is HOF material. The teams that weren't winners under him were teams that wouldn't have been winners for anyone.

The 1967 Red Sox AL pennant winner was one of the all-time great franchise turnarounds, the team having gone 72-90, 62-100, 72-90, 76-85, 76-84, 76-86 and 65-89 in the seven prior seasons. Williams also managed to turn around a stagnant Padres franchise.

I think Williams' crusty personality has cost him greater acclaim. His career winning pct as a manager is about that of Joe Torre. Unlike Torre, however, Williams managed to turn around some poor teams

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by JamesI
If Williams is who I think he is, he is probably hurt by winning world series with a powerhouse A's team, but also had some very bad years with other franchises. He has often compared himself with other hall of fame mangagers like Lasorda and Earl Weaver when claiming he should be in. Taking a look at his record, he doesn't match up to Weaver or Lasorda, even with 2 championships.

Dick Williams, 3023 games, 1571-1451, .520, 6 teams, 2 WS wins, 4 pennants, 5 division titles (1967 AL pennant preceded divisional play). One 100-win season, seven 90-win seasons. Thirteen .500 or better records in twenty-one seasons (including partial seasons in 1974, 1976, 1986, and 1988).

Tommy Lasorda, 3041 games, 1599-1439, .526, 1 team -- LA Dodgers, 2 WS wins, 4 pennants, 8 division titles. No 100-win seasons, seven 90-win seasons. Fourteen .500 or better records in twenty seasons (including the last partial 1996 season, excluding 1976 when only managed 4 games subbing for Alston).

Earl Weaver, 2541 games, 1480-1060, .583, 1 team -- Baltimore Orioles (2 stints), 1 WS win, 4 pennants, 6 division titles. Five 100-win seasons, eleven 90-win seasons, only finished below .500 in his 18th and final season (including partials in 1968 and 1985)

Weaver has a much better record than either Tommy or Dick, but is shy one World Series from those two (thanks to the Miracle Mets, Clemente, and Stargell); he also managed 500 fewer games.

Lasorda looks to be a smidge better than Williams overall. But only a smidge.

It is a point in the favor of Lasorda and Weaver that they were able to stay with one team and maintain excellence rather than hopscotching around the majors like Williams did. If nothing else, it looks better on paper, and in terms of a tangible legacy.

But succeeding in different situations is a talent too, and Williams turned four different franchises around -- taking three to the World Series, and only missing out on a fourth due to a miraculous Rick Monday home run.

[SmedIndy]

If Williams were as cuddly as Chuck Tanner, he'd be in the HoF.

But if he was...then he'd be like Chuck Tanner.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

How about Billy Martin? He was about as cuddly as a broken whiskey bottle in a bar fight, but he was as effective as any manager in getting a "W". Martin's record of consistently improving teams' records after he took over may be the best of any manager ever.

Joe Garagiola and Bill James used to have a radio call-in show. Right after Martin was killed, I called in to see how they felt about his HoF chances as a manager. Boy, they dismissed it without a thought! In fact the only reason I got through at all, I'm sure, is because everyone else wanted to talk about Pete Rose and the call screener thought I would be good for a laugh.

When James came out with his book on managers, it sure made Billy look a lot better.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
If Williams were as cuddly as Chuck Tanner, he'd be in the HoF.

But if he was...then he'd be like Chuck Tanner.

Wrong - Williams had far better baseball sense

[SmedIndy]

PW - I think Tanner's personality occluded any baseball sense he had.

You can't try to please everyone. That's the comparison. You can't separate the personality from the results, IMHO.