New Veterans Committee- Every 5 Years Pre-War Players

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />This thread was developed of Peter S.'s concern about how the HOF continues to elect marginal players. My understanding of the current standards being appplied for the Veteran's Committee is: 1) Pre-War players are considered every 5 years, and 2) Modern ballplayers are no longer considered 21 years after the conclusion of their careers. Ironically, you can call this the Rule Against Perpetuities for the modern player.<br /><br />Considering the Hall is a historical institution are these standards reasonable? Or should Pre-War players be entirely excluded since there's virtually nobody alive who saw them play. Also there's little film footage of these early ballplayers.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave S</b><p>U threw me off with "Rule Against Perpetuities"!!!<br /><br />Maybe the Committee should only consider players if there was a movie about them??<br />Oklahoma and Mizzou playing a heckuva game...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>It seems to me that if someone from the beginning of baseball through WW II hasn't made it yet, after a zillion elections, they aren't really worthy. If anything there are too MANY players already eapecially from the 30s. Rick Ferrell? Chick Hafey? Travis Jackson? and so on and so on. <br /><br />I have no problem with the 21 year rule either, and would be inclined to shorten it considerably. Too many guys are in because of nostalgia.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Peter,<br /><br /> You mentioned nostalgia? <br /><br /> Dave, and I don't mean to take a shot at your team, but Tinker and Evers don't deserve to be in except for their mention in a famous poem.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Yes, when someone gets in 20+ years after his playing career, I consider that an exercise in nostalgia.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>Tough to say there isn't anybody else worthy from the 19th century, when (to my knowledge) there is only one person (McPhee, and even he played the second half of his career in the NL) that has been elected to the HOF based primarily on their American Association accomplishments (I'm not counting Comiskey here as he obviously went in the HOF for other reasons). There was a belief for a long time that it was an inferior league, not based on the play, but because of politics of those in power in the National League, as it was the league that eventually withstood the test of time.<br /><br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Agree completely on Tinker and Evers. Put the damn poem in the Hall but not two above average players.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>The Rule Against Perpetuities for modern players is that upon the conclusion of a player's career the privilege of being called a Hall of Famer shall vest or not vest within 21 years. By the way, if this rule was applicable around the time Bill Mazeroski was considered he would have been barred from consideration by the voters. Maz got in 25+ years after the conclusion of his career.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>In my opinion, there should be two Halls. One for the GREAT players who have been elected and then one for the really good players who have been elected.<br /><br />Because of politics and who knew who, some of the guys, as has already been stated, should not be in the Hall. However, I do NOT see a way to remove them, so the two Halls idea. One could be called the Hall of Legends and the other the Hall of Fame.<br /><br />Some of the players would be EASY to decide on where they belong. Cobb, Wagner, Cy Young, Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Ruth, Gehrig, etc would be in the Hall of Legends. Then guys like Tinker, Evers and some of the New York Giants from the 1920's would be in the Hall of Fame.<br /><br />A blue ribbon panel would have to be convened to decide on the players who straddled the line.<br /><br />Just an idea,<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat (ret.)</b><p>"2) Modern ballplayers are no longer considered 21 years after the conclusion of their careers"<br /><br />May as well call this the "Screw Pete Rose rule." Bastards!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Maybe they are anticipating (hoping) Barry Bonds gets a 20-year sentence??<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>As I am sitting here thinking about the Hall of Fame, I think they should expand it by having one in the Mid West and another on the West Coast. That way, if people wanted to see Hall of Fame material but didn't want to go to New York, they would have a chance. The three Halls could rotate items, displays and programs with New York starting an exhibition and then have it move to one of the other Halls.<br /><br />I think they should do this because the Hall has SOOOO much stuff, they can never display it all so that people can see exactly what they have. This would also cut down on the possibility that items are damaged or destroyed (my fear) by some disaster, either natural or man-made. Also by doing this, the Hall could find out EXACTLY what they have. I have heard stories that they ahve no clue because boxes have been put down in the basement and just stored there. Maybe I am wrong.<br /><br />To pay for these two new Halls and create an endowment, after all the items are documented and archived, some of them could be sold (deaccessioned SP?). This way, collectors could add to their collections and the Halls would have money to expand. Then, if the Hall needed an item or if a collector wanted to loan it back to the Hall, they could.<br /><br />Just some more ideas, what do you think??<br /><br />David

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>It's pretty disgusting that the all time hits and hr leaders won;t get in the HOF. Really, it's bad....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>Peter C.<br /><br />Please reread the Hall of Fame's new Veteran's Committee Rules! Modern players who are no longer on the Baseball Writer's ballot are STILL ELIGIBLE after they have been retired for 21 years. That's when the Vet's committee kicks in. All players remain forever eligible, if they can get through the various nomination and screening committees. And, provided they are not on baseball's banishment list.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>at least it's not as bad as the "hollywood walk of fame" where in order to receive a "star" you just need $25k and a sponsor.<br /><br />a separate room in the hall titled "honorable mentions" would be nice to put those guys that really deserve it but are not worthy because they played over 21 years ago or gambled a little, or even snubbed the media.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Ken,<br /><br />You are right, apparently the rules page I saw applied to the BB writers election. It sure looked like they were discussing the Veteran's Committee, at any rate now the HOF website has clarified it, the 21 year rule applies only to election by the BB Writers.<br /><br />Peter C.