Question for the group regarding Hall of Fame eligibility....

[whitehse]

So I have a question for the group......

With the new veteran committees that have been formed by the Hall of Fame this past weekend, what are the chances of a guy who won 283 games in his career with 180 complete games with over 2400 strike outs and who won 16 gold gloves in his career getting into the Hall in the next four years?

Yes, I am speaking of Jim Kaat and I cannot help wonder if he even has a chance with the numbers he has. And with the rules changes, are there others who have been on the fringe that now have a better shot?

Any thoughts?

[con40]

Jim Kaat's chances are slim at best. He was a dependable starter who hung way past his shelf date.

I think the new committee will look more at dynamic players of the era who did not put up stats due to longevity. This group of players has been the most excluded from the modern era. Seems any player who hasn't hit 500 HRs, 3000 Hits, 300 Wins, 3000 Ks, or 400 saves has been left out.

My sense is we'll see new love for the following players (or others like them):

Steve Garvey
Don Mattingly
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Bobby Grich
Ted Simmons
Ron Guidry

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by con40

Jim Kaat's chances are slim at best. He was a dependable starter who hung way past his shelf date.

I think the new committee will look more at dynamic players of the era who did not put up stats due to longevity. This group of players has been the most excluded from the modern era. Seems any player who hasn't hit 500 HRs, 3000 Hits, 300 Wins, 3000 Ks, or 400 saves has been left out.

My sense is we'll see new love for the following players (or others like them):

Steve Garvey
Don Mattingly
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Bobby Grich
Ted Simmons
Ron Guidry

To use an overused phrase...are these players members of the hall of very good? Are they Hall worthy? I think you make an excellent point and even though these players were some of the best to play in their era, I cannot help but wonder if they will get the love they may deserve.

And for the record, the only one I do not agree with you is is Grich. I saw him play and he certainly was good but I just do not see him getting to the hall.

[OlderTheBetter]

Yes they were good players but rarely one of the top three in their league in any one season.

The Hall has more than enough players from that era and I don't want them
to dilute it any more than it already is by electing any of the guys just listed.

[paul]

Forgive my ignorance, but what new Veterans Committees were formed last weekend?

[nat]

They split baseball history up into four segments, with a Vet's committee for each. They'll meet according to some arcane schedule (so they don't all meet every year, or even on a regularly rotating basis).

Did they change the way that the ballot works? If not, they're not going to start electing people. The VC had a hard time electing people because committee members could list at most four people on their ballots, and they needed 75% (IIRC) to get elected. Since the candidates that the VC looks over almost by definition don't stand out (Willie Mays gets elected before the VC gets to take a look at him), there's unlikely to be enough of a consensus among the voters to get anyone over that 75% bar. If they wanted the VC to elect people they need to drop the % requirement or let voters vote for more than four candidates.

But really, I'm okay with the VC not electing anybody. We've already got Lloyd Waner, Jesse Haines, Highpockets Kelly, George Kell, and on and on in the hall of fame. For every Lou Whitaker who really deserves it but gets passed over, there's legions of very iffy candidates whom they could (and probably would) enshrine. Cooperstown doesn't need a plaque for Carlos Zambrano (to pick a random pitcher with more WAR than Jesse Haines).