Happy to see two fellow Twins getting in. Kaat / Oliva are great guys as well.

Happy for Buck but would have been more appropriate to induct him and Lefty at the same time for the same reason, Without Lefty O'Doul Shoei Ohtani wouldn't be playing For the Angels.

The committee's actually meet in person and discuss the candidates, then vote...so it's not particularly shocking they reached something like a consensus.

130, 142 and 130. Sure that's missing some time but not crazy. 565, 588 and 530 PA's. 530 is pretty low to the 502 required, but nobody seems to devalue Brett's run at .400 and the batting title he won with only 515 PA's.

Who's to say he wouldn't have hit even higher if he'd been healthier?

Can't agree with all of the approval of Jim Kaat making it.

A 3.45 ERA during a low-scoring era of major league history. Pitched a ton for a Twins team that won a lot of games during the '60s, or else his win total wouldn't have even sniffed HOF consideration.

It's trademark hall of very good stuff, and represents how the hall's standards continue to slowly lower (and how important it is to have the right buddies influencing the voting)

I think Kaat’s 287 wins have more to do with his 4,500 innings than being a Twin. His 108 ERA+ is his real problem. His WAR is fairly low. He also was consistently good for two decades and won a ton of gold gloves that certainly can give him a little bit of a boost. 7 of his top 10 similarity scores are hall of famers. Excellent but not great 20 year pitchers doesn’t seem a bad place to draw the line as the bottom tier of the hall of fame. I’d rank him over some hall of fame starters, he’s hardly lowering the general bottom standard, he’s right on the border. He’s really almost the same player as John, wonder if he gets in soon. They’re both a lot better than Jack Morris.

I agree that my "lowering the standard" statement might be too strong. But I still maintain that it's a poor choice (to go along with whatever starters you felt were even worse choices).

The Twins were around 140 games over .500 during Kaat's 12 full seasons there, so I imagine it was both that and the 4500 innings that account for his win total.

And even with his fielding, as you mentioned, his WAR (especially over all those innings) still isn't worth of the hall to me. Especially when you factor in that low ERA+ compared to the usual HOF standards

Was just going to say if you like Jack Morris in the hall, you can't bitch about Kaat.

I've learned over the years that any kind of gold standard I had will only make me salty when borderline guys are inducted - so I am happy for all.

With that said, Kaat made 3 All-Star teams in 25 years, and did not have too many "HOF years". Kaat's gold gloves are as, or more impressive than his win total.

The others are pretty well justified in my mind, would have liked to see Allen get in as well.

It's nice to see something go right with baseball at a time when its fearless leaders are mucking things up again with another strike. I'm particularly thrilled to see Minnie Minoso get in: I've personally campaigned for him to the point where I've annoyed some — but I did get a call from him one day thanking me, which was a wonderful surprise.

As for Dick Allen, of course he's a Hall of Famer. He was easily one of baseball's most feared hitters for a decade. Just look at his OPS from 1964 to 1974 — who hit the ball harder during that time? Nobody. His case for Cooperstown is convincing as Minnie's.

Yes, and they should have created a separate "Ambassadors" category for both of them. Electing Buck in any other capacity is a bigger joke than Harold Baines being inducted. As wonderful a human being as he was, O'Neil had no business being considered for enshrinement alongside people who were being elected predominantly on the basis of their level of play.

I'm not an autograph expert, but this Minnie was obtained in person in 1957 before my tenth birthday after a spring training game in Clearwater against the Phillies. I like it more now.

I only have two of the three famous M. M. autographs.

Minnie Minoso

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image.../minoso-minnie

Mickey Mantle

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image.../mantle-mickey

Moms Mabley


Does anyone have a Moms Mabley autograph for sale? :D

Let me know.

Just to play devil's advocate, if you wanted a WS win, are you going with Kaat or Morris? Morris appears to be a miserable human being, but he knew how to win. And I think a lot of the ugliness to his stats is because he'd let up if given a big lead. He didn't mind winning 6-4 instead of gassing himself to win 6-0.

Kaat and John had many more wins and played longer, but Morris was better.

Looking at careers, personally I’m picking Kaat. Over very large sample sizes, Kaat was better at not giving up runs, adjusted for context (Morris’ 105 ERA+ is even worse). If we look at post season only, in small sample sizes they have very similar ERA’s. Morris got absolutely shelled in 3 post season series, that’s always forgotten and only his good appearances remembered.. That Morris was particularly clutch I have a hard time finding support for in the data. I’d probably take John over both of them.

This is so true: just make separate categories for “ambassadors” (O’Neil, Fowler) and “executives” (Pompez, Manley) so that more actual HOF-caliber Negro League baseball players can get inducted such as Redding, Johnson, Scales, Marcelle, Lundy, Oms, and the like…

I think this would be a great addition for the Hall - Guys like Pesky, Don Zimmer etc. deserve a spot in the Hall imo - just not for playing/managing resumes.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if they did that, and Bob Uecker made it into the Hall? God, his acceptance speech would be classic!!!

Already happened as a broadcaster, and the speech was great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7dG5HCKeWA

Morris did not exactly get shelled in three post season series, at least not as you would suggest. in '87 he lost and gave up 6, but did pitch a complete game. So too in the 1992 ALCS, where he gave up 4 but went the distance. Your manager does not leave you out there for the duration if you're no good.
His first start in the 1992 WS was a 3-1 loss to Tom Glavine.

As for the second appearance in each of those 1992 series, yes he did get rocked. At age 37 and pitching on three days rest, he had one bad inning against the A's, and had the same outcome against Atlanta, thanks to a two-out grand slam by Lonnie Smith. These are probably forgotten because, well, his team won the game and series against Oakland and had a 3-1 series lead when he faltered against the Braves.

So yeah, I guess a couple of blemishes in his final season at age 37 are overlooked, but it's not like the 1991 gem against Atlanta was a one-off. Morris was clutch when it mattered most.

In 1987, he gives up 6 earned runs in 8 innings for a 6.75 ERA. A 6.75 ERA is not being shelled? Pitching a complete game doesn’t mean he wasn’t shelled.

In 1992 he gives up 9 earned runs in 12.1 innings for a 6.57 ERA. A 6.57 ERA is not being shelled?

In 1993 he gives up 10 earned runs in 10.2 innings for a 8.44 ERA. A 8.44 ERA is not being shelled?

Total postseason results: 3.80 ERA. Respectable, not great. If you want to remember only his heroics and ignore his failures, then any player one likes is a hall of famer. It is not reasonable to expect others to do this. The Hall of Fame is a career honor, a players entire career counts, not the parts we like. He had 3 terrible postseasons, and 2 excellent ones (1984 and 1991).

Um, he did not pitch in the 1993 postseason. And as I said, he had two bad outings at age 37 in 1992. You cherry pick. Look up the 2000 NLDS, where the Braves got swept by the Cardinals. Greg Maddux ERA? 11.25. Tom Glavine's? 27.00. Should we remember those too?

Looks like the stats listed for 1993 were really his 1992 WS stats. Since one of the arguments for Morris getting into the HoF was his postseason dominance, I think it's fair to look at the series he wasn't so good. He only pitched in 7 postseason series - 3 were very good, 3 were very bad and 1 was mediocre - so it doesn't really show an overall dominance like people try to present when arguing he belongs in the HoF. Maddux and Glavine pitched in a lot more postseason series so a few bad series out of 23 (for Maddux) or 24 (for Glavine) is more like cherry picking than it is when you are talking about almost half of Morris' postseason appearances being bad.

There is no sensible objective standard by which Morris is better. Subjectively people can do whatever they want.

Yep, I’m a moron. He got shelled twice in 1992, I misread the year column. I don’t think it materially changes things, but I was wrong.

2 good post seasons, 2 bad ones

Fair points, but note that unlike Maddux (11-14) and Glavine (14-16), Morris had a winning record postseason (7-4). He averaged more than 7 innings per start, which is more than Maddux and Glavine. He had 5 complete games-- the same as Maddux and Glavine combined in their 47 postseason series. He won complete games of 3-2 and 4-2 in the 1984 World Series, with the AL MVP sitting in his bullpen. And of course the 10 inning 1-0 complete game in 1991. So I don't think it's imagined or overstated to say he took the ball in big games and was more than a bit successful.

Again, does anyone know what the current protocol is for players who were on the 2022 Early Baseball/Golden Era ballots but failed to reach 75% of the vote? Will they be on the 2032 ballot again taking up one of the ten slots or does the committee select 10 new names?

I'm really happy about Oliva. He was a truly great hitter. I think that he's been undervalued due to the fact that he played during the modern deadball era of the early and mid sixties when the game greatly favored pitchers and they were putting up sub 2.00 ERAs. His career was on the short side, but OPS+ of 130 or more for seven straight years is a helluva run. His rookie year was insane, especially considering it happened in 1964.

Serious question: why do you think Allen continues to fall short?

His performance was sustained and undeniable.

Are there perhaps some residual issues related to his surliness/perceived surliness (even if justified)?

Do we have a pre-Schilling Schilling situation?

I think we were all shocked to see him miss the cut again, but don’t think we can lean on any “living candidate” advantage Kaat or Oliva might have had. That did not impede Hodges or Minoso this year.

Was Allen a victim of a loaded ballot? Certainly not. Just trying to understand possible circumstances that led to him missing out for at least another 5 years.

Or perhaps his career unfortunately straddled both the Golden Days and the Modern Baseball era…almost perfectly so.

See for yourself. Very identical, although his pre-70 work was superior.

1963-69
https://stathead.com/baseball/player...to=1969&type=b

1970-77
https://stathead.com/baseball/player...to=1977&type=b

I wonder if he would have been better served on the Modern ballot. One could argue his “greatest contributions”, as per the definition of the eras, was after 1969.

Perhaps Allen's sometimes odd behavior kept him 1 vote shy?

This is a great question…can not find a definitive answer, though.

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fam...ras-committees

I cannot imagine a fresh ballot of 10 new names would be put forth. Think of how watered down the list would be after just a couple cycles. Likewise, because so many years would have passed between now and the next voing period, why would those who just missed out in 2022 drop off altogether?

Still looking to see if I can find more concrete info on this process.

Yes, Morris had great success in a few World Series games and more complete games than Maddux and Glavine in far fewer starts, but the game was changing by the time Maddux and Glavine pitched the bulk of their postseason games and complete games were becoming rarer so it's a tough comparison to make. Maddux and Glavine pitched far more postseason innings and had much lower ERAs in a generally higher scoring period of baseball so even with worse won-loss records, you could still argue they were better postseason pitchers. The question with Morris has always been given his overall career, is a few great postseason games enough to make him a HoFer? I think that's the question people have debated endlessly. Maddux (definitely) and Glavine (probably) would have been HoFers if they never pitched at all in the postseason. I doubt that would have been true for Morris.

Stats are Allen's best friend, so he looks only stronger as we move more towards stats-based analysis. But he was quite moody, lots of controversy surrounded him, and he was not liked. Think Albert Belle. in his prime, Belle was one of the best hitters I've ever seen, but he never came close to the HOF.

I believe it’s a “new list”, but players who remain from the prior election can be included on it. With Allen falling one vote shy two votes running it’d be a bit shocking if he was left off the next go-around.

That’s the only thing I could think of…but how many on that 16 person panel even had direct interactions with Allen to have wanted to hold back their vote for him if they had a negative experience?

From the link you posted, there's this:

Screening Committee - The BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee shall serve as the Screening Committee and consist of 10-12 representatives. The Committee shall identify 10 candidates for the Early Baseball, Golden Days, Modern Baseball and Today's Game Ballot.

So it looks like they will determine a new set of candidates each time, but it sounds like there is no reason someone who was just on the ballot cannot be again. Dick Allen missed by 1 vote a number of years ago, and he missed by 1 vote again this time which was the first time the ballot he was on was reconsidered.

That’s my thinking. For instance, the Modern ballot elected Miller and Simmons the last go round, so they need to add 2 names to the 2023 voting to bring the ballot up to 10 (as per their rules). But do the current 8 drop off? Garvey, Evans, John, Whitaker, et al?

There is a new committee with a new set of candidates each time. Being on the list does not guarantee being on the list the next time. It is possible, but not a given. For example, Doc Adams was on the previous early era ballot and fell just short of election. He wasn't even on the ballot this year.

Yes, it’s a new list and there’s no rule saying prior ballot candidates have to be on the next ballot, and no rule saying they can’t be…it’s just “back into the pool of possible candidates”.

Miñoso and O'Neill
 

Orestes Miñoso and Buck O'Neil, since yesterday members of the Hall of Fame, a good choice, Miñoso should have been included for a long time and also O'Neil, now I show from the 1947 Sports Almanac collection, their cards.

Boyer got off to a late start due to military service which some of these guys never had to do. He could actually field, run, and hit which some of those elected could not really do. That being said, I'm very happy Buck finally got in, and have no bone to pick on any of them. But Boyer belongs in this crew.

He quit on his teams multiple times and has a very poor reputation.

To be honest, his Gold Gloves are a joke. First, nobody really cares about Gold Gloves for a pitcher to begin with. Secondly, one year he won a Gold Glove with a fielding percentage of .826. So, that "Gold Glove defender" botched it nearly 1 of every 5 times he handled a ball defensively. That's mind-bogglingly terrible for an MLB player. Other years weren't a whole lot better.

IMHO, if "he won X Gold Gloves" is among the first things you mention for a pitcher, he's not a HOFer.

Yeah, I remember watching him in 1971 with the Dodgers. Looking back he had some very good stats, but he sure could make you pull your hair out (even though I was only 11). Even a street full of pre-teens could tell he wasn't much of a team guy.

Yup I agree.

Multiple former teammates have disputed that claim and have attested to his being generally well liked in the clubhouse. They realized the treatment he was getting from the press and the fans was more than he deserved or could handle.

For all the talk about Dick Allen quitting on various teams, hard to get along with, etc., I would be okay with him going in. He must have lost whatever chip he was carrying as time went by. He was known after hanging up the spikes as being quite fan friendly. I used to go to a forum back in the early 2000s that had numerous threads detailing how to contact ballplayers including old-timers. That was how I began a lengthy period of correspondence with Tommy Henrich. Well one of the threads listed info for Dick Allen. Many people commented that he happily signed photos, cards, what have you, and mailed them back. At no cost for signing. That says he must have been an okay guy to me.

From Jay Jaffe's write-up on Dick Allen:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2022-gol...te-dick-allen/

"Sabermetrician Don Malcolm called that passage “the absolute nadir of Bill James’ career, a summary statement so blatantly biased that his long-time friend and associate Craig Wright felt compelled to write an essay refuting Bill’s perspective… Everyone knows that Dick Allen was a great hitter; there’s just all that other baggage that they’re afraid to open.” Having opened it, well, it’s not pretty, but by now it’s abundantly clear that it wasn’t all Allen’s baggage to begin with. Wright’s work, which featured interviews with all but one of Allen’s big league managers (the late Dodgers skipper Walter Alston) as well as several teammates, strongly refutes the notion that Allen was a divisive clubhouse presence or a particular problem for his managers aside from his early-career tardiness (and his extreme behavior in 1969). “His teammates always liked him,” said Mauch. “He wasn’t doing anything to hurt [his teammates] play of the game, and he didn’t involve his teammates in his problems. When he was personally rebellious, he didn’t try to bring other players into it.”

Even Skinner and Ozark, the two managers portrayed as the most openly critical of him, told Wright that Allen wasn’t the problem with their teams and that they’d have him back again if given the chance."

Here is a great photo of "Mr. White Sox", Minnie Minoso. That is one sharp-looking uniform he is wearing!

I feel compelled to echo loudly -- someone else wrote this above -- that Bill Dahlen really got screwed in this one. If I were a voter I would have voted for Dahlen, O'Neill, and Minoso... I don't really feel competent to vote either way on Fowler, Redding, or Donaldson. They all seem deserving from what little I know.
Oliva, Kaat and Hodges will not be the worst HOFers. All three bring the median down in terms of on the field performance. As people/ role models they bring the character and role model median up. It will be nice to see beloved figures like Kaat and Oliva inducted while they are still with us and Minoso and O'Neill while their memories are fresh.

I'm right there with you. The Early Baseball ballot is hard to fathom. Redding getting under 3 votes when many experts believe him the best player not in the Hall (and one that we have pretty extensive stats for at this point, and greatly expanded stats since 2006 when he was last considered) is hard to fathom. (I've mentioned elsewhere that I can't fathom voting for Donaldson over Redding, but that is neither here nor there.)

I'm thrilled that Minoso got in, and find with O'Neil getting in, although I hate that the vote was a competition, as the voters could not vote for all the candidates they thought were eligible.

Similarly, I don't understand how you could justify keeping Dick Allen out.

Happy for those who made it in. I don't think any bring down the stature of the Hall (although there are a couple of entries that I'd have been ok with going either way. Glad that Hodges finally gets in, but I'm sentimental for the 1955 Dodgers, and his roll with the 1969 Mets, so not sure if that's all that's driving my feeling on that.