The best of the Veteran's Committee

[rats60]

SS- Arky Vaughan - 2nd best SS of all time OPS+ 136
P- Eddie Plank- only modern era 300 game winner not elected by BBWA. Herb Pennock is worthy of their vote, but not Plank?
1B- Johnny Mize - top 20 OPS, OPS+ not worthy of BBWA vote? Hank Greenburg gets in, but Mize doesn't when he loses 3 prime years to the war too?
These are the only 3 no brainer HOFers missed by the BBWA in my opinion. The rest of my team
C- Lombardi- Best player on 1940 WCs 1 MVP, 2 time batting champ. OPS+ 126=Johnny Bench
2B- Bill Mazeroski- "Bill Mazeroski's defensive statistics are probably the most impressive of any player at any position"- Bill James. If I'm putting an unworthy player in, at least he's the best defensively.
3B- Baker- star of Baseball's First Dynasty along with Eddie Collins 4 time HR champ, 2 time RBI champ, clutch WS performer. OPS+ 135=George Brett
OF- Edd Roush- Best player on 1919 WCs, 2 time batting champ, great defensive CF, known as the Reds best player at the time and invited to throw our 1st pitch at Crosley Field's last game.
OF- Goslin- key player on 1924 WS champs getting Walter Johnson his only WC. Led league in Batting once, RBIs once.
OF- Crawford- All time leader in triples, led league in RBIs 3 times, HRs twice. OPS+ 144

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by rats60

Arky Vaughan - 2nd best SS of all time
Eddie Plank- only modern era 300 game winner not elected by BBWA. Herb Pennock is worthy of their vote, but not Plank?
Johnny Mize - top 20 OPS, OPS+ not worthy of BBWA vote? Hank Greenburg gets in, but Mize doesn't when he loses 3 prime years to the war too?

I'll have to think about the rest, but those are the only 3 that are no doubt HOFers to me.

The reason Plank wasn't on my list is because he was put in by the "Old Timers" Committee not the Veteran's Committee. Yet I guess I could have lumped the two together, but I hear the Veteran's committee get more flack for bad picks.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The reason Plank wasn't on my list is because he was put in by the "Old Timers" Committee not the Veteran's Committee. Yet I guess I could have lumped the two together, but I hear the Veteran's committee get more flack for bad picks.

I really think the problem started in 1946 when they started putting in 20th century players in because the writers weren't voting them in. 11 players in 1946, many who were really questionable, the committee became what it is today.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by rats60

I really think the problem started in 1946 when they started putting in 20th century players in because the writers weren't voting them in. 11 players in 1946, many who were really questionable, the committee became what it is today.

The history of the 1945 and 1946 Old Timer's Committee selections is pretty interesting. Back then, the BBWAA could vote for anyone who had played after 1900 so long as they hadn't played the year before the election. This created a huge glut of players and no one could get the required number of votes. The Old Timer's Committee selections were a direct response to the BBWAA's failure to elect anyone and an attempt by the HOF to unclog the backlog of eligible candidates so that someone might actually have a chance to receive 75% of the vote in later BBWAA elections. In fact, in 1945, the Committee was instructed by the HOF to elect at least 10 players. In 1946, after the BBWAA had again failed to elect anyone (due to a screwy two-step election process which practically ensured no one would be elected), the Committee was again instructed to step in. In large part this was due to fears that older qualified candidates would be overlooked by younger BBWAA voters who didn't have much information about them and who would therefore be hesitant to vote for them.

In terms of who it elected, the Old Timer's Committee appears to have focused on the following criteria: 1) players who had received the most popular support from the writers in the 1945 and 1946 BBWAA votes; 2) players who remained in the game as coaches and managers after their playing days ended; 3) players who played positions that had not yet been filled in the HOF (C, 3B and LF in 1945 and LHP in 1946); 4) key players from powerhouse teams like the old Orioles and the Chicago teams; 5) players who had accomplished great single season feats like Chesbro's 41 win season, Duffy's .438 batting average and Waddell's strikeout record; and 6) players associated in championship lore, i.e., Tinker to Evers to Chance and the "Heavenly Twins" of Duffy and McCarthy.

I think "the problem" is that we look at the HOF eligibility differently now than the Committee did then. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I am saying that it is hard to apply current HOF criteria to elections that occurred nearly 70 years ago based on different conditions and considerations. The attempted translation just doesn't work very well.