Hall of Fame Announces "Old Timers" Ballot

[Exhibitman]

Personally, I'd like to see more recognition for non-players who contribute to the game. Not just broadcasters and managers. For example, Marvin Miller absolutely is integral to the story of the game and should be installed in the HOF ASAP.

I'd also like to see Sy Berger and Jefferson Burdick in there!

[BearBailey]

I would think selig would be a lock, can't imagine anyone else getting close?

[dealme]

I've never understood why the HOF and its voters seem to feel a need to vote people in every year. If there wasn't an induction every year, it would be more of an event in the years that there was.

I am of the opinion that the Hall is watered down as it is, and I don't grasp the concept that because a candidate only has X years left on the ballot, he's somehow more worthy of inclusion. In my opinion, Raines falls into this category. He was certainly a good ballplayer, but is he now more worthy of induction simply because he's about to drop off of the ballot? I also thought that Ron Santo's induction was a slap in the face (to Santo). It's as if the voters felt that since he had passed, he somehow became more worthy of induction.

I think that if there is any question as to whether a player should be in the Hall (be it his on-field performance, PEDs, criminal record, etc.), then he probably shouldn't be in the Hall. The only way this group should get into the Hall is the same way that most of us do: buy a ticket.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by dealme

I've never understood why the HOF and its voters seem to feel a need to vote people in every year. If there wasn't an induction every year, it would be more of an event in the years that there was.

I am of the opinion that the Hall is watered down as it is, and I don't grasp the concept that because a candidate only has X years left on the ballot, he's somehow more worthy of inclusion. In my opinion, Raines falls into this category. He was certainly a good ballplayer, but is he now more worthy of induction simply because he's about to drop off of the ballot? I also thought that Ron Santo's induction was a slap in the face (to Santo). It's as if the voters felt that since he had passed, he somehow became more worthy of induction.

I think that if there is any question as to whether a player should be in the Hall (be it his on-field performance, PEDs, criminal record, etc.), then he probably shouldn't be in the Hall. The only way this group should get into the Hall is the same way that most of us do: buy a ticket.

Santo's induction was a sad moment for me because, like you say, he apparently got more of a nod after death and nobody would have been more grateful than Ron to have been part of that celebration. Selig is knocked out for me based on his poor handling of ped's early on and also not fond of using the public to subsidize stadiums that no longer have affordable ticket pricing. However, he's been much better than most of his predecessors. The players on this ballet are in no way contenders in my opinion. I would like to see the HOF get back on a more elite track. *I'm never fond of armchair generals talking to me about their opinion of war/combat as there is only one way to truly have an opinion on it. Not that sports is anything comparable, but I do rely on the veterans committee to guide my opinion since I've never been more than a baseball spectator.

[bigtrain]

Originally Posted by dealme

I've never understood why the HOF and its voters seem to feel a need to vote people in every year. If there wasn't an induction every year, it would be more of an event in the years that there was.

I think that what most people don't realize is that while the Hall of Fame is a national institution, it is run by local people. Cooperstown is mostly small businesses that make all their money in about four months of the year. Induction is a very big deal to the locals. A year without a player being inducted is bad for the local economy. So while there have been years without inductions, I think the rules have been changed to make that less likely.

[scotgreb]

Larry - I don't believe it has been announced yet . . .

The Today’s Game Era ballot was determined this fall by the Historical Overview Committee, comprised of 11 veteran historians: Bob Elliott (Toronto Sun); Jim Henneman (formerly Baltimore Sun); Rick Hummel (St. Louis Post-Dispatch); Steve Hirdt (Elias Sports Bureau); Bill Madden (formerly New York Daily News); Jack O’Connell (BBWAA); Jim Reeves (formerly Fort Worth Star-Telegram); Tracy Ringolsby (MLB.com); Glenn Schwarz (formerly San Francisco Chronicle); Dave van Dyck (Chicago Tribune); and Mark Whicker (Los Angeles News Group).

The 16-member Hall of Fame Board-appointed electorate charged with the review of the Today’s Game Era ballot will be announced later this fall. The Today’s Game Era electorate will meet to discuss and review the candidacies of the 10 finalists as part of Baseball’s Winter Meetings, Dec. 4-5 in the Washington, D.C. area.

[dealme]

Originally Posted by bigtrain

I think that what most people don't realize is that while the Hall of Fame is a national institution, it is run by local people. Cooperstown is mostly small businesses that make all their money in about four months of the year. Induction is a very big deal to the locals. A year without a player being inducted is bad for the local economy. So while there have been years without inductions, I think the rules have been changed to make that less likely.

This is certainly an angle I hadn't really considered in my first post. The handful of times I've been to Cooperstown were not during induction weekend, and probably would be considered "off" times (although they were during the baseball season). I didn't think about economic impact. It would be interesting to look at sales numbers for induction years versus years without an induction. All of that being said, it seems that if people are being inducted during a given year because an induction is good for the local economy, then it's a bit of the tail wagging the dog.

Cheers,
Mark

[JollyElm]

God, if that's the list of potential candidates, why don't they just enshrine everybody who has ever played the game and just be done with it.

[Jim65]

The only player I would consider is Belle, personality aside, he was a better player than some already there like Andre Dawson and Jim Rice.

Steinbrenner was a criminal, twice suspended by MLB, if he ever makes it, it would be a friggin joke.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Personally, I'd like to see more recognition for non-players who contribute to the game. Not just broadcasters and managers. For example, Marvin Miller absolutely is integral to the story of the game and should be installed in the HOF ASAP.

I'd also like to see Sy Berger and Jefferson Burdick in there!

Berger I could get behind. Burdick not so much, but there's no way in hell I'm praising the guy responsible for the $400 box seat.

[slidekellyslide]

The hall of fame is not watered down in my opinion. They've been playing major league ball for 147 years now and 18,918 men have played in the major leagues. There are only 217 major leaguers in the hall of fame. One out of 87.

It's really hard to get into the major leagues. It's really hard to succeed in the major leagues, and it's really, really hard to excel over a career in the major leagues. When people say players like Tim Raines do not belong in the hall of fame it boggles my mind.

[KingFisk]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

The hall of fame is not watered down in my opinion. They've been playing major league ball for 147 years now and 18,918 men have played in the major leagues. There are only 217 major leaguers in the hall of fame. One out of 87.

It's really hard to get into the major leagues. It's really hard to succeed in the major leagues, and it's really, really hard to excel over a career in the major leagues. When people say players like Tim Raines do not belong in the hall of fame it boggles my mind.

Agreed, with a caveat. It's safe to say the number of inductees is fine. It's just that a bunch of guys who are in shouldn't be, and a bunch of guys that should be aren't in.

[z28jd]

Would never vote in Selig or Steinbrenner. Selig was the head of baseball during the steroid era when everyone knew what was going on and he let it go, then took zero blame for it. The guy in charge of the players who don't get in because of steroids is supposed to be rewarded for letting it happen? Hell no. He made a fortune off those players because he let it go as long as possible.

Steinbrenner shouldn't even be on the ballot. He was suspended from baseball for two years in 1974. He was banned permanently in 1990. He was also an owner during the steroid era, who happily paid steroid users extra money for their performance.

When the owners took none of the blame for that era, that was a cowardly move on their part. Everyone outside of baseball knew what was going on, do you really think any of the owners had no idea? They knew, they paid the players extra and they made a ton extra for themselves, then they threw the players under the bus and history has been way too kind to them.

It would be ridiculous to put the leader of the steroid era and an owner from that era with a two-year suspension and permanent ban on his record, in the Hall of Fame. It would make a mockery of common sense.

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Would never vote in Selig or Steinbrenner. Selig was the head of baseball during the steroid era when everyone knew what was going on and he let it go, then took zero blame for it. The guy in charge of the players who don't get in because of steroids is supposed to be rewarded for letting it happen? Hell no. He made a fortune off those players because he let it go as long as possible.

Steinbrenner shouldn't even be on the ballot. He was suspended from baseball for two years in 1974. He was banned permanently in 1990. He was also an owner during the steroid era, who happily paid steroid users extra money for their performance.

When the owners took none of the blame for that era, that was a cowardly move on their part. Everyone outside of baseball knew what was going on, do you really think any of the owners had no idea? They knew, they paid the players extra and they made a ton extra for themselves, then they threw the players under the bus and history has been way too kind to them.

It would be ridiculous to put the leader of the steroid era and an owner from that era with a two-year suspension and permanent ban on his record, in the Hall of Fame. It would make a mockery of common sense.

Spot on.

[Tabe]

Albert Belle belongs in. .295/40/130 - that's Albert every 162 games. That's almost on the level of Ruth. He played the same number of seasons as Kirby Puckett and was still an excellent hitter when he retired due to injury. The Hall says you gotta have 10 years to qualify. Albert has that. His numbers are certainly good enough. He belongs.

[Louieman]

Unequivocally and unabashedly NO for Selig. To me there's nothing admirable or impressive about a guy who makes a bunch of rich guys richer. And while he spent that time doing that, steroids run through the sport like wildfire, a scrimmage now affects the world series, the game doesn't modernize one bit, doesn't carve out a national market, and worst of all Tim McCarver's "announcing skills" become hall of fame worthy on his watch. And as for the A's stadium debacle...cue the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark while Bud tells you he's got "top men" working on it..."top....men"

[tschock]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Would never vote in Selig or Steinbrenner. Selig was the head of baseball during the steroid era when everyone knew what was going on and he let it go, then took zero blame for it. The guy in charge of the players who don't get in because of steroids is supposed to be rewarded for letting it happen? Hell no. He made a fortune off those players because he let it go as long as possible.

Steinbrenner shouldn't even be on the ballot. He was suspended from baseball for two years in 1974. He was banned permanently in 1990. He was also an owner during the steroid era, who happily paid steroid users extra money for their performance.

When the owners took none of the blame for that era, that was a cowardly move on their part. Everyone outside of baseball knew what was going on, do you really think any of the owners had no idea? They knew, they paid the players extra and they made a ton extra for themselves, then they threw the players under the bus and history has been way too kind to them.

It would be ridiculous to put the leader of the steroid era and an owner from that era with a two-year suspension and permanent ban on his record, in the Hall of Fame. It would make a mockery of common sense.

This.

[pclpads]

Bud Lite? That's a joke, right?

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by KingFisk

Agreed, with a caveat. It's safe to say the number of inductees is fine. It's just that a bunch of guys who are in shouldn't be, and a bunch of guys that should be aren't in.

I won't argue that. The Veterans Committee is at fault for most of that.