Whitey Herzog and Doug Harvey elected to the Hall

[paul]

Whitey Herzog and Doug Harvey were elected today by the Veterans Committee on managers and umpires. No one was elected by the Veterans Committee on pioneers and executives.

[Rich Klein]

And this is borderline; but should also probably be moved to the cooler talk section as neither are pre-War figures. This is also probably OK in the pre-1980 era part of the board

Regards
Rich

[base_ball]

The chronic Marvin Miller snub is pathetic, though understandable given that the pioneer electing committee is stacked with old-fart management types. When the new wave of management--those who understand Marvin Miller's role in growing the game into a major enterprise--comprises the executive bloc of the committee, Miller will get in. So very, very pathetic.

[Chris-Counts]

Joseph, I completely agree with you. The fact that Bowie Kuhn was previously inducted is a slap in Miller's face. Miller, love him or hate him, was a visionary and a pioneer. Kuhn was merely the stooge of owners at the time when Miller's vision was realized. Miller's exclusion is just more piece of evidence that the Hall of Fame's election process is deeply flawed and riddled with cronyism.

[calvindog]

I agree with the two former posts. How can Marvin Miller's contributions be ignored while that jackass Kuhn resides in the HOF today? I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that Bud Selig will be enshrined before Miller.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

Joseph, I completely agree with you. The fact that Bowie Kuhn was previously inducted is a slap in Miller's face. Miller, love him or hate him, was a visionary and a pioneer. Kuhn was merely the stooge of owners at the time when Miller's vision was realized. Miller's exclusion is just more piece of evidence that the Hall of Fame's election process is deeply flawed and riddled with cronyism.

Which reminds me of a post within the past week on this board that asserted something about the Hall of Fame being the "great keeper of our game." Quite laughable.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

And this is borderline; but should also probably be moved to the cooler talk section as neither are pre-War figures. This is also probably OK in the pre-1980 era part of the board

Regards
Rich

With all due respect Rich, the watercooler section is for minor day to day sports talk, in my not so humble opinion. As we have many board members who are HOF collectors I think this is a great topic for the main board. The scores from yesterdays football, and great plays therein, would be good watercooler talk. When are we doing lunch again?

[triwak]

Agree with the Miller comments above. Also, very pleased about Herzog! Of course I am - I'm from Missouri! And I just picked up Doug Harvey's rookie card picturing him with Smoky Bear. Suweeeet!!!

[Mark]

I don't think that either Kuhn or Miller improved the game, so I don't feel any pathos for the late labor leader.

[bbcard1]

so far as early players...do you guys have anyone you have a soft-spot for...without doing due dilligence, just throwing a couple off the top of my head from reputation, I sort of like Turkey Mike Donlin and Larry Doyle. I think they fit right in with many of the early selections.....an argument could easily be made that after 80 years we have cleared pretty much everyone off the shelf who truly belongs....

[rhettyeakley]

I agree with Mark, neither should be in there. I feel there are too many executives & other behind-the-scenes guys enshrined already. I have always felt the HOF should be largely dedicated to the people actually on the field (players, managers, etc.).

This is a very anticlimactic and unexciting HOF selection. Herzog is VERY borderline in my opinion and probably didn't need to be inducted.
-Rhett

[paul]

I agree with Mark and Rhett. Miller's status shouldn't depend on Kuhn's induction. Kuhn was a mistake and there's no reason to repeat it.

Herzog is very borderline. He was not nearly as bad as the various sub-500 managers who were on the ballot. But he was a mistake. There will be three much better qualified managers on the ballot soon (Larussa, Cox, and Torre), so I don't know what the need was to elect Herzog.

I don't know enough to comment on Doug Harvey's qualifications. But I do know that when the full Hall of Fame membership voted on candidates, he came the closest to election several times -- closer than any player. For a bunch of players to vote for an umpire over their fellow players says a lot to me. So I suspect he was an extraordinary umpire.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Mark

I don't think that either Kuhn or Miller improved the game, so I don't feel any pathos for the late labor leader.

I don't believe Marvin Miller is dead.

[Frank A]

Millers a bum. He should never get in. He is one of the guys that ruined Baseball. And, yes it has been ruined. It is now a game of greed and money. Players have no loyalty except for the mighty doller. Screw Miller!!!!!!!!!!

[Chris-Counts]

How is Marvin Miller responsible for ruining baseball? Hasn't money and greed always been part of the game? (see the Black Sox scandal, the sale of Babe Ruth to the Yankees, infamously cheapskate owners, etc.) I agree there has been a common perception that money and greed have ruined baseball since the beginning of the free agent era in the mid-1970s, but baseball has been a business since the Red Stockings got paid in 1869, and the owners and players have been fighting over money ever since. The biggest difference today is that as a result of a landmark court case (that simply applied widely accepted labor laws to baseball) not only are owners rich, but so are the players ...

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Frank A

Millers a bum. He should never get in. He is one of the guys that ruined Baseball. And, yes it has been ruined. It is now a game of greed and money. Players have no loyalty except for the mighty doller. Screw Miller!!!!!!!!!!

You have no idea what you're talking about. Baseball was ALWAYS a game (really a business) of greed and money. All Miller did was help shift some of that money from the owners to the people doing the actual work (the players.)

Players had no "loyalty" in previous eras. They also had no options back then.


Edited to add: Chris types faster than I do.

[birdman42]

So when does Cecil Travis get in? I think he's in line ahead of Rose.

Bill

[Chris-Counts]

Bill,

I believe you and I are going to be in the minority on this one, but I wholeheartedly endorse Cecil Travis for the Hall of Fame. I'm always amazed to find his cards priced as if they are commons. Although he did play in a hitter's era, he had the third highest batting average ever for a shortstop. The main argument against him is that his career wasn't long enough, but I believe he deserves a pass on the that one since he was busy fighting in the Battle of the Bulge ...

I must admit I'm biased. My uncle played with Travis on a team in Germany during the war, something he is very proud of. They both came from Georgia as well ...

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

so far as early players...do you guys have anyone you have a soft-spot for...without doing due dilligence, just throwing a couple off the top of my head from reputation, I sort of like Turkey Mike Donlin and Larry Doyle. I think they fit right in with many of the early selections.....an argument could easily be made that after 80 years we have cleared pretty much everyone off the shelf who truly belongs....

Turkey Mike was one of the greatest players of his era -- but his various leaves from baseball sort of watered down his claim. Numbers and reputation alone do not save the day. For example, I just read an article from 1913 in which Frank Chance, then-manager of the Yankees noted that the Tigers wanted to trade for Chase. Chance remarked that he insisted upon Ty Cobb and Sam Crawford in exchange; he wouldn't accept just one of the players.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...639C946296D6CF

[barrysloate]

Giving up Cobb and Crawford to get Hal Chase...sounds like the kind of trade the Mets would make.

[howard38]

I agree that Travis should be inducted and I made a post about it on the old board while he was still alive. He lost nearly four full seasons to WW2 and when he returned he was a mere shadow of the player he had been though he was only 31. He went from batting .359 in his final year before the war to being a .250 hitter in 1946 and finished a couple of years later. He nearly had his feet amputated due to frostbite he suffered during the Battle of the Bulge but he never blamed that for his failure to perform when he returned to baseball.

[Misunderestimated]

Herzog's numbers as a manager make him a decent but not great selection. Whether its true or not Herzog also always seemed to be (if you will forgive the expression) "adding more value" than his peers. Or at least that was his reputation. The same goes for LaRussa currently (but not with the A's) and Billy Martin historically. They were/are Managers who won with less talent and more guile. Again, I have no idea if that's really true but that has been their reputation. Yankee Managers like Joe McCarthy, Casey Stengel , Joe Torre had great teams -- or more accurately great groups of individuals -- and managed to get them to win. This is no small feat either especially when the talented players bring all kinds of issues to the table --> see Rodriguez, Alex, Ruth, Babe.

As to Marvin Miller's snub : My understanding of the mission of the HOF would virtually require his induction. Like it or not, his impact on the game has been enormous. Personally I appreciate his work and believe that the management voters on these special committees have really done the Hall of Fame a dis-service by not voting him in while populating the HOF with more owners (Dreyfus, O'Malley etc) and a commissioner who was at best mediocre. The question is becoming which Commissioners should not be in the HOF since every Commissioner up to Kuhn is now inducted. How about Ueberoth (sp), Giamatti, Vincent and (yes) Bud Seelig. My guess is that Selig will ultimately stumble into the Hall as a result of his long tenure in the office and be credited (rightly or wrongly) with the game's growth and prosperity during this time.
The permissive PED "Chicks Dig the Long Ball" culture of the late 90's and early 00's will keep a lot of players out of the HOF, but not Bud.

Hard to comment inteligently on the umpire selection. Froemming's reputation was great and given the current Umpires in the HOF, he umpired during a period of time that is insufficiently represented (by umpires). If he was in fact the best then he belongs unless we want to toss out some -- or all -- of the Umps currently enshrined. Based on this rationale Hank O'Day warrants induction too, but his legacy is somewhat tainted by his call on 9/23/1908 (Merkle out).

Given the politics of the voting (ie who the actual voters are), I was most surprised that Bill White was not chosen. He was a former player (good not great) who became the first minority League President (NL 1989-94) and he is still alive to enjoy his induction. When I was trying to figure out which of the candidates were most likely to gain induction from this group for purposes of my HOF collection, I thought that White and Froemming were the only surefire candidates.

[paul]

I was guessing Herzog, and picked up his 57 Topps, 60 Leaf, and 62 Topps for about 4 or 5 dollars each. I suspect they are still available for about the same price, I can't really say it was a brilliant move on my part.

[tbob]

Bowie Kuhn in the Hall and Turkey Mike Donlin not in is an example of just how flawed the Hall of Fame voting and admission procedures really are.
Donlin should be in, Kuhn and Selig should be in only if a special "Wing of Infamy" is created.

[Misunderestimated]

Donlin may be better than Kuhn or Selig as a HOFer but I don't think his "case" is as strong as some of the other early players on the outside -- Bill Dahlen and Deacon White head the list for me with Bob Caruthers and Harry Stovey close behind.