Defense of all ten in. 1. Simmons was tough and I was a fan back then. Stats are good enough . 2. Miller. Injustice it took this long. Put in Curt Flood too. 3. Evans great arm on iconic team. 4. Parker - the Cobra was a force to be reckoned with. 5. Garvey - LA career plus San Diego leadership and heroics? No doubt. 6. Lou. If Trammel is in....and those '84 Tigers started 35 - 5 and dominated. Strong up the middle. 7. Murphy great on bad TBS teams. Come on! He's in for that alone plus two MVP's. 8. Tommy John - pioneers, like Minnie Minoso coming up, should be given special consideration. TJ is a unique pioneer in baseball and won 100+ after the Jobe experiment. 9. Read player quotes on Munson on Munson HOF site. 10. Mattingly - as much for the way he carried himself plus stats and production.
First, Posnanski improved a lot as a writer while in KC. Cheesy many times but after years wrote an article about Cleveland just before the avalanche of Cleveland lovers (LBJ 2 era) kicked in. Total respect as a writer for Pos after that article.
Now, Ted Simmons is a rare athlete who got Championship Sandwiched effectively. Championship Sandwiched is when an athlete in a team sport joins just after their new team wins it all and leaves just before they also win a championship but, during that athlete's time there, their team does not win it all.
Don Mattingly got "effectively" Championship Sandwiched". Called up after World Series loss in 1981 and retired in 1995 - the year before the Yankees won their first of 4 out of 5 with no World Series appearances in that great 15 year career. Not fair in the Yankee universe.
I cannot imagine this ever happening to Thurman Munson. First, he would never be traded. Second, just no.
Simmons over Munson for HOF? Stat jerk all you want. No.
Only pure Championship Sandwich I know of, and have not come close to doing the due diligence on this, is Mike Woodson at Indiana who played four years between Hoosiers' 1976 and 1981 banner seasons. Pos, help with this?
And, Simmons' sandwich came two years after leaving when the Cards beat Simmons new team he was traded to (Brewers) in the World Series.
*****
Most important, who would it hurt to put all ten in? I would not argue against any of them.
In HOF voting, sometimes players are compared. The above is one point - championships won among catchers in this era. Unless an A's catcher won three, no one won more than Thurman from this era. J
You seem to indicate that the HOF is too watered down. Being open to 20 years of consistently good service in MLB on a team that is the only one in its division's history to never have a streak of division titles or playoff appearances, makes Baines vote justified. And who or what does this hurt?
Just judging from the radio this morning and some articles online, this committee selection registers as non-news. Nobody is talking about it. I'm not sure there'd be more attention paid if Whitaker or Evans took the place of Simmons, but if all three of them were elected, maybe baseball would get some positive press. As it stands, this selection is completely forgettable.
Hey Joe! Do you think public opinion matters to the voters? If the public is starting to rally around Sweet Lou, will that influence (potentially) the voters?
I keep looking at these guys like Whitaker and Simmons who never put up a 7 WAR season, and wonder if I should appreciate Marcus Semien's big 8.1 WAR more. :)
I'm selfishly happy Ted Simmons was elected because this inevitably helps Joe Mauer's candidacy. Right now Mauer is the only catcher with 50 WAR not in the hall.
I think Mauer has a strong Hall of Fame case ... but alas, I doubt Simmons' election will help him much. There really isn't much carryover from these veterans' committees to the BBWAA voting.
Happy for Marvin Miller and Ted Simmons. Those are two players that I felt were deserving of getting in.
I would have liked to have seen Lou Whitaker get in, but I think the fact he and Dwight Evans got more than three votes on their first try on the committee may be a promising sign. I highly doubt that they’d be removed from the ballot in three years when the committee next meets, and perhaps the electorate would have changed. At least it’s better than Tommy John who still can’t get more than three votes.
I think both Whitaker and Simmons were much better players than Baines. Whitaker and Simmons were compilers in that they both had numerous (12+) very good seasons without any huge season. But Whitaker had a pretty good peak, too, with 6.8 and 6.7 WAR seasons. Simmons topped out at 5.5, but the WAR standard for catchers is somewhat lower, I think.
I've changed my tune on Whitaker and would support his election now. Maybe the next Vet's Committee will have Trammell or Morris or some other men associated with his era of the Tigers.
It's hard to believe that Harold Baines never had a single season of 5+ WAR . Not one. He only had one above 4. Simmons, on the other hand, was quite a bit more productive. For a DH/OF to get in with no real peak is still pretty surprising.
For those looking ahead to next year... the Golden Days (1950-1969) and Early Baseball (1887-1949) committees are voting. The last Golden Days results were in 2014:
I know von der Ahe only from the book The Summer of Beer and Whiskey. It's a really fun book about the American Association and their 1883 pennant race. I don't know much about the others, except that Bill Dahlen has a really high career WAR. I thought Wes Ferrell was already in, but I guess that's a different Ferrell. :)
What are the arguments against Thurmon Munson? He was as good or better than Simmons, plus he was a leader of championship teams and had recognition during his career (an MVP, Golden Gloves, ROY, etc.). His career was short, but pretty accomplished all things considered. And it's not as though his career brevity was due to decline or negative off-field issues or something. I have trouble understanding their rationale for Simmons over Munson.
Simmons had more WAR than Munson through age 32. It is tragic Munson's career was short, but Simmons was as good or better through that part of his career, then definitely needed the 2200+ extra PAs and the counting numbers that came with it to barely get over the top.
Was Simmons a bad defensive catcher? I look at what may be his best offensive seasons, 1975 (.332/.396/.491) and 1977 (.318/.408/.500), and those seem superior to anything Munson did offensively (Munson's two best were .301/.362/.487 in '73 and .318/.366/.429 in '75). But Munson's rWAR in those two seasons was 7.2 and 6.6 respectively, while Simmons' were 4.9 and 5.2. By rWAR, it's not even close that Munson was way better.
Fangraphs is closer - 6.6 and 5.6 for Munson, 5.7 and 5.7 for Simmons.
It probably had something to do with Simmons' much higher HR and RBI numbers. Even if you cut off Simmons' career after age 32, he leads Munson in HR 209-113 and RBI 1087-701. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm sure the players (at least) look at the career BA/HR/RBI numbers. Munson edges Simmons .292-.285 in BA.
I think Whitey had his own issues with Simmons not related to baseball. Simmons was a known hippie weirdo and Whitey was old-school. Personality clashes happen.
Simmons wouldn't go to first when Whitey asked him to so they could get better defense behind the plate. So the main issue was definitely related to baseball.
Whitey wasn't smart enough to realize that Simmons was just fine behind the plate. Simmons didn't want to move, Whitey wanted him to, so again I say: it was a personality clash.
Well... Simmons' fielding numbers on B-R are consistently below average. I don't think they're bad enough to require him to move to another position, though.
The trade that Herzog made is worth looking at, I think. Simmons, Fingers, and P. Vukovich for David Green, Dave LaPoint, Sixto Lezcano and Lary Sorensen. That looks like a ripoff in favor of the Brewers, but Green was a hotshot prospect, and Lezcano looks like a player who might be about to become a star. So reason Simmons left *may* be because Herzog really liked the potential of the players the Brewers offered. I don't know. Does anyone remember anything about this blockbuster trade? (Any trade with two Hall of Famers in or near their prime is a blockbuster, right?)
How about this...Bill James’s predictions on page 365 of Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame continue to get more accurate! I’m sure you have the book Joe. Though the years are off...who cares on that....Can you believe how great his prognostication was?
My theory about Whitaker is that people don't appreciate that being able to do everything well is both extraordinary and as valuable as being able to do one or two things very well. If he had had about 15 more base hits a year while making 15 fewer plays in the field, he'd have been a .300 hitter and would likely have had much more support - and would have been almost exactly as valuable to his team. Being able to get on base, hit with power, run and play defense is a rare combination. It's a shame that he doesn't get recognition for that.
bWAR is a great tool..but it's not the only tool. WAR has Buddy Bell ranked ahead of Yogi Berra, Willie McCovey, and Ichiro which doesn't seem quite right, lol.
The 16-person Modern Baseball Era Committee consisted of Hall of Famers George Brett, Rod Carew, Dennis Eckersley, Eddie Murray, Ozzie Smith, Robin Yount; major league executives Sandy Alderson, Dave Dombrowski, David Glass, Walt Jocketty, Doug Melvin, Terry Ryan; and media members/baseball historians Bill Center, Steve Hirdt, Jack O'Connell and Tracy Ringolsby.
I'm glad Simmons got in, glad Whitaker didn't get in, not overjoyed that Miller got in, but at least we don't have to read about him every year now :). Glad Evans, Parker, Garvey got decent support.
Simmons was mostly before my time, so what I'm wondering is: was he considered a Hall of Famer when he played?
That's a definite no. Never once heard him talked about as a Hall of Famer. And he becomes the first player to be voted into the Hall of Fame who fell off the BBWAA ballot after just one year.
I think it was a pretty good vote for Parker, actually. He got seven votes, which is more than he got in 2018. My guess about Garvey is that he has a handful of passionate fans on these committees, but they'll never get the 12 votes needed.
I know what you mean. Miller's election is bittersweet because it's a reminder that they didn't vote him in while he was a live. And Simmons' election, while deserving, is odd because he was not the best player on this ballot and it isn't clear why a consensus built around him and none of the others.
Dale Murphy, Tommy John, Munson and Mattingly received three votes or fewer...do you think we will see them put on ballots again? Or can we move forward focusing on better options like say Grich, Nettles, and Tiant?
Grich is a better option than Murphy??? Not by a long shot. I don't think he (Grich) has much of a chance, anyway, considering he didn't get to 2000 hits.
There's a chance they will fall off the ballot, yes. But it's not automatic. ... And Tiant was one of two players dropped from this ballot this year. He was on the Modern Ballot in 2018.
Do they deliberate together and try to come to a consensus? Just by looking at the numbers, and how thinly the votes were spread, seems like that was the reason why only 2 got in.
Also, great for Miller, though I read your piece about him not wanting in. I think I heard the quote from you something like someone should be in the HOF if you can’t tell the story of baseball without them. Miller applies.
They do deliberate in one room. I'm not sure that's the best way to elect Hall of Famers. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's absolutely NOT the best way to elect Hall of Famers. But this is how it goes and has gone for decades now. From what I can tell, someone must have done a great job presenting Ted Simmons case. That's good -- Simmons' has a good Hall of Fame case. But it seems to me the voting is skewed by how strong a case is made for the player in the room.
Is it possible that everyone just assumed that Whitaker would make it in, that no one made an impassioned plea to build a consensus? Lou Whitaker, the invisible man.
Whitaker should definitely be in. I’d vote for Murphy as well. One of if not most dominant players of the early 80’s. If Baines is in then in reality most of this years candidates should be in. It really weakens the Hall process in my opinion
Yeah, I think Baines will be seen more as a fluke than a precedent. There are so many non-Hall of Famers who were better than Baines that they could never catch up, to be honest.
Baines seems like a great guy and had a nice career. Frankly, I'd rather see him in the HOF than the PED guys. However, voting Baines in ahead of (or instead of) many other players who were clearly much more qualified makes his election a bit...unusual.
Ahhhh, yes. Invitro. Contra-opinions to the bitter end. He was the second best second baseman in all of MLB during the 80's But if you don't think he was a great player, there's no sense trying to convince you.
There are plenty of people who think he was never a great player, including the VC, an author on Bill James' website, Bill James, and the WAR people. It's not really a minority view.
I'm curious: do you think Trammell was better than Whitaker? If so, do you think Tram should've been elected? I go back and forth on Trammell/Whitaker (and, along with Trammell, his close comp Barry Larkin). Some players are pretty easy to tell but some are in that gray area...
I think Trammell was a bit better than Whitaker, yes. I'm happy Trammell is in. I actually wouldn't mind Whitaker being in, despite what I've been saying about him. He was certainly very good for a very, very long time.
I'm with Joe in that I'm a "Big Hall" guy, so I think having these borderline guys in is generally a good thing...even if they weren't truly elite players.
Not sure about "want," but he had Whitaker ranked as the 13th best second baseman in MLB history in the NBJHBA. Everyone ahead of him is in the Hall except Grich (12th), and the next three players on the list are in the Hall. Of course, those lists are twenty years old and his opinions could have changed since then.
I admit: I thought he was the frontrunner too. I guess there are some people who are not convinced -- I was surprised how little support he got. These committees are made up of people with many divergent opinions about baseball.
I was actually pleasantly surprised Dewey got as much support as he did. I think this was a great vote for him and potentially a great momentum boost for him in a couple of years. Simmons was the big winner, obviously. But I think Dewey was a pretty big winner himself.
Because they very much want to limit the number of players who get in. It's interesting: I'm not sure that people who are running the Hall are as concerned by WHO gets into the Hall of Fame as they are at keeping that number lower.
I don't think it's good or bad news, to be honest. It seems like each year, the committee (which changes) works with the ballot they have. I don't think last year's election of Harold Baines had any impact on this year's election as it turns out.
Are you wanting people to complain about the BBWAA process with the HOF but are deleting posts?
Defense of all ten in. 1. Simmons was tough and I was a fan back then. Stats are good enough . 2. Miller. Injustice it took this long. Put in Curt Flood too. 3. Evans great arm on iconic team. 4. Parker - the Cobra was a force to be reckoned with. 5. Garvey - LA career plus San Diego leadership and heroics? No doubt. 6. Lou. If Trammel is in....and those '84 Tigers started 35 - 5 and dominated. Strong up the middle. 7. Murphy great on bad TBS teams. Come on! He's in for that alone plus two MVP's. 8. Tommy John - pioneers, like Minnie Minoso coming up, should be given special consideration. TJ is a unique pioneer in baseball and won 100+ after the Jobe experiment. 9. Read player quotes on Munson on Munson HOF site. 10. Mattingly - as much for the way he carried himself plus stats and production.
First, Posnanski improved a lot as a writer while in KC. Cheesy many times but after years wrote an article about Cleveland just before the avalanche of Cleveland lovers (LBJ 2 era) kicked in. Total respect as a writer for Pos after that article.
Now, Ted Simmons is a rare athlete who got Championship Sandwiched effectively. Championship Sandwiched is when an athlete in a team sport joins just after their new team wins it all and leaves just before they also win a championship but, during that athlete's time there, their team does not win it all.
Don Mattingly got "effectively" Championship Sandwiched". Called up after World Series loss in 1981 and retired in 1995 - the year before the Yankees won their first of 4 out of 5 with no World Series appearances in that great 15 year career. Not fair in the Yankee universe.
I cannot imagine this ever happening to Thurman Munson. First, he would never be traded. Second, just no.
Simmons over Munson for HOF? Stat jerk all you want. No.
Only pure Championship Sandwich I know of, and have not come close to doing the due diligence on this, is Mike Woodson at Indiana who played four years between Hoosiers' 1976 and 1981 banner seasons. Pos, help with this?
And, Simmons' sandwich came two years after leaving when the Cards beat Simmons new team he was traded to (Brewers) in the World Series.
*****
Most important, who would it hurt to put all ten in? I would not argue against any of them.
HUH?
In HOF voting, sometimes players are compared. The above is one point - championships won among catchers in this era. Unless an A's catcher won three, no one won more than Thurman from this era. J
You seem to indicate that the HOF is too watered down. Being open to 20 years of consistently good service in MLB on a team that is the only one in its division's history to never have a streak of division titles or playoff appearances, makes Baines vote justified. And who or what does this hurt?
I didn't know I was on the voting committee?
Just judging from the radio this morning and some articles online, this committee selection registers as non-news. Nobody is talking about it. I'm not sure there'd be more attention paid if Whitaker or Evans took the place of Simmons, but if all three of them were elected, maybe baseball would get some positive press. As it stands, this selection is completely forgettable.
Hey Joe! Do you think public opinion matters to the voters? If the public is starting to rally around Sweet Lou, will that influence (potentially) the voters?
I keep looking at these guys like Whitaker and Simmons who never put up a 7 WAR season, and wonder if I should appreciate Marcus Semien's big 8.1 WAR more. :)
I'm selfishly happy Ted Simmons was elected because this inevitably helps Joe Mauer's candidacy. Right now Mauer is the only catcher with 50 WAR not in the hall.
I think Mauer has a strong Hall of Fame case ... but alas, I doubt Simmons' election will help him much. There really isn't much carryover from these veterans' committees to the BBWAA voting.
Happy for Marvin Miller and Ted Simmons. Those are two players that I felt were deserving of getting in.
I would have liked to have seen Lou Whitaker get in, but I think the fact he and Dwight Evans got more than three votes on their first try on the committee may be a promising sign. I highly doubt that they’d be removed from the ballot in three years when the committee next meets, and perhaps the electorate would have changed. At least it’s better than Tommy John who still can’t get more than three votes.
Any and all of those guys would be worthy Hall of Famers. Celebrate for the ones who got in and agitate for the rest.
Ever since Baines got elected, I'm starting to rethink everything. Is Whitaker just a compiler without much of a peak like Baines was? Was Simmons?
I think both Whitaker and Simmons were much better players than Baines. Whitaker and Simmons were compilers in that they both had numerous (12+) very good seasons without any huge season. But Whitaker had a pretty good peak, too, with 6.8 and 6.7 WAR seasons. Simmons topped out at 5.5, but the WAR standard for catchers is somewhat lower, I think.
I've changed my tune on Whitaker and would support his election now. Maybe the next Vet's Committee will have Trammell or Morris or some other men associated with his era of the Tigers.
It's hard to believe that Harold Baines never had a single season of 5+ WAR . Not one. He only had one above 4. Simmons, on the other hand, was quite a bit more productive. For a DH/OF to get in with no real peak is still pretty surprising.
Congrats to both, but the lack of votes for Dewey and Lou is depressing.
For those looking ahead to next year... the Golden Days (1950-1969) and Early Baseball (1887-1949) committees are voting. The last Golden Days results were in 2014:
Candidate Votes Percentage
Dick Allen 11 68.8%
Tony Oliva 11 68.8%
Jim Kaat 10 62.5%
Maury Wills 9 56.3%
Minnie Minoso 8 50%
Ken Boyer 3 or fewer
Gil Hodges 3 or fewer
Bob Howsam 3 or fewer
Billy Pierce 3 or fewer
Luis Tiant 3 or fewer
And the last Early Baseball vote was in 2016:
Candidate Category Votes Percent
Doc Adams Pioneer 10 62.5%
Bill Dahlen Player 8 50%
Harry Stovey Player 8 50%
Sam Breadon Executive < 4 < 25%
Wes Ferrell Player < 4 < 25%
August Herrmann Executive < 4 < 25%
Marty Marion Player < 4 < 25%
Frank McCormick Player < 4 < 25%
Chris von der Ahe Executive < 4 < 25%
Bucky Walters Player < 4 < 25%
And any and all of THOSE guys would be worthy Hall of Famers as well. Except maybe for Chris von der Ahe.
I know von der Ahe only from the book The Summer of Beer and Whiskey. It's a really fun book about the American Association and their 1883 pennant race. I don't know much about the others, except that Bill Dahlen has a really high career WAR. I thought Wes Ferrell was already in, but I guess that's a different Ferrell. :)
What are the arguments against Thurmon Munson? He was as good or better than Simmons, plus he was a leader of championship teams and had recognition during his career (an MVP, Golden Gloves, ROY, etc.). His career was short, but pretty accomplished all things considered. And it's not as though his career brevity was due to decline or negative off-field issues or something. I have trouble understanding their rationale for Simmons over Munson.
Simmons had more WAR than Munson through age 32. It is tragic Munson's career was short, but Simmons was as good or better through that part of his career, then definitely needed the 2200+ extra PAs and the counting numbers that came with it to barely get over the top.
Was Simmons a bad defensive catcher? I look at what may be his best offensive seasons, 1975 (.332/.396/.491) and 1977 (.318/.408/.500), and those seem superior to anything Munson did offensively (Munson's two best were .301/.362/.487 in '73 and .318/.366/.429 in '75). But Munson's rWAR in those two seasons was 7.2 and 6.6 respectively, while Simmons' were 4.9 and 5.2. By rWAR, it's not even close that Munson was way better.
Fangraphs is closer - 6.6 and 5.6 for Munson, 5.7 and 5.7 for Simmons.
Yes.
It probably had something to do with Simmons' much higher HR and RBI numbers. Even if you cut off Simmons' career after age 32, he leads Munson in HR 209-113 and RBI 1087-701. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm sure the players (at least) look at the career BA/HR/RBI numbers. Munson edges Simmons .292-.285 in BA.
Yes. Simmons was so great that Whitey Herzog did everything he could to keep him. Oh, wait...
I think Whitey had his own issues with Simmons not related to baseball. Simmons was a known hippie weirdo and Whitey was old-school. Personality clashes happen.
Simmons wouldn't go to first when Whitey asked him to so they could get better defense behind the plate. So the main issue was definitely related to baseball.
Simmons’ refusal to go to first base may have made him a hall-of-farmer. The same career numbers as a C/1B would not have cut it.
Whitey wasn't smart enough to realize that Simmons was just fine behind the plate. Simmons didn't want to move, Whitey wanted him to, so again I say: it was a personality clash.
Well... Simmons' fielding numbers on B-R are consistently below average. I don't think they're bad enough to require him to move to another position, though.
The trade that Herzog made is worth looking at, I think. Simmons, Fingers, and P. Vukovich for David Green, Dave LaPoint, Sixto Lezcano and Lary Sorensen. That looks like a ripoff in favor of the Brewers, but Green was a hotshot prospect, and Lezcano looks like a player who might be about to become a star. So reason Simmons left *may* be because Herzog really liked the potential of the players the Brewers offered. I don't know. Does anyone remember anything about this blockbuster trade? (Any trade with two Hall of Famers in or near their prime is a blockbuster, right?)
Looks like this chat is slowing down...any truth to the rumor that fruit pie is delicious?
Depends on the fruit.
How about this...Bill James’s predictions on page 365 of Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame continue to get more accurate! I’m sure you have the book Joe. Though the years are off...who cares on that....Can you believe how great his prognostication was?
Pretty dead on ... I'm including this in my newsletter. But the point here is that Bill predicted Simmons would go into the Hall of Fame in 2004.
Now we just need to get Bill James himself on the ballot.....
My theory about Whitaker is that people don't appreciate that being able to do everything well is both extraordinary and as valuable as being able to do one or two things very well. If he had had about 15 more base hits a year while making 15 fewer plays in the field, he'd have been a .300 hitter and would likely have had much more support - and would have been almost exactly as valuable to his team. Being able to get on base, hit with power, run and play defense is a rare combination. It's a shame that he doesn't get recognition for that.
This very thing has definitely hurt a lot of great players.
And why was Bobby Grich overlooked AGAIN?!?!?!
Because he wasn't a great player maybe?
71.1 bWAR. That's a great player.
bWAR is a great tool..but it's not the only tool. WAR has Buddy Bell ranked ahead of Yogi Berra, Willie McCovey, and Ichiro which doesn't seem quite right, lol.
Six votes for Whitaker is simply ridiculous!
Here's who was on the VC this year, from CBS:
The 16-person Modern Baseball Era Committee consisted of Hall of Famers George Brett, Rod Carew, Dennis Eckersley, Eddie Murray, Ozzie Smith, Robin Yount; major league executives Sandy Alderson, Dave Dombrowski, David Glass, Walt Jocketty, Doug Melvin, Terry Ryan; and media members/baseball historians Bill Center, Steve Hirdt, Jack O'Connell and Tracy Ringolsby.
I didn't get to vote. LOL.
I'm glad Simmons got in, glad Whitaker didn't get in, not overjoyed that Miller got in, but at least we don't have to read about him every year now :). Glad Evans, Parker, Garvey got decent support.
Simmons was mostly before my time, so what I'm wondering is: was he considered a Hall of Famer when he played?
Kind of a dumb response; Whitaker and Evans are so much better than Garvey.
That's a definite no. Never once heard him talked about as a Hall of Famer. And he becomes the first player to be voted into the Hall of Fame who fell off the BBWAA ballot after just one year.
Fast forward to 2021...can you pick one guy from the Golden Days ballot (eg. Boyer, Dick Allen, Miñoso, Oliva)?
My guy would be Miñoso -- but I think Allen and Oliva will have the best chance. Both fell one vote short the last time around.
Minnie was my first favorite player, when I was 4. About 50 years later my son got me his autograph-- the only one I have.
chance for a dynamite Golden Days ballot with Allen, Oliva and Kaat all getting in? Anyone who is NOT on that ballot last time who should?
Was this a good ballot for Parker & Garvey? I feel given the induction of Baines they'd have done better?
I think it was a pretty good vote for Parker, actually. He got seven votes, which is more than he got in 2018. My guess about Garvey is that he has a handful of passionate fans on these committees, but they'll never get the 12 votes needed.
Very happy for these two, both deserving. However, for some reason feel strangely unsatisfied by the voting results.
I know what you mean. Miller's election is bittersweet because it's a reminder that they didn't vote him in while he was a live. And Simmons' election, while deserving, is odd because he was not the best player on this ballot and it isn't clear why a consensus built around him and none of the others.
my guess is Simmons had a lot of friends on the committee two years ago
Dale Murphy, Tommy John, Munson and Mattingly received three votes or fewer...do you think we will see them put on ballots again? Or can we move forward focusing on better options like say Grich, Nettles, and Tiant?
Grich is a better option than Murphy??? Not by a long shot. I don't think he (Grich) has much of a chance, anyway, considering he didn't get to 2000 hits.
There's a chance they will fall off the ballot, yes. But it's not automatic. ... And Tiant was one of two players dropped from this ballot this year. He was on the Modern Ballot in 2018.
Do they deliberate together and try to come to a consensus? Just by looking at the numbers, and how thinly the votes were spread, seems like that was the reason why only 2 got in.
Also, great for Miller, though I read your piece about him not wanting in. I think I heard the quote from you something like someone should be in the HOF if you can’t tell the story of baseball without them. Miller applies.
They do deliberate in one room. I'm not sure that's the best way to elect Hall of Famers. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's absolutely NOT the best way to elect Hall of Famers. But this is how it goes and has gone for decades now. From what I can tell, someone must have done a great job presenting Ted Simmons case. That's good -- Simmons' has a good Hall of Fame case. But it seems to me the voting is skewed by how strong a case is made for the player in the room.
Is it possible that everyone just assumed that Whitaker would make it in, that no one made an impassioned plea to build a consensus? Lou Whitaker, the invisible man.
Did you think Dale Murphy was getting in this time?
I really didn't. But I did think he would get more support than he did.
Whitaker should definitely be in. I’d vote for Murphy as well. One of if not most dominant players of the early 80’s. If Baines is in then in reality most of this years candidates should be in. It really weakens the Hall process in my opinion
Yeah, I think Baines will be seen more as a fluke than a precedent. There are so many non-Hall of Famers who were better than Baines that they could never catch up, to be honest.
Why the kerfluffle about Baines? He is not the worst Hall of Famer.
Baines seems like a great guy and had a nice career. Frankly, I'd rather see him in the HOF than the PED guys. However, voting Baines in ahead of (or instead of) many other players who were clearly much more qualified makes his election a bit...unusual.
You know about particular committee members really pushing for Baines, right? I'm thinking Reinsdorf and La Russa, if I have that right.
But there is an argument that he's the least-qualified Hall of Famer in the past 40 years or so.
If you count players only, maybe... (Kuhn and Yawkey were travesties).
What does Whitaker need to do to get elected? I don't get this at all. Not AT ALL. Hell, I thought he was the front runner, but guess not. Sigh.
It would've helped him if he had ever been a great player.
Ahhhh, yes. Invitro. Contra-opinions to the bitter end. He was the second best second baseman in all of MLB during the 80's But if you don't think he was a great player, there's no sense trying to convince you.
There are plenty of people who think he was never a great player, including the VC, an author on Bill James' website, Bill James, and the WAR people. It's not really a minority view.
I'm curious: do you think Trammell was better than Whitaker? If so, do you think Tram should've been elected? I go back and forth on Trammell/Whitaker (and, along with Trammell, his close comp Barry Larkin). Some players are pretty easy to tell but some are in that gray area...
I think Trammell was a bit better than Whitaker, yes. I'm happy Trammell is in. I actually wouldn't mind Whitaker being in, despite what I've been saying about him. He was certainly very good for a very, very long time.
I'm with Joe in that I'm a "Big Hall" guy, so I think having these borderline guys in is generally a good thing...even if they weren't truly elite players.
Bill James predicted he would go in with Trammell
But did he want Whitaker to go in?
Not sure about "want," but he had Whitaker ranked as the 13th best second baseman in MLB history in the NBJHBA. Everyone ahead of him is in the Hall except Grich (12th), and the next three players on the list are in the Hall. Of course, those lists are twenty years old and his opinions could have changed since then.
"The WAR people." Is that a cult?
It's a great cult. Tons of fun.
I admit: I thought he was the frontrunner too. I guess there are some people who are not convinced -- I was surprised how little support he got. These committees are made up of people with many divergent opinions about baseball.
"people with many divergent opinions about baseball"
Ahhhh, Joe. That's why we love you. Diplomatic to the end.
Being somewhat less diplomatic than you, let me offer my own spin: "people with many idiotic and unsubstantiated opinions about baseball."
No Whitaker. No Dewey. The committee members seemed reasonable to me, but I guess not.
I was actually pleasantly surprised Dewey got as much support as he did. I think this was a great vote for him and potentially a great momentum boost for him in a couple of years. Simmons was the big winner, obviously. But I think Dewey was a pretty big winner himself.
That's a good way to look at it!
First Baines then Simmons...The Vets Committee weakens the HoF. Miller should have been in 20 tears ago.
First Morris...then Baines...then Simmons. Though I do think Simmons was the best of that bunch.
Why does the Hall insist on the 75% threshold and the vote-per-ballot limit?
Because they very much want to limit the number of players who get in. It's interesting: I'm not sure that people who are running the Hall are as concerned by WHO gets into the Hall of Fame as they are at keeping that number lower.
Is this good news for Kenny Lofton, Jim Edmonds, and some of the other forgotten men from the '90s and '00s?
I don't think it's good or bad news, to be honest. It seems like each year, the committee (which changes) works with the ballot they have. I don't think last year's election of Harold Baines had any impact on this year's election as it turns out.
Did Simmons' vote total two years ago help, you think?
Absolutely.
Lou not getting in is both a joke and a travesty.
And you made me pick a photo, so Norman Fell it is.
An excellent photo choice.