Detroit Tigers HOF Veterans Committee

[dt35456884]

It’s been clear since Friday night that there is heavy support for a Veteran’s Committee-type system as our Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame project continues to evolve. The objective of such a Committee is to vote on a pool of players who were not elected in the initial round of balloting, but who warrant further consideration as part of our annual Hall of Fame elections, which will also include qualified modern players who leave the team each year.

Various ideas have been proposed for such a committee, and with these in mind (thanks Edman, DTrop, Yooper, Lee, estrepe, etc.) I put together a proposal for the annual elections. Please add your input.


Committee Membership:


People who have voted in at least 90% of the five-year elections will qualify for membership in the Veteran’s Committee.
This corresponds to participation in no less than 18 of the 19 elections.



Players Eligible:


Any player who has left baseball in the previous year, having accumulated 1,000 at-bats or 300 IP with the Detroit Tigers in his career (other players may be given special consideration).
First Year (2008): Any player still remaining as a carryover nominee following the 2005 elections.
Any player who qualified under the Class of 2006.
Any player appearing on at least four ballots over the course of the five-year elections.
Subsequent Years (2009-):
Any player garnering at least 5% of votes in the previous year’s ballot.


Other Considerations:
Any player or non-player who did not otherwise qualify for the Veteran's Committee may be added to the ballot via a one-time nomination by any of the board members, to be used in any year. It cannot be used twice and once the candidate falls off the ballot, he is off permanently.
As always, non-players (broadcasters managers, owners, presidents, etc.) who contributed to the franchise in a significant way during their career with the Tigers will be considered at the discretion of the Veteran's Committee.
Detroit Wolverines and Detroit Stars players will be eligible for nomination at this time, again at the discretion of the committee.

[dt35456884]

A few more thoughts on this.

I prefer to go with a flat minimum percentage of votes needed to remain on the ballot, rather than the average percentage we are using in the five-year elections. Unlike the five-year nominees, none of these Veteran’s Committee nominees are going to be steamrolled by a modern class, unless someday Bonderman, Verlander, Zumaya, and Maybin all leave the team in the same year. Suffice it to say, a 5% flat minimum every year will keep the nominee pool sufficiently deep without making it absolutely impossible for a player to fall off the ballot.

Requiring a minimum of four appearances on the five-year ballots is to me a perfect combination of the qualification requirements already proposed. A player who gets 40% of the vote in any one election would qualify, as his corresponding average percentage would keep him on the ballot in at least four elections, guaranteed. Additionally, a player with enough stubborn support to keep him around for four or more elections – even if he’s hovering just above 10% every time – would also get in. That way we’re rewarding not just the players who received a big outpouring of support, but players with smaller but steadfast levels of support. Meanwhile, apparent flotsam like Matty McIntyre (if he does in fact fall off the ballot soon) will have to remain satisfied with just being nominated, as we’re placing some kind of a premium on ballot longevity.

In my mind it’s important for the long-term committee who will be voting in the annual elections to have gotten in on the ground floor of this project. It’s these people who will have the most thorough understanding of the criteria and the scope of this thing, not to mention a greater knowledge of the Tiger history in which we’ll be adding to. I also think it makes a snap decision on a “favorite” modern player much less likely, as we are already setting out to make this as objective an effort as we can.

That’s why I’m in favor of restricting the Veteran’s Committee to those who have participated in at least 90% of the votes. That excludes exactly no one as I type this. If you missed the 1915 elections for whatever reason, all you need to do is participate from this point forward, and you’ll be guaranteed a vote every year when this transitions into an annual event.

[Edman85]

I still would suggest something for that guy who happens to be the 6th best player of a strong class, who doesn't pick up four votes as a result. That's where that nomination in my idea comes from, to allow guys who may not get the chance to get four votes, but are deserving.

This would be a one time nomination by any of the board members, to be used in any year. It cannot be used twice and once the player falls off the ballot, he's off the ballot.

This nomination could also apply to guys who don't get 5%. If one committee member feels strongly that he deserves a shot (see estrepe and Siever), then he can nominate the person to get back onto the ballot. Once the player falls off the ballot after a nomination, they are off for good.

[tiger337]

DT's idea makes sense as far as automatic qualifiers from past elections. Plus, I think we can add some at large nominees like Edman said. We can nominate at large candidates and then vote for which ones stay on the ballot.

I have a question about current year eligibles though and I think it's an important issue. Suppose Bonderman is traded after the 2008 season and people vote for him. Then he comes back 5 years later and pitches like crap for a couple of years. Something like this might never happen but it's a possibility. Even it it does not happen, it does not seem right to put someone in the HOF while his career is still going on.

This could even be a problem for the 2000 or 2005 crew. I haven't looked at the lists so I don't know. I think we can not put any players in the HOF until they are retired from baseball. I think starting in 2000, we should only make a player eligible for the ballot if he has retired from baseball. So in 2008, Higginson would be eligible but if Guillen leaves via free agency, he would not be eligible.

[LJK004]

How about a position similar to that of the Baseball Hall of Fame, where a player must be retired for at least 5 years before he is eligible. A classic example is Roger Clemens. He retired and came back within one year. I'm not saying it should be five years, but I do think a waiting period would be a good idea just to make sure the player doesn't come back. As of right now this is a oot point but, once we get into the 90's and 2000's we could have issues with this even in our regular voting. Todd Jones would be an example, he left the team for a few years and then came back.

I don't know if we should eliminate anyone from the VC ballot though. I think if you have qualified for the ballot it should be permanent. I don't think having the names on a list really hurts anyone. As there is such a small group of people I don't know that 5% is really that good. If everyone who signed up voted we would only have 28 people in the commitee, which means 2 people would have to vote for them over and over. Another option here is once we get to the Veterens Commitee selections the voters can vote for up to ten players. This increases the number of votes that get put in and allows the players a better chance to be left on the ballot. I just feel someone could be missed twice and miss out because to many people "followed the herd" In other words, I don't think cutting people from the list just to make it smaller is the right idea in the Veterens Committee section. Maybe we should look back on how the VC was done by the HoF in the past and get some ideas?

[DTroppens]

Bonderman - I would've thought we had to wait until his career is pretty much over before voting because we won't know if he's coming back. We are doing it this way now because we KNOW. We won't in the future. It seems silly to vote for someone who may come back in two years and disgrace the HOF with some drug bust or something. I'm not saying that would happen with Bonderman, but I was just throwing out an example

The criteria will have to change once we get into current years. It's going to take retirement for someone to be eligible I feel.

[dt35456884]

I still would suggest something for that guy who happens to be the 6th best player of a strong class, who doesn't pick up four votes as a result. That's where that nomination in my idea comes from, to allow guys who may not get the chance to get four votes, but are deserving.

I actually hadn't thought of that. It's a good idea, although I don't think there's a class that is so deep it boasts six legit Hall of Fame contenders.

I'll probably add your nomination idea to the first post in this thread if you don't mind.

[dt35456884]

Bonderman - I would've thought we had to wait until his career is pretty much over before voting because we won't know if he's coming back. We are doing it this way now because we KNOW. We won't in the future. It seems silly to vote for someone who may come back in two years and disgrace the HOF with some drug bust or something. I'm not saying that would happen with Bonderman, but I was just throwing out an example

The criteria will have to change once we get into current years. It's going to take retirement for someone to be eligible I feel.

I agree with this. The Todd Jones example is a good one. I don't think anyone thought he'd be coming back in any significant capacity.

[dt35456884]

I don't know if we should eliminate anyone from the VC ballot though. I think if you have qualified for the ballot it should be permanent. I don't think having the names on a list really hurts anyone. As there is such a small group of people I don't know that 5% is really that good. If everyone who signed up voted we would only have 28 people in the commitee, which means 2 people would have to vote for them over and over.

I'm going to disagree with this. I did some quick estimation and the initial Veteran's Committee nominee pool might be as large as 60-70 players. I think it's a valuable exercise to pare that down a little bit in the first few years. There's no sense in keeping somebody on the ballot when the support for his Hall of Fame candidacy is essentially zero. Especially since the committee membership is going to be largely unchanged from year to year. Plus, it makes it more interesting if there is something additional at stake every year (i.e. getting bumped off the ballot).

Eventually I envision a Veteran's Committee ballot of something like 30-40 players. That's a manageable list, and it's pretty close to what the real Vet's Committee votes on every year.

Another option here is once we get to the Veterens Commitee selections the voters can vote for up to ten players. This increases the number of votes that get put in and allows the players a better chance to be left on the ballot. I just feel someone could be missed twice and miss out because to many people "followed the herd"

Ten votes is far too many in my mind. I don't mind adding a sixth vote. Even with that you've got potentially 150+ votes to be distributed every year. That's plenty.

I imagine it will be pretty difficult to be elected out of the Veteran's Committee pool. I'm thinking we might see one, two, maybe three guys get in from year to year. And really, that's how it should be. That's why I hope that in this first go-round of five-year elections, voters won't be stingy and guys will get a fair shake. It would be ridiculous if only 35 players made it in on the first round of balloting, only to watch people try to pull out all the stops trying to get a half-dozen previously deserving guys pushed through the Veteran's Committee every year.

And I certainly don't think this committee, at least the guys I know on it, are going to be "following the herd."

[Edman85]

I actually hadn't thought of that. It's a good idea, although I don't think there's a class that is so deep it boasts six legit Hall of Fame contenders.

I'll probably add your nomination idea to the first post in this thread if you don't mind.

Go for it.

[Tigeraholic1]

Well thought out. I am so proud to be part of this.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I agree with most of the proposals here. Agree that the player should be retired from baseball, also. Might want at least a one year waiting period just to be safe.

The only big question that remains for me is how many votes. Don't think I would jump it from 5 to 10. Perhaps we could table that decision until we see how many are elected through the 2005 election.

[squid]

Here's the link to the MLB Veterens Committee rules.

[URL="www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterens/rules.htm"]

[squid]

Looks like that link only kind of works. It does take you to the HOF page but says it isn't correct, by typing veterens committee in the quick search, you will find the rules page at the very bottom.
Sorry for any confusion.

[Oblong]

Instead of having a veterans committee, why not just have a special election for anybody else who hasn't made it yet? I can't imagine more than a handful of guys making it after the first go round. Just have one at large election after each 25 year block that covers the previous 25 years.

[dt35456884]

Instead of having a veterans committee, why not just have a special election for anybody else who hasn't made it yet? I can't imagine more than a handful of guys making it after the first go round. Just have one at large election after each 25 year block that covers the previous 25 years.

We'd like to keep this alive as an annual event. Hence the Veteran's Committee ballot each year.

[Oblong]

but won't that mean it ends up with the same issues as the real HOF Veterans committee? People will get voted in just for the sake of having someone get in. If someone from 1935 isn't a HOFer now then how can be be one two years from now?

[DTroppens]

We need to have an annual event but yet I don't want to push people getting in just for the sake of people getting in. That's why I kind of pushed for the idea of having "others" be postponed until the annual votes. That way we always had someone going in like Jennings or Fetzer or Harwell or even a classic Detroit reporter and there are a few of those that deserve to be put in.

[Edman85]

If someone from 1935 isn't a HOFer now then how can be be one two years from now?

Because people are being stingy...

The five vote limit is going to squeeze some people, especially if some people place the baseline at the same place as the baseball Hall of Fame. This also allows for people from the early years to be re-evaluated, as there is a legitimate assumption that recent players will be overvalued.

[Oblong]

don't be an ******* and criticize other people's philosphies. Go start your own damn HOF if you are going to be a whiny little ***** about everything.

[estrepe1]

I think its okay if no one makes it in during a year.

[Edman85]

I agree with this. The Todd Jones example is a good one. I don't think anyone thought he'd be coming back in any significant capacity.

Kirk Gibson and Bill Donovan are others off the top of my head. Ed Siever was gone for a couple of years as well.

[estrepe1]

don't be an ******* and criticize other people's philosphies. Go start your own damn HOF if you are going to be a whiny little ***** about everything.

Who is this directed towards?

[DTroppens]

Also because maybe people start researching to see if they deserve it and figure it out.

The HOF is filled with people that were bypassed. I have yet to see any stats for any season that Cristobal Torriente wasn't a super stud. This guy just got in the HOF recently and I didn't even know it. This guy would go out and bat .330 to .390 routinely during a Negro League season or a Cuban League season or just when a Negro League team came to Cuba for a trip for 10 games. This guy really has my attention lately as he's become my "find" - well find after he made the HOF.

Turkey Stearns was the same. I have a Negro League book from 1970 and he has his named listed three times in the entire book. He's bypassed entirely. But 20 years later it's easy to see Stearns was probably one of the top 5 hitters in Negro League history. I think he's recorded as the top home run hitter in Negro League history at this point in time (minus exhibitions). I know he's past Josh Gibson.

Now these are Negro League examples but for many here knowing the difference between Art Houtteman and Dizzy Trout is a big deal and we're giving people just a week to make these decisions. It seems like plenty of time but there are tons of Tigers that my original impression that I "absolutely knew was right" I have changed over the years. I think we need to keep room for such changes in opinion as they do happen. Heck from year to year people changed their mind on Bobby Higginson.

[dt35456884]

I think its okay if no one makes it in during a year.

On it's face, I agree with this. Looking over the classes, though, there's very little excuse for us not to vote in at least one candidate each time. There might be one or two classes without a no-doubter. But I think for the most part if we go 0-fer in an election it will be a ludicrous result.

[Oblong]

Who is this directed towards?

Edman's original post before he edited it by adding some more text at the end. I took it as a swipe at my intention of being stingy, which he called being lazy, as if my philosphy wasn't good enough for him.

[DTroppens]

I doubt we have a five-year election that has no one make it. Even if the field is weak there will be others that probably came close that will be on the ballot as well. It's the annual elections that may see no people nominiated.

[estrepe1]

On it's face, I agree with this. Looking over the classes, though, there's very little excuse for us not to vote in at least one candidate each time. There might be one or two classes without a no-doubter. But I think for the most part if we go 0-fer in an election it will be a ludicrous result.

I was thinking more of the annual elections than the 5 year ones.

There should probably be an entrant every 5 year election.

Edman's original post before he edited it by adding some more text at the end. I took it as a swipe at my intention of being stingy, which he called being lazy, as if my philosphy wasn't good enough for him.

I understand. We all will have our different standards. Figuring out and debating those standards will be part of the fun.

[dt35456884]

I don't intend to suddenly stop learning about the 1915 candidates just because that election is over. I assume we all will continue to look at their candidacies carefully, not just because they are still on the ballot (for now) but because we will have to make decisions on similar players in the future. I can guarantee that when borderline Player A gets in, we will argue and struggle with how bordeline Player B was kicked to the curb. Certainly we can (and will) change our minds about what constitutes a deserving player. We'll rethink what it was that made us believe, as a board, that Player B just wasn't worthy. And of course we'll revisit players that might have been squeezed out despite our efforts to keep guys on the ballot.

Do I think that the Veteran's Committe would be electing a lot of people? No, but I do think that it allows us to continue to discuss and learn about these players. Which is what the whole thing is about anyway.

[DTroppens]

dt,
Exactly. There are going to be changes made. People here have admitted they are just learning. When they learn more they'll understand why possibly others should get in (and a few may even think why did I vote for that person in the first place).

I found it interesting how many people didn't seem to understand how Cobb was protrayed by his teammates the last few days. Not that it's wrong they are questioning it (that's how you get answers), but that I thought that was common knowledge. But it showed me that perhaps I've spent more time on this subject than I ever should have. God, I need a life. :classic:
And it shows me that these people will probably have differing opnions in 6 months to even 4 years.

[DTroppens]

Actually the next time one of those 1915 candidates come up in a book, in an article or even on the radio somehow instead of letting it glance by without a second thought, I'm sure everyone here will listen a bit harder than they would've two weeks ago. The seed is planted.

[Edman85]

I doubt we have a five-year election that has no one make it. Even if the field is weak there will be others that probably came close that will be on the ballot as well. It's the annual elections that may see no people nominiated.

1985 is the only year where nobody making it should be a possibility. Even then, there should be some votes freed up to push someone over the edge.

[squid]

The Veterens Committee votes every 2 years, in 2005 and 2003 they didn't elect anyone. Why should ours be much different?
Only 1% of Major League players make it into the HOF, We are not here to be the Hall of the Very Good. A Veterens Committee is premature at this time, we should concentrate on the players on the ballot.

[estrepe1]

squid I think it is good to discuss these things ahead of time. Iron out the details.

[estrepe1]

dt,
Exactly. There are going to be changes made. People here have admitted they are just learning. When they learn more they'll understand why possibly others should get in (and a few may even think why did I vote for that person in the first place).

I found it interesting how many people didn't seem to understand how Cobb was protrayed by his teammates the last few days. Not that it's wrong they are questioning it (that's how you get answers), but that I thought that was common knowledge. But it showed me that perhaps I've spent more time on this subject than I ever should have. God, I need a life. :classic:
And it shows me that these people will probably have differing opnions in 6 months to even 4 years.

I knew how he was portrayed and I also know how he helped behind the scenes more than many people know.

I just always wondered how much of it was true and how much was false. I really need to read the book to understand more about him as a total character.

I think his attitude still holds him back from being fully appreciated. But TV probably has something to do with that as well.

[tiger337]

I knew how he was portrayed and I also know how he helped behind the scenes more than many people know.

I just always wondered how much of it was true and how much was false. I really need to read the book to understand more about him as a total character.

I think his attitude still holds him back from being fully appreciated. But TV probably has something to do with that as well.

When I was a kid, he was regarded as the best player in the history of the game. That's because batting average was considered to be the most important stat. I also don't think there was as much talk about his racism and other issues.

[Oblong]

The Stump book really put Cobb in a different light for me. I've read it 3 times. It's only one book so I don't take everything in it to be the truth, I wouldn't do that for any single book, even an autobiography. But there was just too much in there for me to not like the guy. He was a big time prima donna. One story that stood out was that he was ready to leave the team in Chicago because his room was too close to the train tracks. He finally got them to switch his room with Hughie Jennings. Stuff like that. He wasn't a team guy. He felt no attachment to Detroit and would have left in a heart beat if he could have.

One story that was interesting to me was that for a time he lived at the Detroit Athletic Club. Now his statue is a stone's throw away and we can all see it from Comerica Park.

As for the Veterans committee, I've now been convinced that we should do it for the reasons stated. I was just concerned it'd turn into a thing where too many guys would get in and dilute the whole concept. But the advantage we have is that there's so many voters.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Oblong, that was a good question. One advantage our Veterans Committee will have, is that we have no deep personal investment in a particular player making the Hall (unlike the real Vets Committee of old).

I am very impressed with this group, and how seriously we all have taken the process to date. I have every confidence that as long as we limit the number of votes, and the "window of opportunity" for election, we will not get carried away.

And it will be good to have checks and balances. I am determined to apply the same standard I used in 1915 to the other groups, and that standard could always turn out to be "too stingy", that remains to be seen. So I do support the annual election concept. But it should act as a safeguard, with requirements just as stringent as our current ones.