Jump to content

Edman85

Veterans Committee's Proposals

Recommended Posts

I don't blame you guys for being tired. You've both done a lot of work here. Even I'm a little tired and I don't do anything other than research. This process would probably benefit from a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With baseball season, pictures and work, I already feel like I am working two full time jobs. I will definitely be ready for a break as well. That September suggestion--could we make it mid to late September so the minor league season (and championship =) ) is over. That would put me in my post season depression and give me something to help me through that time. I like the off season for working on projects like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm getting a tad tired as well dt. Friday's are getting to be "routine" or that "thing I have to do." And really until about a couple weeks ago I never thought that way.

And you have a ton more that you do besides me. I can understand the burnout.

What keeps me going is the patent unfairness to the current candidates if we start mailing it in now. We've put a lot of effort into the first 70 years and it just wouldn't be right to sell the Steve Kemps and Chet Lemons and Mickey Tettletons short for lack of effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In thinking about how the Vet's Committee will handle non-players, I don't think we should change the system so that those names count against your vote total. We haven't done that up until this point and it wouldn't make sense to change it now. Especially, as Ed pointed out, since we will be faced with new non-player candidates (Dickerson, Dombrowski, etc.) who wouldn't enjoy the same advantages that their non-player counterparts have all along.

What I would propose is that we discontinue the progressive vote percentage for players, but keep it (and even ramp it up) for non-players. Think about it. Should Mario Impemba have to compete for votes with Magglio Ordonez? No. It doesn't make sense. However, since Mario is given the benefit of an up-or-down vote (again, I hesitate to use the term "free" vote) in every election, should he be able to stay on the ballot indefinitely? To me that doesn't make sense either. Maintain increasing benchmarks for Mario. If he can't generate the support needed to even flirt with induction, he's out. It becomes a **** or get off the pot decision with the non-players, which is what it should be anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What keeps me going is the patent unfairness to the current candidates if we start mailing it in now. We've put a lot of effort into the first 70 years and it just wouldn't be right to sell the Steve Kemps and Chet Lemons and Mickey Tettletons short for lack of effort.

I don't think anyone is "mailing it in." I personally am 100% behind this. Just the baseball season is a very difficult time for me. We have been at this furiously for the last.........has it been four months? faithfully researching candidates on a weekly basis. I think that when we get through the present, we should take a break and get rejuvinated. Perhaps even at that point bring up the list of eligible candidates for the veterans committee, and take a break for the summer. I will be able to re-research all these veterans committee much easier if I am not buried in real baseball. I will not lose interest--my interest will be rejuvienated with a break

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never suggested this. I was talking about myself.

Okay, sorry. I thought you were thinking of taking a break as mailing it in. My misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dt35456884,

But Mario Impemba wouldn't be competing against Ordonez until he's on the vet's committee list. He would be on the actual ballot and be going against "no one" until he falls off of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dt35456884,

But Mario Impemba wouldn't be competing against Ordonez until he's on the vet's committee list. He would be on the actual ballot and be going against "no one" until he falls off of it.

I thought it was the same list. In other words, I've been under impression that the "veterans committee" is essentially just a way to get the players back on the 2008 ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be misunderstanding then.

I would've thought the people that still qualify for the "regular" ballot would be on that and then we would have the vet's committee list. I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention. I can't imagine why we would totally eliminate that - at least until the list gets down to a ridiculous level - like four or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed Siever

Ed Summers

Jimmy Barrett

Germany Schaefer

Jim Delahanty

Lu Blue

Bob Fothergill

Johnny Bassler

Heinie Manush

Billy Rogell

Bobo Newsom

Del Baker

Al Benton

Dick Wakefield

Hoot Evers

Charlie Maxwell

Thanks dt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should just resort to K.I.S.S. Increase the number of votes to 8-10 for players, still allow unlimited votes for non-players. Require 75% for election. An increased number of votes would prevent the "lesser" candidates from getting "crowded off" the ballot prematurely.

Come October, we could have the elections for Negro Leaguers and the Wolverines, and then include some of those not elected in the list for the Annual/Veterans election next March?

DT, you're right, we should still have separate voting for non-players, could just go with the current system there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed Siever

Ed Summers

Jimmy Barrett

Germany Schaefer

Jim Delahanty

Lu Blue

Bob Fothergill

Johnny Bassler

Heinie Manush

Billy Rogell

Bobo Newsom

Del Baker

Al Benton

Dick Wakefield

Hoot Evers

Charlie Maxwell

I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel almost like I am going to be starting from scratch again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DaYooper,

My only issue with that is it's what we are doing now which won't change anything. You either think a guy is in or not for the most part. If we don't change the dynamic (as the HOF does) then the results won't change much. I can tell you right now I'm not changing my ideas on candidates just to add people to our Hall. Going against lessers they may look better but that doesn't mean I'm going to lesser what I think should get people in or keep them out.

I really think you need something to change the dynamic. The same people are here so something has to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WhitecapWendy,

I think in a lot of ways it's going to be easier. I know who I've voted for and chances are if I haven't voted for someone, they aren't getting in later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DaYooper,

My only issue with that is it's what we are doing now which won't change anything. You either think a guy is in or not for the most part. If we don't change the dynamic (as the HOF does) then the results won't change much. I can tell you right now I'm not changing my ideas on candidates just to add people to our Hall. Going against lessers they may look better but that doesn't mean I'm going to lesser what I think should get people in or keep them out.

I really think you need something to change the dynamic. The same people are here so something has to give.

I see your point, but at least we won't have the huge influx of 12 new candidates each week. It will be interesting to look back and start weighing the "hold-overs" against each other, over all the various eras. But we will be comparing against the "weaker" HOF members too, I suppose, since they are now the standard.

Just had another thought - if say you're mind is set on, say Rogell, and mine is set on Jimmy Barrett, don't even our "weighted" votes for those two cancel each other out, to some extent? I'm not sure the weighted votes would change things, as much as changing the total number of votes, or changing the election percentage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really think you need something to change the dynamic. The same people are here so something has to give.

That's why (I thought) the VC guys will be mixed in with the leftovers from the 2005 ballot in 2008 (as well as players who retired in 2007). Because in the future it will be done on a year-by-year basis, there will be less new players being added to the ballot and the ballot will be full, and the main candidates on it will be the veterans committee guys.

The dynamic doesn't really need to be changed. The fact that there won't be 3-4 shoo-ins per ballot is enough of a dynamic change. On the 1975 ballot, there were 11 players that meet my hall of fame criteria and could only vote for five.

Also, in a years time after some discussion we may be able to build some sort of a consensus or bring up a player who was passed over the first time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Separating the Veterans Committee and annual candidates into two elections might make a lot of sense. Dave talked about holding two elections per year a while back (in order to keep interest going). I was opposed to that in principal, but having separate ballots may allow us to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by neutralizing each other out means. They wouldn't because they'd get that extra boost to make the standard. Even if we raised the vote to 90% that 1.5 vote would be super valuable. What would happen is you'd have the top selections on the list that don't get in now, getting in. Others would still get a vote of 1 on your ballot.

Whitehill would get in most definitely as many here would list him high.

Barrett and Rogell most likely would get in if not the first time but pretty quick as we each lose our "priority guys" and pick new ones. If we don't do this I don't see why people that didn't like Whitehill, Barrett or Rogell would ever say "yeah" they deserve it, unless they make deals. And I certainly don't want to see deals come out. I also don't want to see political bull crap coming out.

We can increase the votes but that isn't going to lock anyone into using those votes. I can very easily see me not using eight votes. That isn't going to change much I don't think. And about standards - the competition will be "easier" but if someone didn't vote for Larry Herndon earlier (just throwing out a name) why would they now? Maybe a few will but generally I think most of us won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Dave, I think I understand the "super vote" a bit more now. If you increase the number of votes, that may help some guys to stay on the ballot long enough, so that they also get a good look down the road. Like you say, I could see Whitehill, Rogell, Barrett, Coveleski, among others, grabbing a lot of votes in the first go-round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be taking another very long look at Ed Siever, and I think you all know why. But I'll try to stay objective, because Brian would have insisted on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And about standards - the competition will be "easier" but if someone didn't vote for Larry Herndon earlier (just throwing out a name) why would they now? Maybe a few will but generally I think most of us won't.

I don't agree with this. I will vote for many of the second-tier guys that I never had the chance to (or rarely had the chance to) before. I can't speak for everyone else but I suspect a lot of people support the candidacy of guys who haven't made it in. If they don't, and if they want to be stingy with those votes, then that is well within their rights and I guess the Vet's Committee is just going to be an extremely tough road to induction. Them's the breaks of not getting in the first time around.

However I look at a guy like Harry Coveleski, who has been anywhere from 1 vote away from induction to getting totally shut out with zero votes, and I know that the slam-dunk candidates that have come along the way have made it extremely difficult for some of these second-tier guys who otherwise have a good shot to get in. Now they won't have to compete with those guys. That's why I don't support shaking up the induction criteria much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...