Jump to content

dt35456884

Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame - 2008 Elections

Recommended Posts


I actually may go with five names from the players' list.

I listed seven names and am going by the assumption "You are out, should you be in."

They need to make me 75% sure they deserve it. The names

Dan Petry

Mike Henneman

Earl Whitehill

Bobby Higginson

Tony Phillips

Mickey Tettleton

Darrell Evans

It's probably not fair to do that yet, but I like the group we have in right now. I don't want anyone "hurting" that group. I will be voting for some. Just don't know how many yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfectly valid concern, Dave, but that's a pretty fair group of ballplayers you've listed there. I liked Darrell but haven't voted for him at all to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple fell off pretty quick. I ended up voting for three on that list - plus a couple managers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do we send our vote to?

I may have sent mine to the wrong poster!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it right. Thank God for those donuts and coffee this morning (West Coast person)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full circle, when we started we had 24 voters....My guess is 2 get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, wonder how close the Mick came? I figured Wood and Petry wouldn't get in yet. I thought Tettleton would get in and Henneman/Whitehill would barely miss, perhaps.

Perhaps the field will be a bit less crowded next year, unless we have new candidates. Any we know of besides maybe Wells?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose there is no real reason to post results in a separate thread anymore.

24 votes - thanks everyone!

Elected

Mike Henneman - 18 (75%)

Bobby Higginson - 18 (75%)

Tony Phillips - 18 (75%)

Other Votes

Steve O'Neill - 13 (54%)

Earl Whitehill - 11 (46%)

Mickey Tettleton - 10 (42%)

Darrell Evans - 7 (29%)

Dan Petry - 6 (25%)

Mayo Smith - 6 (25%)

George Wood - 5 (21%)

Dick Tracewski - 5 (21%)

Larry Osterman - 3 (13%)

Lady Baldwin - 2 (8%)

Hardy Richardson - 2 (8%)

Jack Rowe - 1 (4%)

Bill Holland - 0 (0%)

Mule Riggins - 0 (0%)

Ed Rile - 0 (0%)

Bill Watkins - 0 (0%)

Evans, Rowe, and Watkins fall off the ballot. Evans has qualified for the Veterans Committee elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, back to the drawing board for Whitehill and Tettleton. We'll have to do a much better job of presenting their cases. Perhaps do a thread dedicated to each one's merits. I won't lose any sleep over Dandy Wood, because I'm much more focused on getting Jimmy Barrett in at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there comes a time when people may have to realize that possibly Whitehill doesn't deserve to be in. He was a good player for a long time, but never really a great player?!? How many elections against how many different fields with how many different groups of people voting does he have to have to get in? He's had weak fields, strong fields, old-timer fields, current fields.

All that said when I was doing the bio for Mike Henneman I found out why I didn't vote for him this time. It was hard to scrap up a decent bio for the guy. Really, I'm shocked he got enough votes to get in. I think he got in because people just wanted to use all their votes. I would've voted for Whitehill before I voted for Henneman. I think Henneman's election into the Hall symbolically begins the "he was pretty good" players getting into our hall.

We averaged just over 4 votes on the player elections and I know I voted for three, skewing the numbers. I really hope we don't see people putting 4-5 names on future ballots or we are going to see a serious wattering down of our Hall.

Just my opinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it makes you feel any better, I've been thinking we should decrease the alloted votes in the spring elections to four next year, and then three thereafter.

And I think you're being unfair to Henneman. He's better than Hernandez. He was a strong candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a new voter, I was not impressed with Whitehill. He had a long career and was OK - but never had a dominant season. I personally thought Petry's resume was slightly better, though I did not vote for Dan either.

I voted for 3 candidates, for what it is worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there comes a time when people may have to realize that possibly Whitehill doesn't deserve to be in. He was a good player for a long time, but never really a great player?!? How many elections against how many different fields with how many different groups of people voting does he have to have to get in? He's had weak fields, strong fields, old-timer fields, current fields.

It doesn't help that his candidacy has been undermined since a certain moderator with a lot of pull declared his ballot void of worthy players. What is so hard about voting for a player simply to memorialize the guy we are honoring by doing this project? Brian wanted Whitehill in this thing, and I will continue to vote for him until he is. It's unfair that Brian no longer gets to vote for a guy he championed.

I think Henneman's election into the Hall symbolically begins the "he was pretty good" players getting into our hall.

Schoolboy Rowe, Harvey Kuenn, Billy Rogell, Ray Boone, and others disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edman,

If saying I haven't voted for Whitehill for any election is undermining it, then I'm undermining it. Geez, I don't get my opinion on this, yet everyone else can? If I've ever made a post that made someone who wanted to vote for Whitehill NOT vote for Whitehill, then SHAME ON THAT VOTER - not me. I don't want anyone saying "Yes he deserves it but I'm not going to vote for him because DTroppens says I shouldn't." I want them to say "DTroppens has a point and I'm not voting for him" or "DTroppens is screwed in the head I'm voting for him."

Heck, I've put myself on the firing line for Whitehill - for people to make me change their opinion. They haven't done it. I have read tons of posts arguing his merit. I returned with reasons why I could not vote for him. NO ONE - has been more willing to post why or why not I have voted for someone. And it's all been posted to GET PEOPLE TO PROVE ME RIGHT OR WRONG! But if you think I have a vendetta against Whitehill, that's fine. I just think the fact he's not made it in yet - yet gets good support every vote - shows he was good but not great.

Like Mr. Bigglesworth said (and I don't know how I've polluted his vote since he's new and I didn't make a single post about Whitehill this election one way or the other) Dan Petry compares very favorable to Whitehill. I haven't voted for Petry either. They are similar with a few things

1) Petry was on a great team and probably the best starting pitcher on that team.

2) His best years were better than Whitehill's best seasons.

3) Whitehill has below average seasons than or at the very most the same number.

Petry - 4 of 5 years with 120+ ERAs

Whitehill - 1 year with 120+ ERA

Maybe they are similar? Maybe one is above the other. I'd hint it's Petry above Whitehill. And Petry's not getting my vote either - unless someone argues me in favor of him. And hey, Mr. Bigglesworth has made the first post towards possibly doing that or solidifying my opinion.

If you want to vote for Whitehill do it. I'm not keeping you from doing that. If you want to do it for Brian's sake, that's great. But don't be shocked if someone voices his opinion saying Whitehill probably doesn't deserve to be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put him on my list to look at this time. I did and did and did and couldn't see much reason why he should be on the list.

Willie (at the very least) was as good as Henneman. Willie had one of the great pitching performances in organization history, won a CY Young, won the MVP and led the Tigers to a World Series doing it. Great seasons mean something. Having great seasons during the years they meant the most mean even more. Willie's light lasted only a few years. I'll admit that. But he was sizzling.

People love to say Willie was just "one year"

He was a bit more than that.

- 32 saves in 33 opportuities in 1984 - 30 app >1 inning of 0 runs - 80 GP, 140 1/3 IP.

- 31 saves in 39 opportunities in 1985 - 24 app >1 inning of 0 runs - 74 PG 106 2/3 IP.

- 24 saves in 30 opportunities in 1986 - 22 app >1 inning of 0 runs - 64 PG, 88 2/3 IP.

It's not until 1987 that you can say he really fell off the cliff. Until then that's three really darn good years.

- 8 saves in 13 opportunities in 1987 - yuck!

- 10 saves in 15 opportunities in 1988 - yuck!

- 15 saves in 17 opporuntities in 1989 - hey, that's pretty darn good!

Total 120 saves, 27 blown = 81.6%

Hennaman's totals

162 saves, 40 blown = 80.1%

Henneman gets pluses for his durability (>1 inning 0 runs 19.5 avg over first 7 years) just as Hernandez, but not even to his point. He never had a season of 100 innings.

They are fairly comparable actually. I still say Hernandez is better. Maybe I was being a bit harsh on ol' Henneman. He was on my initial list. I spend a ton of time going through those stupid game logs (if no one has noticed yet) when determining these relievers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rowe - Being an above average pitcher for three teams that went to the postseason hardly constitutes average. In a three-year period he rated high once on the MVP ballot and was an All-Star the other two. That shows that while he may have had injury issues other seasons, he clearly was an above average performer for a strong three years of his career at the very least. And he earned those honors (check the stats). Then after having years he disappeared he came back in 1940 to post another outstanding year - enough to earn seventh in the MVP balloting. If you want to condense his career you could argue he had 4+ very good seasons. That would hit my four-year minimum I look for. And I'd really say you can give him five years of very good play.

Billy Rogell - Never a great hitter, but there's enough evidence to give him credentials for his glove, uplifting those offensive stats. The guy was freakin durable and played a key role on two postseason teams - and he played well in those postseasons as well. I feel comfortable giving him an upgrade from "pretty good player" to in with his credentials. That said he was a tough selection that I sometimes pulled for with comments but also swayed on him because of others.

Harvey Kuenn - No one looked at Harvey Kuenn as just a "pretty good player" when he played. He was selected in that All-Star game a few times. And while he didn't have great power, you can only neglect .300+ consistent batting averages so much. They guy could hit - and did it at shortstop for much of his Detroit career. That's a spot often people didn't ask to hit as much. Even with his lack of power his OPS+ as a Tiger comes up to 112 - clearly above average. All this said I was a bit surprised he ended up being the lock he ended up being.

Ray Boone - Ray Boone was hitting 20 homers a year in a time that hitting 20 homers wasn't that common. He was good. And his best seasons were with Detroit. Check out the top 10s back then. I'm sure you'll see Boone's name on it. And it wasn't like he was doing that playing the outfield or first base. He was doing it at third. An All-Star a few times, he led the AL in RBI one time - a year he didn't go to the postseason game. And he got just enough good seasons in with the Tigers. It looks like you may have undervalued him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of your list I'd say maybe Billy Rogell you may have your best point. But I feel comfortable with him in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rate Henneman ahead of 15 or 20 of our current inductees.

If people are feeling like we're now inducting guys that may not belong, you can be rest assured I felt that way about various inductees months ago.

Just because you may not agree with a player's induction doesn't mean that people are using their votes frivolously.

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...