Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
dt35456884

Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame - 2009 Elections

Recommended Posts

The names below represent pitchers and hitters who hung up their Tigers, Wolverines, or Stars uniforms for the final time by the beginning of the 2009 season, logging at least 300 innings or 1,000 at-bats during their time with Detroit. It also includes non-players who were significant to the organization.

We will be voting on the 2009 nominees as well as the nominees from previous classes who were not elected but who met the minimum vote percentage to remain on the ballot.

Pitchers

2008

[b]Player	        YR	From	To	W	L	WL%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	SO	ERA+[/b]
[COLOR="Blue"]Todd Jones 8 1997 2008 23 32 .418 4.07 480 0 401 0 0 235 479.3 493 246 217 41 205 372 113
Kenny Rogers 3 2006 2008 29 25 .537 4.66 75 74 1 0 0 0 440.7 472 251 228 53 158 217 97
David Wells 3 1993 1995 26 19 .578 3.78 66 64 0 8 1 0 428.7 416 201 180 56 103 293 122[/color]

Position Players

2008

[b]Player	        YR	From	To	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	SB	CS	OPS+[/b]
No candidates.[COLOR="Blue"][/color]

Final 2009 nominees appear in blue.

Carryover Nominees

1881-2007

[b]Player	        YR	From	To	W	L	WL%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	SO	ERA+[/b]
[COLOR="Blue"]Dan Petry 11 1979 1991 119 93 .561 3.84 306 274 8 48 10 0 1843.0 1742 889 787 187 744 957 105
Earl Whitehill 10 1923 1932 133 119 .528 4.16 325 287 31 147 11 7 2171.3 2329 1225 1004 105 831 838 104
Bill Holland 3 1920 1922 39 30 .565 3.77* 87 59 48 4 7 531.7 460 223 89 249
Lady Baldwin 4 1885 1888 69 35 .663 2.71 107 106 2 103 9 1 930.3 809 464 280 26 204 544 123[/color]

[b]Player YR From To G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+[/b]
[COLOR="Blue"]Mickey Tettleton4 1991 1994 570 1887 303 469 85 8 112 333 429 505 .249 .387 .480 6 17 135
Mule Riggins 7 1920 1926 424 1603 473 79 30 25 .295 .429 52
Ed Rile 4 1927 1930 280 1009 354 79 19 36 .351 .574 18
Hardy Richardson3 1886 1888 303 1347 316 444 70 31 25 187 94 90 .330 .375 .483 84 0 149
George Wood 5 1881 1885 459 1988 345 558 91 50 27 165 110 193 .281 .318 .418 0 0 131[/color]

[b]Manager YR From To G W L WP BstFin WstFin PostSsn Pennts WrldSer[/b]
[color=blue]Mayo Smith 4 1967 1970 651 363 285 .560 1 4 1 1 1
Steve O'Neill 6 1943 1948 933 509 414 .551 1 5 1 1 1[/color]

[b]Coach YR From To[/b]
[color=blue]Dick Tracewski 24 1972 1995[/color]

[b]Broadcaster YR From To[/b]
[color=blue]Larry Osterman 20 1967 1992[/color]

* - RPG (Runs Per Game)

Committee Members:

  • Voting Deadline - Friday, May 1st, 2009 at 12:00 PM (Noon)
  • Vote for up to 4 of the player nominees listed in blue above (2009 Pitchers, 2009 Position Players, and 1881-2007 Carryover Nominees).
  • Votes for non-players (managers, owners, presidents, broadcasters, etc.) do not count against your 4-vote limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Vote for up to 4 of the player nominees listed...
  • Votes for non-players (managers, owners, presidents, broadcasters, etc.) do not count against your 4-vote limit.

Please note! The vote limit for players has been reduced from 5 to 4 this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Whitehill, Tettleton, Wood, and need to decide between Jones or Petry.

I'm leaning toward Jones. Also I'll vote for O'Neill again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whitehill, Tettleton, O'Neill, and I'll be considering Jones in the future, but not this year.

The Wolverines can have their own HOF as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some smart people in this thread.

Whitehill's last three elections, in order:

2005 - 10.0%

2008 - 29.2%

2009 - 45.8%

Marching inexorably towards 75%.

For what it's worth I'll be using all four of my player votes.

And it's time to do the right thing regarding Steve O'Neill, the third most successful manager in Detroit Tigers history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whitehead, Petry, Trixie and Jonsey.

I almost considered Kenny Rogers, because he provided three of the best games in Tiger history, postseason dominance that only can be matched by Christy Mathewson's 1905 season.

Maybe after a few years....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we talk about limiting the vote to four people before? I don't understand why we'd lower the voting requirements. People just don't have to vote for four.

It seems to be unfair to this class compared to the classes that always had five. Heck, our first class had five.

I don't recall any talk about that and see no reason why we should change it. The strength of this has been it's consistency of how it's been done. Changing it to four votes is inconsistency and opens up the vote to criticism. Heck, I'm objecting to it right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw one post mentioning the changing of the vote to four and no approval or rejection from anyone. It probably wasn't seen by many people.

For that reason I don't think we've had any sort of approval or vote changing the criteria of the vote. If someone votes five people, so be it. They should be able to do so.

We have never changed anything like this without great discussion and shouldn't be done this time either. It's simply not fair to anyone here who had the intention of voting for five just as they have learned they were able to in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please note! The vote limit for players has been reduced from 5 to 4 this year.

This is incorrect.

Until I can find it posted where there was a discussion and an agreement to this, I am accepting five votes. Consistency is one of the reasons this has worked as well as it has. Changing the rules without discussion doesn't support the consistency we've created throughout this process.

Please note:You are able to vote for five player candidates this election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that the four votes was at least mentioned after last year's elections... It makes sense, as it gives the players on the current ballot a distinct advantage to have five votes for one year.

Plus, saying that people can use five after the voting has been set up and people have submitted ballots under the assumption there's only four is just going to set up all kinds of problems.

That said, I used two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah...

Vote for O'Neill! Every time the results are announced, I'm angry that I didn't campaign hard enough for him. Won't make that mistake again...

I'll make the cases for Tettleton and Whitehill later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case Dave I may vote five guys. I would suggest that if someone felt they left a 5th guy off, they should resubmit their ballot.

I should be consistent and vote for Petry, as I have in the past. So there's four right

there (adding Tettleton, Wood, Whitehill). I don't get excluding the deadballers like Wood.

I'd like to hear arguments for/against Todd Jones. Was he as good as Henneman, or

did he just get a lot of cheap saves? Clearly he's nowhere near Hernandez or Hiller, IMHO.

I'm seeing two "good years" and four "mediocre" years, when I examine the peripherals. So now I'm leaning "no" - as you know I hate the save stat.

PS - I never knew his full name was Todd Barton Givin Jones, just saw that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The credibility of the project is actually not served by continuing indefinitely with 5-vote limits in our annual elections.

This happens to be the first of many classes that consists of one single season of candidates. We used to be alloted five votes for a five-season period of candidates. Now we are alloting five votes for every season?

Edman originally brought this inconsistency up, and it was well spotted. One option is to hold our regular elections every five years rather than every spring. In terms of consistency it works, but it isn't conducive to a living, breathing project that holds people's attention and regular interest.

The other option that was tabled is to slowly wean ourselves down to a limit of three or so votes. No one has objected so I threw it out there this time. I wasn't trying to pull one over on anybody and if we are really faced with crisis talks or something I am open to suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the number of votes matters little, IMHO. Either there will be qualified players or there won't be. As long as we don't increase above five the process should work fine. Sorry for not weighing in earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the number of votes matters little, IMHO. Either there will be qualified players or there won't be. As long as we don't increase above five the process should work fine. Sorry for not weighing in earlier.

Was there ever a time that you would have used a sixth vote if you had it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was there ever a time that you would have used a sixth vote if you had it?

Several

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did we talk about limiting the vote to four people before?

Yes, we did.

I don't understand why we'd lower the voting requirements. People just don't have to vote for four.

To keep a level playing ground. It will be much easier for players like David Wells and Todd Jones to get votes than it would be if they were lumped in with everybody in a five year period. That's common sense.

It seems to be unfair to this class compared to the classes that always had five. Heck, our first class had five.

It would be unfair for the max for this class to be five. Even the first class, which you reference, wasn't that deep because so few players during that time period stuck with the team long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was there ever a time that you would have used a sixth vote if you had it?
I'm stuggling to recall how many, but we did have a few very deep classes early on where I had to budget. But if voters start voting five people just to fill out their quota, then they have been voting incorrectly all along, I suppose. I'm open to scaling the votes back since we will now have fewer carryovers and more frequent votes, and I recall this being brought up in 2008 as I search the old threads. We just never had a clear decision really.

Some folks might even turn this around and say we didn't have enough votes for the earlier classes, but I'm just playing Devil's advocate there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,

I've been gone all weekend.

Edman,

I don't recall a consensus saying we should change it. All that said, I don't see too many people using five votes.

I don't know if I would've ever used six votes. I'd have to go back and look. I bet if we had six votes, Whitehill would've snuck in at sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we did.

To keep a level playing ground. It will be much easier for players like David Wells and Todd Jones to get votes than it would be if they were lumped in with everybody in a five year period. That's common sense.

It would be unfair for the max for this class to be five. Even the first class, which you reference, wasn't that deep because so few players during that time period stuck with the team long enough.

Edman,

It should've been agreed upon by some consensus. That NEVER happened. "Other" candidates aren't going to get in unless 75% of us think they should make it in - regardless the number of votes. We have had plenty of people use less than five votes. That said, I can see your point, and it can be discussed in the future. And maybe be changed for the future. But there wasn't any sort of agreement among all of us entering this election.

If there was, show me the post. Maybe I'm wrong. I can have a terrible memory. But I looked around a little bit the other night and couldn't find one. Changing the way the "game" is played without some sort of group agreement, doesn't sound right to me. And if something official hasn't happened to change it, we should keep it the way it is. Right now I can't recall anything official occurring.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...