Pat Gillick Elected To Hall Of Fame
Posted by Steve Lombardi on December 6, 2010
Here's the official announcement.
Here's Gillick's Bullpen page.
And, here's his resume on the Baseball America Executive Database.
Here's the text of the press release from the HOF:
Pat Gillick, who built three World Series champions and has served baseball for nearly 50 years, has been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by the Expansion Era Committee, it was announced today.
Gillick was the lone candidate to garner the necessary 75% of votes cast by the 16-member Expansion Era Committee, which considered a ballot of eight former players, three executives and one manager whose contributions to the game were most significant from 1973 through the present. The Expansion Era Committee held meetings on Sunday in Orlando, site of the baseball winter meetings.
Gillick becomes the 32nd executive to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame and just the fourth individual elected whose career has been defined nearly exclusively as a team architect, joining Ed Barrow, Branch Rickey and George Weiss in Cooperstown. Gillick will be joined by any electees who emerge from the Baseball Writers’ Association of America voting, which will be announced on January 5, 2011.
“We are thrilled to have Pat as the newest member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, and we welcome him into the Hall of Fame family,” said Hall of Fame Chairman of the Board Jane Forbes Clark. “Pat’s consistent excellence as a talent evaluator and team builder has been evident at every step throughout his brilliant career, constructing three World Series champions with his teams making 11 postseason appearances.”
Gillick presently serves as senior adviser to the Philadelphia Phillies and has spent nearly 50 years in Major League Baseball, with 27 seasons as a major league general manager. Gillick, who built playoff teams with the Blue Jays, Orioles, Mariners and Phillies, began his major league career with the Houston Colt .45s/Astros from 1963-73, before joining the New York Yankees as scouting director from 1974-76. Gillick joined the expansion Toronto Blue Jays in 1977, building five division winners from 1985-93 and consecutive World Series championships in 1992-93. In three seasons with Baltimore from 1996-98, the Orioles made two postseason appearances. In four seasons shaping the Mariners from 2000-2003, the Mariners won 90 games each season, including an American League record 116 in 2001, with two postseason appearances. In building the Phillies from 2006-2008, Philadelphia won the AL East twice and the 2008 World Series. Beginning in 1983, teams under Gillick’s direction as general manager posted winning records in 20 of 22 seasons.
The 16-member Expansion Era Committee was comprised of Hall of Fame members Johnny Bench, Whitey Herzog, Eddie Murray, Jim Palmer, Tony Perez, Frank Robinson, Ryne Sandberg and Ozzie Smith; major league executives Bill Giles (Phillies), David Glass (Royals), Andy MacPhail (Orioles) and Jerry Reinsdorf (White Sox); and veteran media members Bob Elliott (Toronto Sun), Tim Kurkjian (ESPN), Ross Newhan (retired, Los Angeles Times) and Tom Verducci (Sports Illustrated).
The Results of the Expansion Era Ballot (12 votes needed for election): Pat Gillick (13 votes, 81.25%); Marvin Miller (11 votes, 68.75%); Dave Concepcion (8 votes, 50%); Ted Simmons, Vida Blue, Steve Garvey, Ron Guidry, Tommy John, Billy Martin, Al Oliver, Rusty Staub and George Steinbrenner each received less than eight votes.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Did not see that coming.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Wow, won the AL East twice. The Phillies were even better than I thought.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:52 am
He's worked hard out there on the player development hustings and is one of the most respected, accomplished MLB scouts/executives ever. Good choice.
Let's see here. Marvin Miller, who helped dramatically escalate player salaries at the expense (literally) of MLB fans, almost gets elected. Yet deserving, great players like Tommy John, foremost, and Ted Simmons don't get elected. Go figure.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Pat Gillick has the magic touch. Everywhere he goes he wins. He did an amazing job with the Mariners.
He is very deserving.
December 6th, 2010 at 11:21 am
No to Ted Simmons, again. That is a real shame.
December 6th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Two notes about the listed info (that i found interesting):
1) they didn't put vote totals less than 8 - I guess it doesn't matter, but would be interesting to see.
2) Do they typically show the list of the voters, I wonder if they will publish the individual ballots?
December 6th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Congrats to Pat Gillick. This is honors a magnificent career.
As for the rest of the vote.....
Even though I hate what free agency has done to the game, I am surprised that Marvin Miller was not elected. I thought he would get in this time.
Disappointed that Ted Simmons didn't get in.
Glad that Steinbrenner didn't get in. I think more time needs to pass before he should be considered for election.
And I wonder is Bill Giles, who has worked with Gillick, abstained from the vote? If he did, it would probably be the first time in history a Vets committee member did that.
December 6th, 2010 at 11:35 am
@6
1) They've been doing this with the recent Veterans' Committee votes where they pick a number and if a candidate receives less than that number, all they say is it's less than that number.
2) The list of voters is more or less always known. You can always find who's voting in the BBWAA elections, and they have been releasing the makeup of the recent Veterans' Committees as well. I believe it's so that there's a transparency involved so people can draw conclusions as to why someone might get elected, i.e., who did Frankie Frisch get elected this time.
Will they publish individual ballots? Not on your life. Especially considering Miller finished one vote short. The five guys that didn't vote for him would be hounded for some time, especially if all 4 "management" guys didn't vote for him.
December 6th, 2010 at 11:41 am
On the list of those who got less than 8 votes they have Simmons, and then everyone else in alphabetical order. Whether that means Simmons got more votes than the rest is not clear.
December 6th, 2010 at 11:48 am
What's the point of constantly adjusting and rearranging the veteran's committee when they never vote anybody into the HOF????
The old veteran's committee voted anybody in the HOF and the new one doesn't vote for anyone except for Executives and Managers.
Its like the HOF has evolved into a place for Executives & Managers.
December 6th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Denying Marvin Miller is ridiculous. He is the man who brought about the end of the reserve clause and the birth of the modern major leagues. Why should the owners have made all the profits, while the players get the crumbs?
December 6th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
32 elected from management/ownership. 16 catchers (including 3 from the Negro Leagues). 11 third basemen (plus 3 from the Negro Leagues). No labor leaders.
December 6th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
David, #12,
what does your total of 62 HOF members represent? There are far more members elected by the various Vet Committee configurations that 62. Although many of the catchers and 3rd basemen were elected by the BBWWAA.
December 6th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Marvin Miller is the Abraham Lincoln of Major League Baseball
December 6th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Interesting to see that Dave Concepcion came closest among the players. I am not sure how the process goes down, whether there is discussion amongst the voters, or if it is a secret ballot, but I wouldn't be surprised if Concepcion's former teammates Bench and Perez influenced some of the voters.
December 6th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Who??????????????
December 6th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
The group of players wasn't all that interesting. John was the best of them, WAR and most other objective measures, but this was a list of guys whose qualifications are just below a clear-cut Hall-of-Famer's. Santo and Allen weren't on the ballot; either one of them are head and shoulders above the lot of the players on it, so they might have stuck out.
I'm more shocked that the recently deceased George Steinbrenner wasn't picked. I didn't like the guy personally either, but he was fabulously successful at building a championship team in New York (which gets all the breaks) AND was one of the most public and colorful personalities in the game. I gather that the writers would have been more likely to pick Steinbrenner, were they to vote on non-players.
Of course, these voters have played quite a bit for Steinbrenner, so that might explain his votes and Billy Martin's. They should go in together, and then we can broadcast their reactions straight from Hell. "You're fired!" (flames shoot up, then Martin pummels the Boss with a tire iron)
And did anyone expect Miller to not get screwed again?
December 6th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I'm really disappointed that Tommy John didn't get in, I thought this was going to be his year. I agree with John Q., #10, the old VC voted in anyone, and now the VC doesn't vote in anyone. (Except for managers.) Can't there be a happy middle?
December 6th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Anyone know how a person even gets on the ballot? Probably someone needs to be nominated by a committee member or something?
I think the Vet committee has made some positive changes this last go-around, but they need to do more so that a player gets in. What, there's been 2-3 player picks by Vet committee in last 10 years?
Simmons and John were the best player candidates IMO.
December 6th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
No one here has a right to criticize the Veteran's Committee.
"We" didn't elect anyone, and some of the vote totals are questionable at best.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/2011-baseball-hall-of-fame-veterans-committee-candidates
Ever stop to think about the reason why the VC never elects anyone is the BBWAA gets it right when the players are on their ballot?
Sure, there's been some glaring omissions (Simmons), and some curious elections (Mazeroski), but, for the most part, the BBWAA does exactly what it's required to do.
December 6th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
#21 Chuck
Not sure if you meant it this way, but that last sentence reads as if the BBWAA elected Maz. He was a Vets committee selection, and some feel the reason the committee got reformulated.
Personally I think the BBWAA tends to err on the side of caution, there are only a few recent HOF'amers that I disagree with.
My biggest gripe with the Vets committee is the multiple recent changes that they keep making. I think they should find a system and stick with it for a few years to see if it works. IMHO, among the players on this ballot, only Simmons belongs. John is borderline, the rest of the players on this ballot, should only get into the Hall with an admissions pass.
December 6th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Gillick was the only one I voted for on "our" ballot mentioned a few posts ago.
December 6th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
@20,
Why don't we have "the right" to criticize this version of the veteran's committee? Is this incarnation some sort of infallible institution??
The BBWAA has erred on the side of caution as StephenH alluded to and they've also made plenty of arbitrary omissions and choices. Also, the BBWAA voting patterns have been odd and somewhat arbitrary as well.
December 6th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I think the biggest problem people have with the BBWAA vote (in terms of players not getting in) is with guys getting dropped from consideration too soon (like Simmons or Santo in 1980) as opposed to guys going 15 years on the ballot and still not getting in (although obviously there are a few of those).
I think there should be two types of vote that a player could receive. A voter can choose either to 1) vote a guy in OR 2) vote to keep them on the ballot. This would protect guys that are not necesarily first ballot guys in most people's minds but might keep them around for a little while to get a little steam going in their favor. Also the real dregs would be eliminated on the first vote.
Something like this might not change anything in terms of who makes the Hall, but it would protect everyone (that deserves decent consideration)from a 1-and-done situation.
December 6th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
This question is born more from curiosity than any real attempt at learning something.
This site is known for it's passion towards sabermetrics.
Pat Gillick was known for his aversion to advanced statistics.
He didn't fare well in our little ballot, finishing eighth of the twelve candidates.
Just wondering how many chose not to vote for him based on his anti-saber stance?
I'm not a stat guy by any means, and I didn't vote for Gillick either, because I felt there were more worthy candidates to choose from.
December 6th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Stephen H, In post 12, I just used the Hall website to check how many people had been elected one way or another in three selected categories. I have nothing against Pat Gillick.
32 executives seems very adequate (Tom Yawkey of the lily-white Red Sox?). 13 catchers seems too few (Ted Simmons?) 11 third basemen seems too few (Ron Santo?)
Excluding Marvin Miller (he unmasked some lies and was never, so far as i know, convicted) seems a mistake. I am sorry that the game has turned into millionaires contending against billionaires, but that's the free-enterprise system at play, and Miller at least made sure that it wasn't billionaires playing everyone else for suckers. Anyone who had Miller's influence on the sport (and wasn't a born liar or wasn't convicted) should be part of the Cooperstown story.
December 6th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
I think Gillick was a SAFE choice,,,...a true baseball man...a builder of winners and certainly a lot nbetter then Bowie Kuhn who is in the HOF
Marin Miller is one of the most influential figures in the history of baseball...and the notion that he is responsible for escalating player salaries at the expense of the MLB fan is faulty logic.
Miller led the fight against the reserve clause which clearly denied player the ability to market his services. And he made the players union a more powerful collective bargaining unit.
Bu that doen t imply thet he was responsbile for escalating player salaries. Yo know who is responsbile....the team owners!!! Nobody, but nobody forced Steinbrenner to open his checkbook for Catfish Hunter or Reggie Jackson, or Dave Wiinfield...etc. And noone forced the owner of the Rangers to pay Alex Rodriguez...25 million dollars.
Case closed.
I htought Tommy John and Simmons should have been elected...
December 6th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
I voted for Gillick, a no-brainer really when you're comparing his accomplishments to other G.M's in baseball history:
2 Wild Cards, 10 Division Titles, 4 League Championship titles, 3 World Series Titles. He had one of teams finish with the best record in BB history, 2001 Mariners 116-46.
I voted for Miller who should have been a no-doubt HOF years ago, easily one of the top ten most influential person in BB history.
I voted for Simmons because he's one of the top 10-12 catchers in BB history. He should have been elected years ago but I think his time with the Brewers & Braves hurt his popular perception.
And I voted for Tommy John mainly because of his great durability and career value. He was never a dominant pitcher but there were two stretches in his career where he was among the top ten pitchers in baseball. A 5 year stretch on a horrible White Sox team from 1966-1970 and another longer 7 year stretch on the Dodgers & Yankees from 1977-1982.
John's great strength were his ability to not give up BB (12 times in top ten BB/9) and his ability to not give up HR (12 times in the top ten in HR/9). John also posted a 2.65 post-season era in 88 innings pitched. John's greatest performance was the '81 series where he had a 0.69 ERA, 0.84Whip, and a 8/0 K/BB ratio in 13 innings pitched.
December 6th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
What is the purpose of this new Veterans Committee? Do we need to reconsider guys that the BBWAA has kicked around for 15 years and found to be lacking? Especially those who never even got close to admission? Why should we ask the BBWAA to give 75 percent approval, and then have this strange committee take Dave Concepcion, who never got as much as 17 percent of the vote from the BBWAA, and give him another shot? What has he done since he stopped being voted on in 2004 to merit that? Al Oliver failed to get 5 percent of the vote and was dropped. Ron Guidry kicked around for 9 years with under 10 percent of the vote before dropping off. What is the idea?
December 6th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
I don't remember hearing that Gillick was anti-sabermetrics. That certainly wouldn't cause me not to vote for him. He should be judged on his record. I simply don't know enough about it, beyond "he was the GM of several good teams." Presumably he had something to do with their being good, but I'd need to research his impact in building each team and compare it with the work of other top GMs to know whether he is really HOF-worthy. He seems like a decent selection.
Anyway, sabermetrics is not (supposed to be) simply about statistics. If Gillick had a knack for putting together winning teams without knowing how to calculate runs created, good for him. Maybe he had good scouts he trusted who were able to identify players that would break out, or age well, or fall off soon. If he had a systematic process for organizing and utilizing that information, that is a "sabermetric" quality to me. Maybe there is something that can be learned from Gillick's career which would add to our collective understanding about how to build winning teams (more specific than "get good players," of course). Because sabermetrics is not supposed to be about "walks are good" or "bunts are bad" or whatever. It is intended to be about the search for objective knowledge, by whatever means necessary.
December 6th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
The reason for having a Veterans Committee is to act as a check-and-balance against the BBWAA, which has made some mistakes of omission over the years (Bobby Grich, Bert Blyleven, Dwight Evas are three names that come to mind).
Another reason for the Vets Committee? The passing of time allows for a change in perspective and context. Some players are vastly underrated (for any number of reasons) when they are evaluated by the BBWAA. The Vets Committee allows for some candidates to be re-considered, when perhaps the perception of their true value has changed for the better. As time passes, our interpretation of history can change.
December 6th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
The Veterans put in Enos Slaughter, Johnny Mize, Lefty Gomez and Arky Vaughn The BBWAA voting standard is remarkably consistent. These 4 ommissions with another 10 or so. Is all the BBWAA has missed. And, they only put in about 2 or 3 guys that likely did not deserve the honor. So, it is true that in an attempt to fix about 14 injustices, we have about 50 or so players in the Hall of Fame that should not be there. The original "Old Timers" Committee served a purpose. The more recent Veterans do more harm than good. In my view Slaughter , Mize , Gomez deserved to be Hall of Famers and I consider them as such. But , the fact is that they are really not because they got in thru the back door with about 50 others who don't belong.
December 6th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
I'm sorry to ruffle feathers, but the fact Tim Raines has been on the ballot three years and hasn't gotten 25% proves the BBWAA knows what they are doing.
The same will be true next year when Jeff Bagwell doesn't get 40%.
December 6th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
#33 Chuck
I am sure the BBWAA will have a thorough review of Raines before his 15 years expire. I think they will vote him in. There are however a few candidates that never got their proper look. Ron Guidry was one. And, there are other times when personal feelings got in the way... Dick Allen. I think Ted Simmons also never got his proper look. I still stick to the fact that the Veterans Committee has cluttered and cheapened membership. I think there should be a cleaner way to fix the handful of injustices.
December 6th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Tom @ #34
"I am sure the BBWAA will have a thorough review of Raines before his 15 years expire."
Why do you think there's a five year waiting period after retirement?
There isn't one voting member of the BBWAA who will know more about Tim Raines next year than they knew four years ago.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Getting back to Pat Gillick ... I confess that I voted for him in the B-R poll without knowing much beyond the outline of his career. Now I find myself curious about his time as Yankees scouting director in 1975-76. In particular, I wish I knew what input he had into the trade that brought Willie Randolph to NY, and one or two other trades of that era.
Randolph, Dock Ellis and Ken Brett were all acquired from Pittsburgh in exchange for Doc Medich, a trade that paid massive dividends for the Yankees:
-- You know what Randolph meant to the Yanks for years, though it may surprise that his career 60.5 WAR compares favorably to about half the HOF second basemen.
-- Ellis gave the Yanks one strong season (108 ERA+, 17 wins plus one in the ALCS) before they traded him to Oakland for...
-- Mike Torrez, who turn gave NYY a solid '77 regular season -- 104 ERA+, 15 CG in 31 starts -- and then was arguably as important as Reggie Jackson in the Yankees' first championship since '62, with 2 CG wins in the WS, including the clincher, and a huge 5.1-scoreless-inning relief stint in the ALCS finale.
Meanwhile, though Medich was only 26 at the time of the deal, he would never have a year nearly as good as his '73 rookie season, and after leaving the Yanks he bounced around to 6 teams in 7 years, compiling a 95 ERA+.
Another profitable trade during Gillick's Yankees tenure was the Dec. '75 deal of Bobby Bonds for Mickey Rivers and Ed Figueroa. Bonds had hit very well in his one year in the Bronx, placing top-10 in HRs and Runs and most metrics. But while he had a few more good years, he was never again among the leaders in WAR or OPS+. Meanwhile, Rivers had 2 fine years in pinstripes (he placed 3rd in the '76 MVP vote), and Figueroa was a workhorse in their 3 straight pennant years, averaging 250 IP with a 115 ERA+ and 18 wins.
But I have no sense of how much Gillick had to do with those trades, if anything. And the Yankees' draft picks in 1975-76 accomplished very little. I would appreciate hearing from Yankee fans or others with knowledge about Gillick's role with the Yanks.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
The five year waiting period is there to make the election more objective. Sort of "let the dust settle" before making any rash decisions. One strange thing I found today on the Hall of Fame website.... A rule about ballplayers that die. The way I read it , they will be voted on in the next election (if 6 months pass) Seems contrary to the point of 5 year rule. Not sure what year they made this rule ? I am pretty sure it must be within the last 10 years. As to Raines, he is already the focus of many articles. As a player moves closer to 12, 13 , 14 years on the ballot, they have always gotten a good look by the BBWAA. Raines deserves it and my belief is the BBWAA will vote him in. Once a player reaches 20 % they are on their way and will get a good look. It happened to Tony Perez and is happening with Bert Blyleven. Ralph Kiner made it his last year. Johnny Mize just missed it his last year and Gil Hodges just missed it his last year. Nellie Fox made it toward the end.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
The "death" rule still has to go through a screening committee, there is no guarantee.
A player would still need to have met the ten year active criteria, and would be considered a solid candidate if his career otherwise ended naturally.
Both Lou Gehrig and Roberto Clemente went through a screening process, they were not arbitrarily added to the ballot because of their untimely passing.
December 6th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Chuck #38... Actually Gehrig was elected before his death, in a special BBWAA election.
Ruth was elected one year after retirement, and DiMaggio was elected 4 years after his retirement.
This is entirely by memory, but I thought that the BBWAA, AFTER DiMaggio's election then passed the 5 year rule. I think it was an attempt to make sure the player stayed retired. Wonder what they thought of Jim Palmer's attempted comeback, after he was elected to the Hall? Sometime around 1965 they passed an exception to this rule to allow managers over 70 to be retired less than 5 years before election. Call it the Dick Young bullies the HOF for Casey Stengel Rule.
December 6th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
@33 Chuck,
That doesn't prove anything, all it does is highlight the odd and arbitrary nature of the BBWAA and HOF voting in general.
The iconic Duke Snider never had more than 25% of the vote during his first 3 times on the ballot. It took him 8 times on the ballot just to get to 50%.
Arky Vaughn is one of top 50 players in BB history, top 3-4 Shorstops in BB history, he was on the ballot 11 times and never went over 30%.
It took Home Run Baker 8 attempts just to get over 20%
It took Lou Boudreau 8 attempts to get over 50%
Hal Newhouser was on the ballot 11 times and never went over 27%
Eddie Mathews who is one of the top 25-30 players in BB history, who at the time of his eligibility was the best 3B in baseball history took 5 attempts to get elected to the HOF.
December 7th, 2010 at 12:34 am
<blockquote cite="Chuck@33"I'm sorry to ruffle feathers, but the fact Tim Raines has been on the ballot three years and hasn't gotten 25% proves the BBWAA knows what they are doing.
The same will be true next year when Jeff Bagwell doesn't get 40%.
What do those vote percentages have to do with anything?
Let's rattle off some names: Hank Greenberg, Joe Cronin, Max Carey, Red Ruffing. All of them were on the 1954 ballot, none got even 40%, all were elected to the Hall by the BBWAA. (They had also been on the ballot at least seven years.) Carey and Ruffing even got less than 25% in this election. In fact, of the top 19, all are now in the Hall through some method other than Hank Gowdy, who managed to do well in the voting for reasons that aren't apparent.
Did the voters learn more about Greenberg or Carey, or did they change their votes based on the same information they had in 1954? The BBWAA elected them two years later.
December 7th, 2010 at 1:10 am
Another odd & arbitrary voting pattern by the BBWAA was highlighted in the case of Gil Hodges. Hodges consistently finished in the top 3 for about 10-12 years without getting elected. During his 15 years on the ballot he received more votes at different intervals than 12 players that would eventually be voted in by the BBWAA yet he was never voted in the HOF.
Wynn, Lemon, Snider, Roberts, Mathews, Drysdale, Bunning, Wilhelm, Aparicio, Marichal, Killebrew, and Billy Williams all received less votes than Hodges in a least one election.
Not to mention he consistently received more votes than about 15 players that would eventually get voted in by the veteran's committee.
I not even a proponent for Hodges for the HOF, but that's a very odd, inconsistent and arbitrary pattern.
Hodges consistently did better than Duke Snider for years, then suddenly Snider received more votes than Hodges in 1978 and was elected in 1980?? So Hodges was the more deserving player for 8 years then suddenly he wasn't anymore??
December 7th, 2010 at 1:58 am
Congrats to Gillick and for the committee getting the vote right. The only deserving candidate on that ballot in my book.
December 7th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Yes , contratulations to Gillick. And, great that Steinbrenner did not make it. Steinbrenner was convicted of illegal campaign funds. Stole the yankees from Michael Burke the engineer of the deal to buy the yankees. Hired a criminal to get dirt on his teams honorable superstar (David Winfield) . Failed to make contractual payments to Winfield's charity. Players hated him... Gossage called him "the fat man upstairs". Roy White went to Japan. Mel Stotlemyere said he would never return. Coaches hated him . Zimmer said "a dog should not be treated this way". Yogi Berra vowed never to return. He was voted the most hated man in sports. He was banned from baseball. He was on the Olympic Committee that was found guilty of wrong doing. Yearly, he threatened to move the yankees from the Bronx by making up whatever story was good at the time. Did the Bronx get any safer in the last 5 years ? Even annoucers (Tony Kubek) had a rough time dealing with the Boss. Even front office feared the man to an extent that was un-healthy. Buying your way to Championships gets you in ? Forget that. Whoever is the owner of the Minnesota Twins should go in way before Steinbrenner gets the call.
December 7th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Simmons not getting in is completely idiotic, he has more hits and higher batting avg than the great Bench. A catcher like Schalk who took forever to get in with very below avg numbers gets in. He is better than Carter and Fisk too. Im curios to see if any of the Reds players including Bench voted for him like they should have instead of mediocre Concepcion.
December 7th, 2010 at 10:05 am
So beacuse Simmons had more hits and a better BA than Bench he deserves to be in? But Concepcion is mediocre? DC had no worse stats than the great Ozzie Smith but since being on the Cardinals...having a cool nickname and a backflip gets you more attention...I guess you get in the HOF that much easier. Concepcion was no slouch during the 1973-1982 time frame. IF Pee Wee Reese and Phil Rizzuto can be voted in then there is no reason Concepcion should not be considered more than he is.
Simmons was NOT a good defensive C at all. No one even talked about him in that way when he played. Bench was head and shoulders above Simmons. So was Carter....heck Steve Yeager was twice the defensive player Simmons was.
Good grief...BA and Hits.....are the reason he should be in?
Are you a Cardinal fan who thinks all from Stl should be in? Willie McGee next maybe?
December 7th, 2010 at 11:38 am
John, most people believe Raines should be in already, and most believe Bagwell to be a first ballot cinch.
So the vote totals do matter, because they reflect the opposite of what the perceived majority believes.
The picture you paint regarding the progression/regression of Hodges and Snider is of course is an accurate one.
December 7th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
@46, Ghost -- I can't tell whether you're touting Concepcion for the HOF or simply defending him from the "mediocre" label. But talking about him and Ozzie Smith in the same sentence does not make them comparable.
And if you think Davey belongs in the HOF, what is your case? You need stronger points than "Concepcion was no slouch" and "DC had no worse stats than the great Ozzie Smith" (which is not true).
Their OPS+ were very similar (88 for Davey, 87 for Ozzie). But Ozzie was a better base-stealer and baserunner, one of the reasons that his offensive WAR was substantially higher (43.0 - 32.5). Also, Davey hit into far more DPs, 266-167.
On defense, I believe that Davey was good, and he did win 5 Gold Gloves. But I can't see an objective argument that Concepcion was in Ozzie's class as a defender. Whether you choose conventional measures like range factor, fielding %, reputation & Gold Gloves (Ozzie won 13 to Davey's 5), or advanced metrics like dWAR (which are not at all kind to Concepcion), Ozzie comes out well ahead of Davey.
In the end, it really doesn't matter if the HOF voters were impressed by Ozzie's backflips. Ozzie's 64.6 WAR puts him in the upper half of HOF shortstops (right behind Reese, who should not be lumped together with Rizzuto). Concepcion's 33.6 WAR would be well below any other HOF SS, including Rizzuto (41.8) and Maranville (38.2).
December 7th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
My list of unfainjustices in HOF votong
Gil Hodges
Ron Santo
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Dwight Evans
Luis Tiant
i think they are all HOfers
December 7th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
I wonder how many former players v. former execs voted for Marvin Miller.
Marvin Miller needs to be inducted.
December 8th, 2010 at 12:00 am
John, trying to defend calling Davey "mediocre" more than anything.
I don't think NOT having Dave make the HOF one way or another bothers me.....and since everyone around here seems to use WAR as the basis for flat out determining him worthy of HOF induction or not, then there is no argument to be had.
December 8th, 2010 at 2:13 am
D.C. was a valuable player. but you do not need WAR to show that Ozzie was significantly better. The argument was made, well without it. I will add slightly longer career, despite more lost strike time. But mainly, inarguably better at baserunning & steals, less GIDP, & by ANY defensive metrics a much better defender. Does a historically great SS over a substantial career not add a lot more value than a good defender like D.C?
I have never heard any argument how Ozzie's "flash" caused folks to over value his defense. Show us how all defensive measures, & the amount of plays he made & his range on different surfaces is a mirage. Of course it is not, so he is a "lower tier" HOF guy. That he is not better than this is only due to the relative importance of offense over other components of the game (Consider where we rank Ted Williams, who was "only" good at hitting).
December 8th, 2010 at 8:46 am
i agree with dennis about the players he mentioned. but i think it is time for some long forgotten players to be enshrined. let's start with jimmy ryan, george van haltren, tony mullane, harry stovey, kid gleason, and jimmy dykes. the people doing the voting for old time players apparently don't know that baseball existed for many years before they were born.
December 8th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Buy cheap steroids, growth hormone, viagra, testosterone, oxymetholone, clenbuterol and more....
Steroids online shop best brands: Lyka Labs, Max Pro, Brithis Dispensary and more...
Trusted vendor!!!!!!!!
Anabol Tablets Brithis Dispensary 5mg/1000 tabs.......114$
Bolde 250 Boldenone undecylenate Genesis ..........86.20$
Trenbolone 100 Trenbolone acetate Max Pro ......... 56$
visit us http://www.Steroids-Hormone.com/