Santo Doesn't Make the HOF by 5 Votes

[NCCubFan]

it's a shame he didn't get in, but this thread title is misleading. he didn't get screwed. the system is just broken.

Legitimate point. I changed the title of the thread to reflect the results, but I changed it back to the original to avoid being controversial.

[ronsanto10]

why are the veterns so blind...did he do something to tick them off in the past?? mike north on the score says that he was hated as a player, but i dont buy that...but what is the reason ronnie cant get it....

 

its a sad day in mudville....

[Derwood]

why are the veterns so blind...did he do something to tick them off in the past?? mike north on the score says that he was hated as a player, but i dont buy that...but what is the reason ronnie cant get it....

 

its a sad day in mudville....

 

well if you don't buy the reason that multiple people have cited (that he wasn't well liked in his playing days) then I don't know what to tell you

[NCCubFan]

why are the veterns so blind...did he do something to tick them off in the past?? mike north on the score says that he was hated as a player, but i dont buy that...but what is the reason ronnie cant get it....

 

its a sad day in mudville....

It's really more a case of NOBODY being able to get in any more than Santo specifically. Santo has at least come the closest the last two elections. As Derwood mentioned earlier, it's more the process not working than a slam at Santo specifically.

[Justin]

What's really sad is that Santo played the game better than many of the people on the comittee, yet they're in and he's not.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Looking at the vote total, five more people voted Santo this time than last time. Considering we know that Sandberg likely is one of those.

 

He's not picking up any "new" votes from people who previously voted against him.

 

I think it could be safe to say that until there's some turn-over, Santo doesn't have much of a chance unless they revise the process.

[CuseCubFan69]

Looking at the vote total, five more people voted Santo this time than last time. Considering we know that Sandberg likely is one of those.

 

He's not picking up any "new" votes from people who previously voted against him.

 

I think it could be safe to say that until there's some turn-over, Santo doesn't have much of a chance unless they revise the process.

 

Or 5 new guys get induced in the next vote!

 

It seems to me these guys like to feel they are in an inclusive club and the fewer in that club the better it makes them look.

[Banedon]

Looking at the vote total, five more people voted Santo this time than last time. Considering we know that Sandberg likely is one of those.

 

He's not picking up any "new" votes from people who previously voted against him.

 

I think it could be safe to say that until there's some turn-over, Santo doesn't have much of a chance unless they revise the process.

 

Or 5 new guys get induced in the next vote!

 

It seems to me these guys like to feel they are in an inclusive club and the fewer in that club the better it makes them look.

 

But 5 new guys doesn't help him. He needs 75% of the vote. He needs to change some minds, not just add new people to the process.

[abuck1220]

Looking at the vote total, five more people voted Santo this time than last time. Considering we know that Sandberg likely is one of those.

 

He's not picking up any "new" votes from people who previously voted against him.

 

I think it could be safe to say that until there's some turn-over, Santo doesn't have much of a chance unless they revise the process.

 

so we just need some old people to die.

[CubColtPacer]

Looking at the vote total, five more people voted Santo this time than last time. Considering we know that Sandberg likely is one of those.

 

He's not picking up any "new" votes from people who previously voted against him.

 

I think it could be safe to say that until there's some turn-over, Santo doesn't have much of a chance unless they revise the process.

 

Or 5 new guys get induced in the next vote!

 

It seems to me these guys like to feel they are in an inclusive club and the fewer in that club the better it makes them look.

 

Unfortunately, with the 75 percent rule, it's going to take more than 5 new people. If none of the existing committee changes their vote and votes for him, Santo would need the next 18 newly elected members to vote for him.

[CuseCubFan69]

Looking at the vote total, five more people voted Santo this time than last time. Considering we know that Sandberg likely is one of those.

 

He's not picking up any "new" votes from people who previously voted against him.

 

I think it could be safe to say that until there's some turn-over, Santo doesn't have much of a chance unless they revise the process.

 

Or 5 new guys get induced in the next vote!

 

It seems to me these guys like to feel they are in an inclusive club and the fewer in that club the better it makes them look.

 

Unfortunately, with the 75 percent rule, it's going to take more than 5 new people. If none of the existing committee changes their vote and votes for him, Santo would need the next 18 newly elected members to vote for him.

 

I see.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Looking at the vote total, five more people voted Santo this time than last time. Considering we know that Sandberg likely is one of those.

 

He's not picking up any "new" votes from people who previously voted against him.

 

I think it could be safe to say that until there's some turn-over, Santo doesn't have much of a chance unless they revise the process.

 

Or 5 new guys get induced in the next vote!

 

It seems to me these guys like to feel they are in an inclusive club and the fewer in that club the better it makes them look.

 

I agree that most of the HOF feel like they don't want anyone new in there. My guess is there is a significant group that won't vote anyone. So, it's going to take new additons that will vote for Santo or others for this process ever to elect anyone.

 

This is the third vote for the newly constructed VC. It's failed to elect anyone. My feeling is to either disband the VC and simply state that if someone is not enshrined by the BBWAA then they aren't in or come up with a better way of doing the VC. I'm sure these discussions will be had by the HOF.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Looking at the vote total, five more people voted Santo this time than last time. Considering we know that Sandberg likely is one of those.

 

He's not picking up any "new" votes from people who previously voted against him.

 

I think it could be safe to say that until there's some turn-over, Santo doesn't have much of a chance unless they revise the process.

 

so we just need some old people to die.

 

particularly the ones not voting for Santo. We need the ones that are voting for him to keep living awhile longer.

[Banedon]

The vets panel was revamped after charges of cronyism when it elected Bill Mazeroski in 2001. Expanded from 15 members to include all living Hall of Famers, the new committee has voted every other year starting in 2003.

 

"The process was not designed with the goal to necessarily elect someone," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said.

 

Then why have it at all?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I thought this was Ron's last chance?

[goonys evil twin]

I wish he'd get in, just so this could stop being a story. It seems that behind player's health and the perceived cheapness of Cubs ownership, the hall status of their announcer is the third most discussed topic involving this team.

 

 

Sports would be so much better without Halls of Fame.

[Banedon]

Sports would be so much better without Halls of Fame.

 

I agree. I'm not a big HOF fan.

[goonys evil twin]

The vets panel was revamped after charges of cronyism when it elected Bill Mazeroski in 2001. Expanded from 15 members to include all living Hall of Famers, the new committee has voted every other year starting in 2003.

 

"The process was not designed with the goal to necessarily elect someone," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said.

 

Then why have it at all?

 

To give HOF members a chance to include guys who might not have gotten a fair shake from writers.

[Banedon]

The vets panel was revamped after charges of cronyism when it elected Bill Mazeroski in 2001. Expanded from 15 members to include all living Hall of Famers, the new committee has voted every other year starting in 2003.

 

"The process was not designed with the goal to necessarily elect someone," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said.

 

Then why have it at all?

 

To give HOF members a chance to include guys who might not have gotten a fair shake from writers.

 

So since 2001, everyone has gotten a fair shake from the writers?

[Andy]

The vets panel was revamped after charges of cronyism when it elected Bill Mazeroski in 2001. Expanded from 15 members to include all living Hall of Famers, the new committee has voted every other year starting in 2003.

 

"The process was not designed with the goal to necessarily elect someone," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said.

 

Then why have it at all?

 

To give HOF members a chance to include guys who might not have gotten a fair shake from writers.

Like, say, RON SANTO?

[daske17]

The vets panel was revamped after charges of cronyism when it elected Bill Mazeroski in 2001. Expanded from 15 members to include all living Hall of Famers, the new committee has voted every other year starting in 2003.

 

"The process was not designed with the goal to necessarily elect someone," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said.

 

Then why have it at all?

 

To give HOF members a chance to include guys who might not have gotten a fair shake from writers.

 

See, the Veteran's Committee wants it both ways. They want to feel like they'll include players from their generation that may not have gotten a fair shake, but then they do the exact opposite.

 

I say they give part of the vote to the fans. Say that they have a Web ballot that counts for 2-3 votes for the top three players on top of the committee vote. I think that fans can be much more objective to who should be in the Hall.

[Rob]

People should overwhelm the Hall with e-mails demanding a change in the process. The current process is a sham and isn't working.

 

Got an email addy?

[Banedon]

The vets panel was revamped after charges of cronyism when it elected Bill Mazeroski in 2001. Expanded from 15 members to include all living Hall of Famers, the new committee has voted every other year starting in 2003.

 

"The process was not designed with the goal to necessarily elect someone," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said.

 

Then why have it at all?

 

To give HOF members a chance to include guys who might not have gotten a fair shake from writers.

 

See, the Veteran's Committee wants it both ways. They want to feel like they'll include players from their generation that may not have gotten a fair shake, but then they do the exact opposite.

 

I say they give part of the vote to the fans. Say that they have a Web ballot that counts for 2-3 votes for the top three players on top of the committee vote. I think that fans can be much more objective to who should be in the Hall.

 

Fans are naturally biased. They'll vote for former players from their favorite team whether the stats are there or not.

[NCCubFan]

People should overwhelm the Hall with e-mails demanding a change in the process. The current process is a sham and isn't working.

 

Got an email addy?

Not offhand, but there's probably a "contact us" link on the Hall's website.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Fans wishing to voice their opinion in support of their favorite candidates may do so in two ways: by sending a single letter to Hall of Fame Veterans Committee, 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326, or by logging on to baseballhalloffame.org and sending an e-mail. The Hall of Fame does not forward petitions to the voting members, but makes all correspondence known to any interested voting members, as well as to the Screening Committee members and Historical Overview Committee members.

 

Link.