Santo Doesn't Make the HOF by 5 Votes

[3Dog]

Like any other institution which speciously bestows recognition to an elected few and which allows politics and pandering to taint its purpose, the Baseball Hall of Fame should be abolished along with the list of those it has previously honored.

 

Oh, and get rid of the All-Star Game too.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Haha, it was hilarious to hear Dick Vitale ranting against the HOF during the Florida-Tennessee basketball game.

[sethuel1]

An mp3 clip of Bruce Levine asking whether the process needs to revamped during the HoF conference call. Joe Morgan gets offended.

 

http://espn-mp3-od.andomedia.com/stations/990/joemorgan.mp3

 

Awesome stuff from Levine.

 

Bite me, Joe Morgan. The other former players are idiots just like you.

[ConstableRabbit]

I'm in my fraternity house listening to the clip and some kid who's in my house (a sox fan) says "of course Santo's not a hall of famer -- he never even went to the playoffs and never won a ring."

 

AHFRFLKJGKNNVCIDH!!!111

 

 

 

(sorry)

[sethuel1]

I'm in my fraternity house listening to the clip and some kid who's in my house (a sox fan) says "of course Santo's not a hall of famer -- he never even went to the playoffs and never won a ring."

 

AHFRFLKJGKNNVCIDH!!!111

 

 

 

(sorry)

haze him

[NCCubFan]

I sent an e-mail complaining about their obviously flawed process. I doubt they give a rat's ass what I (or any of us mere fans) think, but at least I got my :twocents: in.

 

Unless the process is changed, Santo will get in when :pigfly: .

[Guest]

You have to love Mike Schmidt.

 

He has, in previous years, openly campaigned against everyone on the Veterans Committee ballot and was successful again Tuesday in denying all candidates.

 

But now Schmidt says he thinks the writers should vote for Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa — the poster boys for enhanced power.

 

Asked if he would have voted for McGwire, Schmidt told the Philadelphia Daily News, “I would have said yes, Mark deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, if I was a writer.’’

 

Schmidt went on to rip the writers for making money off McGwire and Sosa, and then denying McGwire a spot in the Hall.

 

He might be correct about the media being blind and oblivious for a number of years but wrong for suggesting the press should now turn a blind eye.

 

Hypocrisy KNOWS no bound, especially for Joe Morgan and his favorite lapdog, Mike Schmidt. Won't vote for legitimate stars like Jim Kaat, and Ron Santo, but would vote for "created by drugs" stars like McGwire and Sosa.? The hypocrist of Schmidt along, so be reason enough to boot Mike out of the HOF.

 

HOF has lost credibility ever since they inducted Bill Mazeroski into the HOF. If the guy played in today's game, you know what you call him? Royce Clayton. This guy had a CAREER OBP of .299 .299, that is Nefti Perez esque. (with no OBP over .320 during any one season during his career. And last time I checked, Neft Perez/Royce Clayton are not HOFer. So until the HOF dismisses Bazeroski from the HOF---cause he isn't worthy---the HOF has credibility on who they elected. To me, it's no longer called "The Hall of Fame", it's call "The Hall of Politiks in Baseball."

 

Good riddance to the HOF, a worthless organization.

[larhur]

don't know if anyone has said this or not but I remember Mike Schmidt saying he would never vote for another third baseman for the HOF. enouth said

[NCCubFan]

HOF has lost credibility ever since they inducted Bill Mazeroski into the HOF. If the guy played in today's game, you know what you call him? Royce Clayton. This guy had a CAREER OBP of .299 .299, that is Nefti Perez esque. (with no OBP over .320 during any one season during his career. And last time I checked, Neft Perez/Royce Clayton are not HOFer. So until the HOF dismisses Bazeroski from the HOF---cause he isn't worthy---the HOF has credibility on who they elected.

Bazeroski isn't even in the Hall. :D

 

I agree on Mazeroski, though. I mentioned him specifically in my e-mail to the Hall. If Mazeroski belongs in the Hall so does Don Larsen, because they both are famous solely for one World Series moment.

[CuseCubFan69]

I was just watching Mike & Mike and I didn't realize that Marvin Miller didn't get in either. Here's a guy that gave these players a chance to make a lot of money and is IMO one of the most influential people in baseball history.

[Derwood]

an article I read this morning said that the current Veteran's Comittee setup was put in place after cronyism got guys like Mazeroski in. Now the Chairman of the HoF feels that this model isn't working either (duh) and will bring it up at their annual meeting on March 13

[CuseCubFan69]

an article I read this morning said that the current Veteran's Comittee setup was put in place after cronyism got guys like Mazeroski in. Now the Chairman of the HoF feels that this model isn't working either (duh) and will bring it up at their annual meeting on March 13

 

This lobbyist thing just drives me nuts. Maybe it's time for Cub fans to pool up and send a guy out there to lobby for Santo...whine and dine them, bring them to Vegas with Pacman and tell them how great they are.

[wekse]

an article I read this morning said that the current Veteran's Comittee setup was put in place after cronyism got guys like Mazeroski in. Now the Chairman of the HoF feels that this model isn't working either (duh) and will bring it up at their annual meeting on March 13

 

This lobbyist thing just drives me nuts. Maybe it's time for Cub fans to pool up and send a guy out there to lobby for Santo...whine and dine them, bring them to Vegas with Pacman and tell them how great they are.

 

or threaten to break their knees.

[wilk]

For what it's worth, Joe Morgan said on a radio conference call last night that he did vote for Santo, has in the past, and will continue to. There's also a blurb in the NY Times about this comment for reference -- though that simply says he was surprised Ronny didn't make it rather than the direct quote that he placed a vote himself.

[CubinNY]

For what it's worth, Joe Morgan said on a radio conference call last night that he did vote for Santo, has in the past, and will continue to. There's also a blurb in the NY Times about this comment for reference -- though that simply says he was surprised Ronny didn't make it rather than the direct quote that he placed a vote himself.

 

Morgan says he voted for Santo and Shmidt said he would vote for Santo. Hmm. what to believe

 

Santo didn't receive any "new" votes from past members who voted on him

 

or the new guys who entered didn't vote for him but the a few who didn't last time decided to change their vote.

 

I'm going to believe that the old guard didn't change their vote. At one point in time Shmidt said he didn't think anyone should get elected by the vetrans committee because if they were good enough they would have gotten voted in by the writers.

[wilk]

 

Santo didn't receive any "new" votes from past members who voted on him

 

I'm going to believe that the old guard didn't change their vote.

 

But Morgan's claim is he didn't change his vote because he has recently voted yes. I've never liked Morgan so I'm not going to claim he's telling the truth - but he is claiming he voted for Santo to get in.

[CubinNY]

 

Santo didn't receive any "new" votes from past members who voted on him

 

I'm going to believe that the old guard didn't change their vote.

 

But Morgan's claim is he didn't change his vote because he has recently voted yes. I've never liked Morgan so I'm not going to claim he's telling the truth - but he is claiming he voted for Santo to get in.

 

Morgan may well have voted for Santo, but not enough of the people who didn't vote for him in 2005 changed their vote.

 

I'm pretty sure Santo got roughly the same % this year that he got the last time they voted. That means either the new guys voted for him but the one who didn't last time didn't this time. or The news guys didn't vote for him but some of the people changed their vote. or some combination of the two.

 

My guss is the first one.

[cheapseats]

An mp3 clip of Bruce Levine asking whether the process needs to revamped during the HoF conference call. Joe Morgan gets offended.

 

http://espn-mp3-od.andomedia.com/stations/990/joemorgan.mp3

 

Awesome stuff from Levine.

 

Bite me, Joe Morgan. The other former players are idiots just like you.

 

I love Bruce Levine for that.

[wilk]

Morgan may well have voted for Santo, but not enough of the people who didn't vote for him in 2005 changed their vote.

 

I'm pretty sure Santo got roughly the same % this year that he got the last time they voted. That means either the new guys voted for him but the one who didn't last time didn't this time. or The news guys didn't vote for him but some of the people changed their vote. or some combination of the two.

 

My guss is the first one.

 

Oh, definitely it wasn't a matter of just Morgan. But in the frustration that he didn't make it, it just seems a lot of people have been latching onto Morgan as a figurehead for the general elitist attitude of the committee. I just thought it was interested he said he voted for him despite what most people believe to be true.

 

Santo received 57 of 82 votes (needing 62) this year, and 52 of 80 votes (needing 60) in 2005.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Here's Rosenthal's take.

 

Link.

[CoolHandLuke]

Hypocrisy KNOWS no bound, especially for Joe Morgan and his favorite lapdog, Mike Schmidt. Won't vote for legitimate stars like Jim Kaat, and Ron Santo, but would vote for "created by drugs" stars like McGwire and Sosa.? The hypocrist of Schmidt along, so be reason enough to boot Mike out of the HOF.

 

 

Why do you think Kaat should get in? I admit I just quickly glanced at his career stat sheet on baseball reference, but it looked to my like the only thing he did truly well was pitch for a long time. He has a real pretty looking career ERA of 3.45, which looks hall worthy without context, but the league average ERA throughout his career was 3.69. He allowed more hits than innings pitched and he didn't strike out all that many batters. To me he looks like a slightly above average pitcher that pitched for a long enough time to rack up some nice counting stats.

[Outshined_One]

[Why do you think Kaat should get in? I admit I just quickly glanced at his career stat sheet on baseball reference, but it looked to my like the only thing he did truly well was pitch for a long time. He has a real pretty looking career ERA of 3.45, which looks hall worthy without context, but the league average ERA throughout his career was 3.69. He allowed more hits than innings pitched and he didn't strike out all that many batters. To me he looks like a slightly above average pitcher that pitched for a long enough time to rack up some nice counting stats.

 

Look at his awards and tell me what sticks out.

 

If we can induct Ozzie Smith into the Hall because he's one of the top two or three greatest defensive shortstops of all time while being decent offensively, then Kaat by analogy should get in for being one of the two or three best defense pitchers of all time while being a decent pitcher.

[goonys evil twin]

[Why do you think Kaat should get in? I admit I just quickly glanced at his career stat sheet on baseball reference, but it looked to my like the only thing he did truly well was pitch for a long time. He has a real pretty looking career ERA of 3.45, which looks hall worthy without context, but the league average ERA throughout his career was 3.69. He allowed more hits than innings pitched and he didn't strike out all that many batters. To me he looks like a slightly above average pitcher that pitched for a long enough time to rack up some nice counting stats.

 

Look at his awards and tell me what sticks out.

 

If we can induct Ozzie Smith into the Hall because he's one of the top two or three greatest defensive shortstops of all time while being decent offensively, then Kaat by analogy should get in for being one of the two or three best defense pitchers of all time while being a decent pitcher.

 

That is, of course, unless you view the value of pitcher's defense and SS defense as being unequal.

[CoolHandLuke]

[Why do you think Kaat should get in? I admit I just quickly glanced at his career stat sheet on baseball reference, but it looked to my like the only thing he did truly well was pitch for a long time. He has a real pretty looking career ERA of 3.45, which looks hall worthy without context, but the league average ERA throughout his career was 3.69. He allowed more hits than innings pitched and he didn't strike out all that many batters. To me he looks like a slightly above average pitcher that pitched for a long enough time to rack up some nice counting stats.

 

Look at his awards and tell me what sticks out.

 

If we can induct Ozzie Smith into the Hall because he's one of the top two or three greatest defensive shortstops of all time while being decent offensively, then Kaat by analogy should get in for being one of the two or three best defense pitchers of all time while being a decent pitcher.

 

Oh wow. I still don't know if that should get him in considering the fact that Once you earn a couple Gold Gloves you are much more likely to win down the road. Also how much is a pitcher's defense actually worth? Surely less than shortstop. Kaat was a very fine pitcher for a very long time and he may have actually deserved that streak of gold gloves but I still wouldn't vote him in based on his pitching stats.

[Laura]

I'm parked on the Daily Herald's website right now. I love how Bruce opened the article on Santo falling short in the HoF vote.

 

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Ron Santo struck out again with Hall of Fame voters, but even the Hall itself appeared defensive and embarrassed about Tuesday’s vote by the Veterans Committee.

 

For the third time in three votes, the Veterans Committee failed to elect a former player to the Baseball Hall of Fame, increasing speculation that the committee soon will be disbanded.

 

“This board has always wanted to watch the process for three cycles before discussing any possible changes,” Clark said during a conference call with reporters. “We will be evaluating this process and its trends at our next meeting, which is March 13, and discussing whether there should be any changes in these Veterans Committee voting procedures.”

 

(bold added)

 

I'll post my email/letter later tonight.