PDA

View Full Version : Bob Ryan: The 61 players that should have gone to the HoF unanimously


Fenway
01-28-2007, 11:10 PM
But here, in alphabetical order, are the 61 men who should have gone in unanimously, No Questions Asked:It does not include Lou Gehrig or Roberto Clemente, the only two men enshrined by acclamation. Pete Rose? This is not the time for that discussion

Hank Aaron, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Ernie Banks, Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Lou Brock, Roy Campanella, Rod Carew, Steve Carlton, Ty Cobb, Mickey Cochrane, Eddie Collins, Dizzy Dean, Joe DiMaggio, Bob Feller, Carlton Fisk, Whitey Ford, and Jimmie Foxx.
Charlie Gehringer, Bob Gibson, Lefty Grove, Tony Gwynn, Harry Heilmann, Rogers Hornsby, Carl Hubbell, Reggie Jackson, Walter Johnson, Al Kaline, Harmon Killebrew, Sandy Koufax, Napoleon Lajoie, Mickey Mantle, Juan Marichal, Eddie Mathews, Christy Mathewson, Willie Mays, Paul Molitor, and Stan Musial.
Mel Ott, Jim Palmer, Cal Ripken Jr., Brooks Robinson, Frank Robinson, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Nolan Ryan, Mike Schmidt, Tom Seaver, George Sisler, Ozzie Smith, Warren Spahn, Tris Speaker, Bill Terry, Pie Traynor, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski, Cy Young, and Robin Yount.



No excuse, no defense for these ballot balks (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2007/01/28/no_excuse_no_defense_for_these_ballot_balks/?page=full)

thegooch
01-28-2007, 11:26 PM
Thats a good list. Big surprise that Bob Ryan put Wade Boggs on there.

Fenway
01-28-2007, 11:49 PM
Thats a good list. Big surprise that Bob Ryan put Wade Boggs on there.
Ryan is one sportswriter that doesn't hold a grudge against players. He may not like the person off the field but respects what they do on it.

AJ Hellraiser
01-28-2007, 11:50 PM
IT SHOULD BE 62 PLAYERS AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE FRANK THOMAS.. NO TEAL NECESSARY...:angry: :angry: :angry:

Fenway
01-28-2007, 11:52 PM
IT SHOULD BE 62 PLAYERS AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE FRANK THOMAS.. NO TEAL NECESSARY...:angry: :angry: :angry:

Frank hasn't retired yet so he hasn't been voted on :smile:

Domeshot17
01-29-2007, 12:00 AM
Awesome list. I was suprised he left Sandberg off, not because I feel like he should have been on there, but because he is really over loved by Sports Writers.

AJ Hellraiser
01-29-2007, 01:35 AM
Frank hasn't retired yet so he hasn't been voted on :smile:

yeah, at first i figured he was just talking about guys in general.. my bad

SouthSide_HitMen
01-29-2007, 03:43 AM
No excuse, no defense for these ballot balks (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2007/01/28/no_excuse_no_defense_for_these_ballot_balks/?page=full)

The initial class of 1936 was limited to five 20th century players (and two 19th century) so it was impossible for several of those players to reach the hall in their first try, let alone unanimously. Cobb, Ruth, Matthewson, Johnson and Cobb beat out players like Hornsby (still active as were several players on the ballot which caused confusion), Eddie Collins, Ronald Reagan (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.carrollsweb.com/stpaulchamber/grover/lazzeri.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.carrollsweb.com/stpaulchamber/grover/grover.html&h=281&w=425&sz=15&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=-8pyuUJ9GGrQRM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dronald%2Breagan%2Bgrover%2Bcleveland% 2Balexander%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den), Cochrane, Lajoie, Speaker, Cy Young, etc. did not make it in their first try, let alone unanimously. Also, the 1937-1938 classes were limited to five additional 20th century players total by rule (four were inducted).

I am pretty sure every player on the list was inducted by the BBWAA which does a good job limiting their inductions to the best of the best, unlike the Veterans and other committees who have let everyone and anyone in.

I am not a big media guy but I do think the BBWAA does an excellent job as a gatekeeper for the HOF. I don't see why a Gwynn or Ripken (or anyone else) deserves an unanimous vote when nobody else has ever received the same honor.

Being inducted is the important part and most of those players were inducted in their first reasonable attempt. It is hard to fault voters for voting say Ruth over Hornsby or Lajoie over Matthewson which is why even players like Cobb and Ruth had a few ballots without their name on it. There were 2,260 possible votes in 1936 and all but 39 were filled in (2,221).

ondafarm
01-29-2007, 10:05 AM
It's a good list. If the whole HoF was being done now, I guess I'd vote for it. The hall wasn't established that way which left a few deserving guys out for a few years. Unfortunate, but I think the hall is generally well-managed.

itsjustinf
01-29-2007, 12:27 PM
"The primary reason, we are often told, is that some members of the voting body have a personal policy not to vote for someone the first year he is eligible."

I've heard this said before, but has any voter ever come out and said this? I'm curious to know why anyone would adopt such a policy.

Paulwny
01-29-2007, 12:43 PM
"The primary reason, we are often told, is that some members of the voting body have a personal policy not to vote for someone the first year he is eligible."

I've heard this said before, but has any voter ever come out and said this? I'm curious to know why anyone would adopt such a policy.

From the Sporting News:


John Rawlings, senior VP, editorial director I am eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame, but I choose not to. It is a clear conflict of interest for journalists to vote on awards, especially ones where financial gain is at stake, and that is the case with players who are elected to the Hall. If I had my way, journalists would not be involved in choosing who enters any hall of fame; let each sport make that decision.

itsjustinf
01-30-2007, 12:48 PM
From the Sporting News:


John Rawlings, senior VP, editorial director I am eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame, but I choose not to. It is a clear conflict of interest for journalists to vote on awards, especially ones where financial gain is at stake, and that is the case with players who are elected to the Hall. If I had my way, journalists would not be involved in choosing who enters any hall of fame; let each sport make that decision.

I agree with him, but he's saying that he doesn't vote at all. My question was whether anyone has said they refuse to vote for anyone, no matter who, the first time they are on the ballot.

Paulwny
01-31-2007, 02:39 PM
I agree with him, but he's saying that he doesn't vote at all. My question was whether anyone has said they refuse to vote for anyone, no matter who, the first time they are on the ballot.

Paul Ladewski- Daily Southtown
Sent in a blank ballot for 2 reasons,

http://blogs.baltimoresun.com/sports_custom_steele/2007/01/unanimous.html

TDog
02-01-2007, 02:35 PM
Frankly, there are a couple of people on the list I wouldn't have voted for.

I wouldn't have included Cal Ripken Jr., and I would have included Lou Gehrig, who was more productive during his consecutive game streak, and only broke it because he was dying of a disease that would take his name. (Maybe having a disease or a surgery named for you is the sort of super-fame that transcends the Hall and makes Tommy John's election unnecessary.) In fact, I may have left Ripken off my ballot this year had I a ballot. Harold Baines would have been the second name I wrote down, after Tony Gwynn. I also believe Luis Aparacio would have to be unanimous if Ozzie Smith is unanimous.

Essentially, everyone I believe should be in the Hall of Fame should be unanimous because I don't acknowledge that anyone can disagree with me.

Still, it's hard to see how anyone could have left Hank Aaron off their ballot, or how Ty Cobb could have received more votes than Babe Ruth when baseball writers were allowed to list 10 players. It's also hard to see that Roberto Clemente could be left off Ryan's list. As Jerry Reinsdorf recently said about Harold Baines, he should be in the Hall of Fame of people.

I never saw most of them play. For some of the players, their legendary reputations can be attributed in part to the fact that they are in the Hall of Fame.

FielderJones
02-01-2007, 03:53 PM
I am not a big media guy but I do think the BBWAA does an excellent job as a gatekeeper for the HOF.

:?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_Maranville

.258/28/884 lifetime? Are you kidding me? This guy's only qualifications are that he schmoozed early and often with BBWAA members.

Fenway
02-01-2007, 05:48 PM
Frankly, there are a couple of people on the list I wouldn't have voted for.

I wouldn't have included Cal Ripken Jr., and I would have included Lou Gehrig, who was more productive during his consecutive game streak, and only broke it because he was dying of a disease that would take his name. (Maybe having a disease or a surgery named for you is the sort of super-fame that transcends the Hall and makes Tommy John's election unnecessary.) In fact, I may have left Ripken off my ballot this year had I a ballot. Harold Baines would have been the second name I wrote down, after Tony Gwynn. I also believe Luis Aparacio would have to be unanimous if Ozzie Smith is unanimous.

Essentially, everyone I believe should be in the Hall of Fame should be unanimous because I don't acknowledge that anyone can disagree with me.

Still, it's hard to see how anyone could have left Hank Aaron off their ballot, or how Ty Cobb could have received more votes than Babe Ruth when baseball writers were allowed to list 10 players. It's also hard to see that Roberto Clemente could be left off Ryan's list. As Jerry Reinsdorf recently said about Harold Baines, he should be in the Hall of Fame of people.

I never saw most of them play. For some of the players, their legendary reputations can be attributed in part to the fact that they are in the Hall of Fame.

Ryan said at the beginning he didn't include Clemente or Gehrig as they were never actually voted on by the writers. They were admitted by acclamation

SouthSide_HitMen
02-01-2007, 06:39 PM
:?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_Maranville

.258/28/884 lifetime? Are you kidding me? This guy's only qualifications are that he schmoozed early and often with BBWAA members.

I didn't say they were perfect. I think most people would agree the BBWAA does a better job than just about any other sport (which induct too many candidates, IMO). The BBWAA elected 104 players, which is less than one full team per generation of players. The veterans committee and first Negro League committees were needed to get in 19th century players (which were not considered by the BBWAA) and Negro League players which were never on the ballot.

I have disagreed with a few BBWAA selections including Tony Perez but on the whole they do a good job of selecting only the upper tier candidates. The Veterans Committee and last year's Negro League committee inducted many who fail to live up to the "best in their generation" standard.

IMO, if the Baseball HOF was limited to the BBWAA selections, the first Negro League committee and a handful of Veterans Committee players the Hall of Fame would be better. The other sports (NFL, NHL - I don't know anything about the NBA) induct too many players as well. The NFL & Hockey HOF both have over 200 players inducted (the Hockey Hall of Fame is not limited to the NHL). The BBWAA has inducted 104 players. The Veterans committee elected 93 players which is absolutely ridiculous. (note - all of these numbers omit people such as owners, umpires, media and other non players inducted into the Hall of Fame).

These are the factors I considered when making that statement. The BBWAA does not have a perfect record, but they do have the strongest standards vs. the Veterans Committee and the other sport hall of fames.

TDog
02-01-2007, 08:39 PM
Ryan said at the beginning he didn't include Clemente or Gehrig as they were never actually voted on by the writers. They were admitted by acclamation

I remember the BBWAA vote on Roberto Clemente's admission. He was the only person on a special 1973 ballot. The vote was not unanimous. Yes, there were some nay votes. I read in The Sporting News at the time that a couple of the writers said they didn't believe the five-year waiting period should be waived. It sounded like a hollow excuse at the time. Maybe that special vote was whether Clemente should be named by acclamation, but the acclamation wasn't unanimous.

I wasn't around to read about Lou Gehrig's special election, but in 1936, Gehrig was on the ballot and received 51 votes, about one-third what Nap Lajoie recieved in missing the cut that first year. That was still pretty good, though, considering he would represent the American League in the that year's All-Star Game and be named the seaon's AL MVP.

Gehrig finally got in in 1939, after he announced his retirement, by a special BBWAA vote. I have no idea if the acclamation (involving some people who never put Babe Ruth on their ballots) was unanimous.

Oblong
02-01-2007, 09:42 PM
Count me in on the "BBWAA does a fine job" bandwagon. They are not perfect but like democracy, it's the best system there can be. Having such a large bloc of voters means that the idiots who do stupid things iwth their votes do not really have an impact. A smaller vote by a different group could leave us with results similar to what the Veterans committee has done. Everybody has their personal biases and in a smaller group those have a bigger effect on the outcome.

They get it right over 99% of the time.

PaulDrake
02-06-2007, 10:08 PM
They get it right over 99% of the time. If my math is correct, that means they couldn't have made more than one mistake. Which one do you think it was?