The decision of Hall of Famers
December, 11, 2008
Murray Chass with some passionate thoughts on the latest incarnation of the Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee:
Mazeroski was inducted in 2001, after which the Hall's directors abandoned the veterans committee as it was constituted. Since then, the directors have searched in vain for a format that could get somebody elected.
They went from the small committee to a large committee, giving the vote to all Hall of Famers plus winners of the annual writing and broadcasting awards. That didn't work either because the new committee, numbering around 85, didn't give anyone 75 percent of the vote.
For the most recent election, another change: The Spink and Frick winners were dropped and only Hall of Famers, 64 in number, received ballots. But again, no one was elected. Of the 10 candidates on the ballot, Santo came closest with 39 votes, [nine] short of the necessary 75 percent, and Jim Kaat was next with 38, followed by Tony Oliva 33, Gil Hodges 28 and Joe Torre 19.
Writers were criticized for years by Hodges supporters for not electing the Brooklyn first baseman, but now those supporters know that his contemporaries don't think he belongs in the Hall.
But one obvious reality has emerged from the four shutout elections (2002, '04, '06, '08). The occupants of the Hall of Fame don't want anyone else to join them.
This year's 64 voters wrote players' names on their ballots a total of 213 times, an average of 3.33 players per ballot. They could vote for a maximum of four candidates. But vote though they did, the players couldn't agree on which player or players merited inclusion.
That's the beauty of the 75 percent requirement. No one can sneak into the Hall of Fame. He has to be viewed overwhelmingly as a worthy member.
"It's the first time we've tried it with a small electorate and a smaller ballot," [Hall president Jeff] Idelson said. "The question becomes, how do we refine it? And if so, when? And that's something the board will have to determine."
From this point of view the board has to determine only one thing: Why belabor this foolish exercise?
"The process was not redesigned with the goal of necessarily electing someone, but to give everyone on the ballot a very fair chance of earning election through a ballot of their peers," said Jane Forbes Clark, the board chairman.
But everyone on the ballot had already been judged three times by their peers, and their peers' rejection of them followed 15 years of rejection by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. How many times does a player have to lose before he accepts defeat?