|
|
A Brief History of the Veterans Committee
by Neal Traven
Almost from the day it opened, the Baseball Hall of Fame has had some form of a
Veterans Committee to supplement the player selections voted on by the Baseball
Writers Association of America. In fact,
Cy Young,
who finished sixth behind the first five inductees, also received the
fourth-highest 1936 vote total from the Old-Timers Committee. That Committee
was supposed to choose five 19th-century players for the initial HOF class, but
couldn't achieve consensus in support of anyone. A year after the Old-Timers
Committee's failure in 1936, a newly constituted six-man Centennial Commission -
including Commissioner Landis and the presidents of both leagues - elected five
pioneer/executives and managers, one of whom (Connie Mack) was still active and
would remain so for another 13 years.
Over the years, the title of the group has changed, as has its composition, as
has its charge, as has the quality of its choices for enshrinement in the Hall
of Fame. As Bill James details in The Politics of Glory (1994), while the BBWAA
could elect only
Rogers Hornsby
between 1939 and 1947, the Committee on
Old-Timers picked Judge Landis immediately after his death in 1944, then chose
10 men the next year and 11 more the year after that. That immense crowd
included such (un)worthies as
Roger Bresnahan,
Tommy McCarthy,
and the trifecta of Tinker-Evers-Chance.
The Veterans Committee began to take its now-familiar form in 1953. At first it
had 11 members, split between baseball executives and media leaders. Both
league presidents were there, as was J.G. Taylor Spink of The Sporting News.
Detroit GM Charlie Gehringer was the only Hall of Famer on the first VC, though
Branch Rickey, then running the Pirates, would be elected some years later.
Those two were the only former players on the Veterans Committee in 1953. Over
the succeeding decades, the Committee's size and composition fluctuated. In its
most recent form, there were 15 members. Among them were several high-profile
Hall of Famers, distinguished longtime baseball writers and broadcasters, and
retired executives.
Meeting in secret, voting only face-to-face, not revealing vote totals or even
the identities of the men under consideration, the Veterans Committee came to
resemble a College of Cardinals - the ones in the Vatican, not those in Busch.
One almost expected to see puffs of white smoke rising from the chimneys of
Cooperstown as their selections were announced. There were, it has been
reported, intrigues, alliances, and domineering personalities on the Veterans
Committee over the years that would have impressed a Borgia or a Medici.
Frankie Frisch
invited many of his Giant and Cardinal teammates into the Hall of Fame in the
1970s. The Veterans Committee enshrined the likes of
Lloyd Waner,
Harry Hooper,
and Rick Ferrell.
More recently,
Ted Williams
held sway over the VC, pushing hard for teammates like
Dom DiMaggio
while opposing the selection of
Bill Mazeroski.
It's telling that Williams was recovering from open-heart surgery and unable to
attend the VC meeting when Maz was chosen in 2001, and perhaps equally telling
that DiMaggio isn't on this year's Veterans Committee ballot. Finally, there's
the story (probably apocryphal) of
Yogi Berra
calling
Phil Rizzuto
to inform the Scooter of his election in 1994 and exulting "We got you
in!"
The new Veterans Committee
That all changed on August 6, 2001, when the Hall of Fame announced its decision
to completely revamp the way the Veterans Committee operated. No more secrecy,
no more old geezers sitting around a conference table behind closed doors
choosing which of their old buddies to invite into their little club. Instead,
the new Committee would consist of all living Hall of Famers, all living
recipients of the Ford C. Frick Award (baseball broadcasters), all living
winners of the J.G. Taylor Spink Award (newspaper baseball writers), and the
other members of the replaced Veterans Committee (Ken Coleman and John McHale).
No longer would the Veterans Committee's purview for relatively recent former
players be limited to those few who had received specified (though
ever-changing) levels of support from the BBWAA. The new Veterans Committee
would vote on former players (the Players ballot) every other year and on all
other classes of potential Hall of Famers (managers, umpires, and executives -
the Composite ballot) every four years. A defined procedure would be employed
to determine the names to be placed on the two ballots for consideration by the
Committee.
The method used to cull the two ballots down to their prescribed sizes (25-30
for the Players ballot, 15 for the Composite) encompasses a number of steps.
While the eligibility criteria and step-by-step results have been made public
during the process, some aspects of the procedure remain unrevealed. In brief,
here's how the two ballots were created, with my parenthetical comments:
This new structure gives us fans a real opportunity to think along with the new
Veterans Committee. For the first time, we know exactly who is under
consideration and we know exactly how the voting operates. Not only that … it's
a familiar method, essentially identical to the BBWAA ballot in its operation.
Thus, we're expanding this year's
STATLG-L Internet Hall of Fame
voting to encompass the Veterans Committee Player and Composite ballots.
I'm very excited about our simulation of the Veterans Committee voting. This is
the very first test of the revamped Committee. Everything about this approach
is brand-new and experimental, so it's all but impossible to predict (or even
guess) what the outcome of the balloting will be. The historical record of
prior Veterans Committee results is completely irrelevant; there are no patterns
of previous behaviors on which to base analyses of the eventual outcomes. Let's
face it - even before the results of the IHOF and BBWAA votes were announced,
you had a pretty good idea of how they would look. We knew that Murray would be
elected and that Carter also had a very good chance of making it. There was a
bit of uncertainty regarding Sandberg, though I think it was generally agreed
that he wouldn't receive three-quarters of the votes this year. The rest of the
candidates finished in just about the expected order. Nothing of the sort can
be said about these Veterans Committee ballots.
For myself, I plan to take a long, hard look at the ballots and the candidates
before filling in my choices. I see a few obvious selections and a number of
obvious cross-outs on both slates, but a great many names fall between those
easy extremes. I understand that the procedure for placing candidates on the
ballot was inherently biased toward candidates from particular eras and that
it's all but certain that the ballots would be stronger if several of the
candidates were replaced by clearly superior ones from the Historical Overview
Committee's lists. Hey, it could have been worse - George W. Bush, whose only
MLB "accomplishment" was five years as managing general partner of the
Rangers, was on the Historical Overview Committee's managers/umpires/executives
list, but didn't make the final cut for the Composite ballot. As noted earlier,
this is the first iteration of the new Veterans Committee, the beta test, as it
were. After the results are in, perhaps the powers-that-be in Cooperstown will
examine the process they designed and find ways to make it better.
One observation I'll make is that if the Veterans Committee voters cast as many
of their 10 permitted votes on the Composite ballot as on the Players ballot,
it's more likely that someone from the Composite ballot will reach 75% than one
from the Players ballot. My reasoning is as follows: if every member of the
Committee used all 10 choices, and those votes were distributed absolutely
randomly among the choices, then every person on the Composite ballot would
receive 67% (10/15), while the corresponding random percentage for the Players
ballot would be only 38.5% (10/26). Whether my surmise holds water is just
another of the many unknowns in the Veterans Committee voting.
What we do know is that the Hall of Fame will announce the results on February
26, 2003. As usual, we'll close the STATLG-L Internet HOF voting a few days
before that, and announce the BP fans' results for the Veterans Committee
ballots a day or so before the official results.
Ready to vote?
Neal Traven is the co-chair of the Statistical Analysis Committee of the Society
for American Baseball Research (SABR).
To subscribe to STATLG-L, either (a) send a one-line email message consisting
of: SUBSCRIBE STATLG-L [your name] to the address
listserv@listserv.brown.edu,
or (b)
click here, and fill in the boxes. Either way, confirm your subscription
and then join the discussion!
|