The Veterans’ (Exclusion) Committe
So, as most everyone knows, the Veterans’ Committee met for their bi-annual vote to exclude Ron Santo from the Hall of Fame. OK, that’s a little unfair, because it’s not the Committee’s fault that they’ve failed to elect anyone in the past six years.
I’m of the opinion that the Hall of Fame should be a very exclusive club. I’m perfectly fine with the Veterans not electing anyone if they don’t feel that they deserve it.
However, it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of the members of the Veterans’ Committee wanted to enshrine Santo. Of the 82 votes cast, 57 were for including Santo, while only 25 voted to keep him out.
I’m not a logician, but when more than twice as many people think someone should be included as excluded, it’s a pretty reasonable conclusion that the person in question should be in. The problem lies not with how the Veterans are voting, but in the completely arbitrary 75% threshold.
I’m not the only person who thinks this way, either. The insightful Joe Posnanski laid down a convincing line of reason as to why the 75% line was to blame for Santo’s exclusion.
The Hall of Famers are not at all like writers (just ask them). These guys already have authority galore as individuals. They are the greatest players in the history of the game. Any one of them blurts out an opinion, and it will make papers from coast to coast (see Schmidt, Mike). The point is: You certainly do NOT need an overwhelming majority of Hall of Famers to gain credibility. And after all, that’s what the Hall of Fame is looking for at all times. Credibility. All Halls of Fame are built on credibility (which is why the Baseball Hall of Fame, in the eyes of most fans, is way ahead of the others).
The writers have a long-established 75% threshold for electing a player to the Hall. For the Veterans, who have only voted since 2002, that same percentage was carried over. Why should they need to prove that someone belongs in their fraternity at the same level that the writers do? They shouldn’t. That’s the point that Posnanski makes, and the point that I’m arguing.
I’m not going to argue whether Santo is a Hall of Famer or not. That’s a discussion for another forum, and a discussion that’s been rehashed ad nauseum. I believe he deserves to be in, and I believe that the Veterans’ Committee feels the same way, 75% or not.
- - - - -
[It should be noted that this post originates from reading this post at Cub Town, Joe Posnanski’s blog entry, and an email I received from Edward Valentine in regards to what he wrote here.]