The Golden Era

Once again on Veteran's Day I take a look at the Baseball Hall of Fame's ballot for the "veteran's committee" vote, which looks at players, executives, managers and umpires from a certain time period. This year, in the second part of a three-year cycle, a group of 16 will vote on "the Golden Era," or those who made their mark from 1947-1972. Why this is the golden era, I'm not entirely sure; I'm sure it has something to do with the persistent rosy glow of the 1950s, when the Yankees, Dodgers and Giants dominated the game, which the old guard of sportswriters considered the heyday of baseball.

I wrote last year that the entire idea of a veteran's committee, at least for players who had their chance with the writer's committee, seems wrong to me. But this year there are two players who I think were unfairly passed over by the writers, and hope (and think) they will be inducted this time. Some of these players I never saw play, while others I saw at the tail-end of their careers, but there are always the stats. There are a total of 10 on the ballot; I'll consider their candidacies one at a time:

Buzzie Bavasi: The veteran's committee seems to be trying to right a wrong and take a hard look at the general manager, who is under-represented in the Hall. Last year they put in Pat Gillick, and would do well to do the same with Bavasi, who was the Dodger GM from 1951 to 1967, which means he oversaw eight pennants and four world championships. He was also a key person in the integration of baseball during the 1940s. He richly deserves induction.

Ken Boyer: Unquestionably a very good player, and a remarkably consistent hitter (check out his stats from 1958 to 1964) but not quite great. He had 2143 hits and 282 home runs, but he was a third baseman, so those stats are pretty good for the third-sackers of the era. He had a big grand-slam home run in the 1964 World Series, and was also MVP that year, but I think he falls short.

Charlie Finley: If there were a Hall of Shame, he would find a place there, not in the Hall of Fame. He did own a team, the Oakland A's, that won three straight titles, but that seemed to be in spite of him. He bought the team when they were in Kansas City, told the fans he wouldn't move them, and then promptly shopped them to other cities (I was surprised to learn just now that a deal was in place to move them to Louisville but the other owners vetoed it). He may have jazzed the game up with things like more colorful uniforms (and white shoes), advocating the DH and night post-season games (both can be seen as curses by some purists) but there is much more on the negative ledger, including his shameful treatment of Mike Andrews during the '83 series, his attempt to dismantle the team (admittedly, he wasn't the first to do this--Connie Mack did it twice) and then another attempt to move the team while allowing the club to become awful and the stadium to fall into disrepair. If he is elected, I would be shocked.

Gil Hodges: For years he has been the most criminally overlooked player to be left out of the Hall. He garnered 63 percent of the vote in his last year of eligibility by the writers (75 is necessary) and for some reason has been passed by in the various methods of election by the veteran's committee since then. There are some solid arguments against--he only has a .273 lifetime batting average (he only hit over .300 twice), and for a first-baseman, his power numbers (370 home runs) are good, not great. In fact, Baseball Reference lists his most similar players as Norm Cash, George Foster, and Tino Martinez, none of them Hall material. But the man was an RBI machine. He had over 100 in seven straight seasons during the '50s, and even after playing part time at the end of his career still managed 100 per year on average. He never finished higher than seventh in an MVP vote (in 1951, he had 40 home runs and 103 RBI, but only finished 19th). Pushing him over the edge, in my opinion, is his managing the 1969 Amazin' Mets. Elect the man already!

Jim Kaat: A close call, but I would vote no. His case is very similar to Tommy John; he won 283 times, which is third all-time for pitchers not in the Hall, but he pitched forever (25 years), and like John, his average season was 13-11 (to be fair, he spent the last few seasons of his career as a relief specialist). But in the era of the pitcher, he only had three twenty-win seasons (he had a monster year in 1966, winning 25). His highest vote total with the writers was only 29 percent. He seems like a genuinely nice man, as he called Yankee games for years, but in my view he didn't win enough games for election.

Minnie Minoso: A nice career, but I don't get his being on the ballot. He did hit over .300 seven times, but did not get 2,000 hits. He had decent power and speed, and won three Gold Gloves. He may get consideration because he was one of the first Latin stars in the Major Leagues. I remember him for the gimmickry of having him play in his 50s so he could be a four-decade player (the White Sox tried to play him in 1990, at the age of 64, but the Commissioner put the kibosh on it). Instead, why not Vada Pinson, who had over 2700 hits and was also a great fielding outfielder?

Tony Oliva: If someone has an argument for Oliva, I'd be willing to listen. For a good part of his career he played in the shadow of Rod Carew, but he did win three batting titles and led the league in hits five times. He had a .304 career batting average. His career was shortened by knee injuries (he lost almost one entire season), so it's difficult to judge him by lifetime stats--he did not have 2,000 hits, for instance. A close call, and I would vote no, but again, chime in if you think differently.

Allie Reynolds: Perhaps it's the allure of the Yankees of the Stengel era that got Reynolds on this list. He did not have 200 wins, and for a pitcher to get in the Hall with that low of a total, they have to have had an extraordinary career, like Sandy Koufax. Reynolds was not that kind of pitcher. He seems like he was a great number 2 starter, but not an ace. He only won 20 games once (in 1952, when he went 20-8 and led the league with a 2.06 ERA and finished second in the MVP voting). He led the league in strikeouts twice and had two no-hitters, but a 182-107 record with a 3.30 ERA isn't good enough. Why him over Mickey Lolich?

Ron Santo: A third-basemen with similar numbers to Boyer, but more hits and more home runs (342, at the time second to Eddie Matthews all-time for third-sackers). He also won five Gold Gloves and was a big part of a good Cubs team of the 1960s (though we all know they never won a pennant). Strangely, he only got as high as 43 percent of the writer's vote. Santo gets intangible points for playing while afflicted with diabetes and his endearing, if unprofessional, radio commentary on Cubs' broadcasts. Sadly he died a few years ago. It's time for the Hall to enshrine him.

Luis Tiant: I have vivid memories of El Tiante when he was a whirling Dervish on the mound during the 1975 World Series for the Red Sox, but his career went way back, but as with Reynolds, there's not enough wins. Tiant was 229-172 with a 3.30 ERA. He did win 20 games four times, but over his career his average season was only 15-11. He never finished higher than fourth in a Cy Young voting. Oddly, his highest vote total by the writers was 30 percent in his first year of eligibility. He then declined, where most other papers gradually increase. He never again went higher than 18 percent, in his last year of eligibility. Close, but no cigar.

So, if I had a vote, I'd cast it for Bavasi, Hodges, and Santo. It may be wishful thinking, but I think that's who is going to be elected early next month.