Baseball’s Most Achieving Players: 1893-2009

I am working on a project to rank outstanding players performing mainly from 1893 through 2009. Almost all ranked performed as regulars for at least five seasons during the Twentieth Century and present considerable “star-type” features. I elect not to rank players active in 2009. (I believe in at least a brief “cooling off” period after a player retires, before determining his place in history.) My rankings will differ from many other similar work products of excellent quality, in that I will do my best to describe the achievements of particular players, but also to explain why they rank ahead or behind others.

How far I intend to go in ranking the thousands of eligible players depends on a variety of factors. I begin with a group of 26 whom I regard as “supreme”. Besides being players of high historical impact, all 26 present: massive career statistics; high numbers of star quality seasons; premier long-term status among contemporaries and/or at positions, and/or in important skill areas. The 26 separate form the many other prominent contenders because they all present major features of “number one” quality or close. All were the best or nearly the best among all players in their leagues during significant time periods.

Another point is that all 26 reasonably contend for high ranking within the group. After Babe Ruth at number one, this cluster contains several sub-groups of players, all extremely close in career achievement. Final rankings depend on which of the superb features and combinations of features presented by each of these players are, given greater weight. Although more than 26 might qualify for inclusion at the edges of this cluster, I don’t believe any others present the same quality of “number one” credentials.

Yes, I know this cluster includes no Catchers. Positional factors do influence my rankings, but the fact that a player was the best at a position does not always mean that he ranks ahead of others on a list including all players from all time periods and all positions.

For later discussion, I have identified a second cluster approximately 35 “nearly supreme” performers. That group includes three Catchers.

In ranking players, I do my best to minimize visceral feelings as to how “good” they were. My focus is on career achievement. Fairly often, particular players achieve more than do others who may be perceived as more highly skilled.

I generally consider the following evaluation areas, some of which over lap: 1.) career statistics; 2.) number of “star or near star” qualify seasons; 3.) unique skills or combinations of skills, 4.) contributions to winning or contending teams (value); 5.) status among contemporaries; 6.) positional factors including longer and shorter team rankings; 7.) achievements of historical importance; 8.) career longevity and the lengths of quality of the player’s “peak period”; 9.) weaknesses or deficiencies, if any. (These areas vary in importance and are not listed above in any particular order.) In some cases, the evaluations may be influenced by features not falling into any of the above evaluation areas.)

Players don’t necessarily deserve higher ranking because they present more features in more evaluation areas, but because they present more important features. Players in the “supreme” cluster present massive features including some “number one” quality or close.

Following is my list of 26 “supreme” players. Players are listed at their main positions and chronologically. I welcome any suggestions and comments regarding rankings. You might want to try your hand at ranking these players from one through 26.

“Supreme” Baseball Players – Top 26 1893 – 2009 (Listed at Main Position and Chronologically)
Pitchers (8)	Outfielders
Cy Young	Ty Cobb
Christy Mathewson	Tris Speaker
Walter Johnson	Bath Ruth
Grover "Pete" Alexander	Mel Ott
"Lefty" Grove	Joe DiMaggio
Warren Spahn	Ted Williams
Roger Clemens	Stan Musial
Greg Maddux	Mickey Mantle
	Willie Mays
First Basemen	Hank Aaron
Lou Gehrig	Pete Rose
Jimmie Foxx	Ricky Henderson
	Barry Bonds
Second Basemen
Rogers Hornsby
Shortstops
Honus Wagner
Third Basemen
Mike Schmidt

Hall of Fame 2009 – The Writers

The ballots have been counted and the Writers have approved Ricky Henderson and Jim Rice for 2009 Hall of Fame inductions. Henderson’s credentials are unassailable. Among other features, he was regarded by the Society for American Baseball Research and The Sporting News are one of the game’s top 100 players during the Twentieth Century. Rice is more disputable, but I find his qualifications to be sufficient.

1.

Henderson’s HOF performance qualifications are so clear that there should be no need for debate. The same would be true regarding Mark McGwire, except for the steroids issues. Of the other eligibles, the following present one or more traditional statistical features often conclusive or at least persuasive in HOF evaluations (listed by position and alphabetically): Bert Blyleven, Tommy John, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, Jim Rice. I eliminate Baines, because he is too low for HOF in seasonal quality.

Alan Trammell, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy and Dave Parker deserve consideration because they produced significant career segments of intense quality. All may be “short” either in their over-all career statistics and/or their numbers of star quality seasons. Parker is my leader among these players because he produced more high quality seasons. All four may become viable candidates for induction as Veterans.

2.

Jim Rice enjoyed several seasons at or near the top of AL hitters, earned an MVP award, and produced eight seasons with at least 100 RBI. In my opinion, he meets minimum HOF standards, and I disagree that his induction creates “bad” precedent.

I am lukewarm on Andre Dawson. He amassed some compelling career totals, but he is moderate to low in terms of career averages and his number of star quality seasons. Raines performed at HOF levels during his first seven full seasons and then became more of a “near star” than a leading star. He deserves consideration for his status as one of the game’s foremost lead-off hitters, butt far behind Henderson. In my opinion, elite table setters don’t receive enough credit. (I seem to be one of a few who admire Earl Combs so much in this role.)

Among the starting pitchers, I favor Morris over Blyleven and John because: 1.) Morris was one of the three-four top starters for the 1980-1999 period; 2.) he is ahead of the others in big-winning seasons; 3.) he had enormous impact on some championships. (Despite his massive career statistics, Blyleven seldom could be regarded as one of the league’s upper level seasonal stars.) Until fairly recently, Lee Smith was the all-time leader in Saves. He is hard to over look. As an aside, most point systems seem to under-value relief pitchers.

My top four in performance: Henderson, McGwire, Rice, Morris.

3.

As in too many cases, Henderson’s voting total actually raises some concerns. We need not cry for him because he received “only” 94+ percent of the votes. However, in view of all the
precedents, how could any qualified voter not include him on a ballot?

I think HOF voters should see their functions as being similar to those of judges conducting court trials. Judges should not be influenced by friends or enemies nor have any personal stake in the outcomes. They should rule solely on the basis of the applicable law and the admissible evidence. Ricky Henderson ranks first or reached classic levels in several batting categories. His career was unusually long and achieving. He gained highest seasonal honors and starred for championship teams.
He meets every objective test of baseball greatness and by huge margins. Too often in this JOF process, we are left to wonder about the apparently erratic voting patterns involving a minority of voters. Henderson wasn’t affected too much, but what of other worthies whose credentials are less certain than Henderson’s?

I don’t disparage voters because they disagree with my views. HOF qualifications can be highly debatable and differences of opinion should be expected and respected. However, close voting situations can be affected by whimsical voters.

A lot of problems in the process could be reduced with more institutional consensus regarding HOF standards and some procedural changes. More about those topics later.

Hall of Fame Veterans: 2008 Election Results

Naturally I am pleased by the decision to induct Joe Gordon as a Veteran. When I wrote my book, all Veterans were considered together by a committee consisting of all living Hall of Fame members. I ranked Gordon fifth behind Ron Santo, Maury Wills, Gil Hodges and Allie Reynolds. Under the most recent procedural changes, Veterans were divided into two groups, depending as whether players began their careers before, during or after 1943. The pre-1943 group, including Gordon, was evaluated by a select committee of 16.

Although I ranked Gordon behind Allie Reynolds in the pre-1943 group, I am quick to acknowledge that Gordon is superior in the quality of his traditional HOF credentials. I rank Reynolds higher because of his extreme historical impact on the championships of his era. I can appreciate why reasonable evaluators might determine that the traditional all-star type features merit priority over mainly historical features, so, for many, Gordon becomes a logical first choice.

1.

Gordon was a major star of his time and a ground breaker. He and HOF member Bobby Doerr began their careers around the same time. They became the first middle infielders to produce such high levels of combined achievements as power hitters and defensive stars. Gordon was the first AL middle infielder to exceed 200 career HRs (253) or to hit at least 30 HRs (32, 30) in a season. His seasonal HR record for AL second basemen lasted for several decades. He starred for six pennant-winning teams and five World Series champions. He gained MVP honors in 1942 and was selected by The Sporting News six times as a Major League All Star. He also was selected for 9 All Star games.

Why should Gordon be inducted now? For some, his credentials are diminished by the fact that his career was relatively brief (11 seasons) and his career Batting Ave. was only .268. He lost two years to military service during World War II and several HOF members gained induction despite playing for approximately 10 seasons. That includes some ranked among the past century’s top 100 players. Gordon was proficient in drawing Walks and his On Base + Slugging was a positionally significant .823 (same as Doerr’s).

Gordon presents credentials linking him to elite HOF members and raising him above almost all other candidates.

• He was unique at his position in his combined skills as one of his league’s stand-out power hitters and as a defensive star.
• Most regard him as the game’s most outstanding second baseman of the 1940’s. He was the most decorated in terms of seasonal honors and rankings. His features include an MVP award.
• He was a winner and a difference maker for winning teams. This attribute went beyond his good fortune in being a member of the Yankees. When he was traded to Cleveland, his winning touch helped the Indians rise in two years from sixth place to championship status. He batted clean-up in the 1948 World Series and drove in 124 runs during the regular season to lead the team in RBI.
• When he retired after the 1950 season, he ranked in the top 15 all-time in career HRs and second among those playing at least 1,000 games at 2B, SS, 3B or C.
• When they played, Gordon usually ranked ahead of Bobby Doerr. I don’t consider comparability to other HOF members as an important HOF indicator, but I do consider Doerr to have been a high quality inductee. I even rank him ahead of Gordon on a career basis, but Gordon’s over-all credentials are highly comparable and superior in important aspects.

2.

While I am pleased by Gordon’s success, I continue to be dismayed by the failure of the larger committee to induct any of the post-1942 candidates such as Ron Santo. This year’s results also create an anomaly which may create continuing embarrassment for the Hall. No one has ever been inducted by the committee consisting of all living HOF members in the four elections of its existence.

I agree that there is no compulsion to elect Veterans, unless they are highly qualified. My analysis indicates that Santo and, possibly, others are highly qualified and more than 60% of the voters reach the same conclusion as to Santo.

Suppose I am right or nearly right in my over-all rankings regarding Santo, Wills, Hodges, Reynolds and Gordon. Or, suppose that the voters in recent elections had it right or nearly right by ranking Santo first and Gordon near the bottom of the top 10.

Gordon is in; Santo remains out. To me, Gordon is a good choice. However, other Veterans have superior credentials. Gordon succeeds and others fall short because different selection bodies have jurisdiction over the different candidates and one doesn’t act favorably on anyone.

The focus should be on arriving at more institutional consensus regarding HOF standards. Enough information and other tools are available to fulfill that need. What good is a selection process which fails to induct anyone, ever?

Hall of Fame Veterans – 2008

This essay mainly discusses the election of players eligible for Hall of Fame membership as Veterans in 2008. In other words, the players have been retired for at least 23 years and are no longer under the voting jurisdiction of the Baseball Writers having the initial selection responsibilities.

After the debacle resulting from the 2006 voting on Hall of Fame Veterans (again no players inducted), important procedural changes were adopted. These most recent changes became effective for the first time this year regarding players (last year for managers/umpires and executives/pioneers). The pressures for change probably arose because post-2000 procedural revisions did not produce any inductions in 2002, 2004 or 2006.

Essentially, in the process for Veterans, separate voting categories have been established for players (two groups); umpires and managers; executives and pioneers. Starting this year, players whose careers began in 1942 or earlier will be evaluated every five years. The Historical Overview Committee of the Baseball Writers’ Association identified 10 candidates from that time frame. Another committee of 12 makes the final decisions regarding the 10 finalists. This committee consists of appointed Hall of Fame members, media members and historians. Electors may vote for zero to four candidates and successful candidates require 75% voting support.

The procedures are somewhat different for players whose careers began in 1943 or later. The Historical Overview Committee and a separate Hall of Fame screening committee create a ballot of 20 – 25 candidates. Each living member of the Hall casts a ballot ranking 10 of the candidates in order of preference. Thereafter, the members cast final ballots for zero to four of the 10 finalists, with 75% required for induction.

Voting results in both categories will be announced in December and inductions of successful Veterans, if any, will take place in July, 2009.

Last year, under the new procedures, two managers and two executives gained induction. Perhaps these “new new” changes may benefit deserving players as well.

The finalists in each of the player categories were announced recently. The pre-1943 and post-1942 groups are discussed separately.

The Pre-1943 Finalists

The 10 finalists are listed by primary position and chronologically

Carl Mays (SP)	(1915-29)
Wes Ferrell (SP)	(1927-41)
Bucky Walters (SP)	(1934-48, 50)
Allie Reynolds (SP)	(1942-54)
Mickey Vernon (1B)	(1939-43, 46-60)
Joe Gordon (2B)	(1938-43, 46-50)
Bill Dahlen (SS)	(1891-1911)
Vern Stephens (SS)	(1941-55)
Deacon White (3B)	(1871-90)
Sherry Magee (OF)	(1904-19)

If you read my book or visited my website, you probably know that my top 25 Veterans from the 1901-1972 time period included 10 players from pre-1943. Six of my top 10 did not qualify as finalists this year.

1. Allie Reynolds – SP


2. Joe Gordon – 2B


3. *Stan Hack – 3B (1932-47)


4. *Bob Johnson – OF (1933-45)


5. Vern Stephens – SS


6. Wes Ferrell – SP


7. *Firpo Marberry – RP (1923-36)


8. *Bob Elliott – 3B (1939-53)


9. *Dom DiMaggio – OF (1940-42; 46-53)


10. *Marty Marion – SS (1940-53)


11. (*indicates non-finalists for 2008)

1.

I like the idea of establishing the two relevant time frames for Veterans. A player’s stature among contemporaries or near-contemporaries is one of my most important evaluation areas and shortening the time frames permits more focused consideration.

However, this group should be evaluated more frequently than every five years, particularly if no one is inducted in a particular election. I would favor the same frequency as for other Veterans, but at least every three years. Note that managers/umpires and executives/pioneers continue to be evaluated every two years. Why provide such limited consideration only for this group of players?

2.

As an aside, the list of pre-1943 finalists provides more evidence as to the lack of strong institutional consensus regarding Hall of Fame qualifications. (See later discussion regarding post-1942 list.) Under the post-2000 procedures, and until this year, similar committees (probably including most or many of the same members) – have been nominating leading Veterans from among all eligible players. Prior to this year, the nominations involved all retiring in the late 1970’s or early to mid-1980’s. This year, separate nomination lists have been created for pre-1943 and post-1942 players.

All the pre-1943 candidates were eligible and identifiable in 2002 and thereafter. Performances were completed long ago. One would expect that a pre-1943 player found qualified to be included among the top 25 Veterans then eligible in 2002, 2004 and/or 2006 also would qualify now as a top 10 among pre-1943 players. (Since 2002, the lists of the top 25 Veterans have never included more than 10 pre-1943 players.) One would also expect that pre-1943 players now ranked top 10 for that time frame would have been nominated at least once before among the top 25 of all Veterans.

Mays, Ferrell and Gordon all were nominated in 2002, 2004 and 2006. Reynolds and Vernon were nominated once previously. Walters, Dahlen, Stephens, White and Magee appear now for the first time. Marty Marion was nominated in 2002, 2004 and 2006, but is not on the present list of finalists.

The people formulating these lists are “experts” and among the most informed people on earth regarding Hall of Fame qualifications. They have my utmost respect and deserve high esteem for their work products. The fact that their lists have so many players coming in and out each year, reflects not the lack of skilled evaluations, but more on the lack of institutional consensus regarding HOF standards. Also, I consider my evaluations to be thoughtful and well considered. In addition to Vern Stephens, my top 10 from this time period includes four others never previously nominated.

Hall of Fame standards really shouldn’t be so mysterious. Leading candidates should be easier to identify according to well established principles. Within narrow ranges of discretion, those who go to the trouble of doing the necessary research ought to be able to identify the leaders with high degrees of consistency. As much as reaching conclusions about the individuals under consideration, we ought to be able to state specific reasons why some are ahead and others behind. Whether you agree to disagree with my lists, be assured, I can provide such specifics.

3.

My book mainly concerned players performing mainly during some portion of the eras from 1901-1972. Thus, Bill Dahlen received only limited attention because so many of his best seasons were before 1901. Deacon White wasn’t discussed at all because he played from 1871 – 1890.

I could devote an entire essay to Bill Dahlen. Many prominent evaluators strongly advocate his cause, and I respect their opinions. But, the Hall already includes five shortstops who were Dahlen’s contemporaries or near contemporaries. The 1890-1909 timeframe is well represented and I find little indication that Dahlen meets standards of “highly select” or “historical”, at least not nearly to the same extent as others who rank top 10. My conclusions about Deacon White are similar. Outstanding players? Yes! Extremely qualified for this Hall of Fame? Probably not.

Naturally, I am particularly pleased by the inclusions of Allie Reynolds and Vern Stephens among the top 10. Reynolds was a nominee among all Veterans in 2002, but was dropped for 2004 and 2006. Stephens never before gained listing among the top Veterans.

I also commend the inclusion of Sherry Magee. Upon further consideration, I believe my original rankings under-value Magee. Because he ranks among the two or three leading National League batters of the “Dead Ball Era”, his credentials deserve more attention.

Pre-1943 Eligible Veterans
History as Finalists In Recent Elections
(By Position and Chronologically)

Name	Primary Position	Positions as Election Finalists
Joe Wood	SP	1 – 2004
Carl Mays	SP	4 – 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008
Wes Ferrell	SP	4 – 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008
Bucky Walters	SP	1 – 2008
Allie Reynolds	SP	2 – 2002, 2008
Mickey Vernon	1B	2 – 2006, 2008
Joe Gordon	2B	4 – 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008
Bill Dahlen	SS	1 – 2008
Cecil Travis		1 – 2006
Marty Marion		3 – 2002, 2004, 2006
Vern Stephens		1 – 2008
Deacon White	3B	1 – 2008
Sherry Magee	OF	1 – 2008
Ken Williams	OF	1 – 2002
Bob Meusel	OF	1 – 2002

The Post-1942 Finalists and Others Considered

The 10 finalists from post-1942 include seven players in my top 10. I rank Steve Garvey, Ken Boyer and Roger Maris ahead of Luis Tiant, Vada Pinson and Al Oliver. These three additions all ranked among the top 21 nominees who survived the initial screening process before the reduction to 10 finalists.

My lists have been adjusted to reflect the effects of the new procedures in establishing two performance groups. Also, several candidates were eligible in 2006, but not considered in my book which evaluated players performing mainly from 1901 through 1972. They and some newly eligible candidates have been evaluated for this year.

My leaders remain unchanged: Ron Santo, Maury Wills and Gil Hodges. Jim Kaat moves up to fourth because Allie Reynolds, Joe Gordon and Stan Hack are now in the pre-1943 group.

I continue to believe Joe Torre should be certain to gain induction because of his combined achievements as player and manager. My rankings are based on playing only, and I believe Torre is HOF qualified much more for managing than as a player. Considering both facets, he ranks first or second.

Roger Maris presents very thin mainstream features, but is strong in historical. If you aren’t big on history as a major basis for HOF induction, add Al Oliver to top 10.

Leading Players for Hall of Fame Consideration as Veterans —
Careers Beginning In or After 1943
HOF Ballot

Finalists for 2008 Election		Other Candidates om Top 21
(Listed by Position and Chronologically)		(Listed by Position and Chronologically)
SP	Jim Kaat	Mickey Lolich
	Luis Tiant	Mike Cuellar
C	Joe Torre	Thurman Munson
1B	Gil Hodges	Ted Kluszewski
	Dick Allen	Lee May
		Steve Garvey
2B
SS	Maury Wills	Bert Campaneris
3B	Ron Santo	Ken Boyer
OF	Vada Pinson	Minnie Minoso
	Tony Oliva	Rocky Colavito
	Al Oliver	Roger Maris

My Rankings

Top 10		Second Ten
(In Order)		(By Position and Chronologically)
1.	Ron Santo – 3B	SP –	xDon Newcombe
2.	Maury Wills – SS		Mickey Lolich
3.	Gil Hodges – 1B		Luis Tiant
4.	Jim Kaat – SP	C -	Thurman Munson
5.	**Steve Garvey – 1B	1B –
6.	Tony Oliva – OF	2B –
7.	**Ken Boyer – 3B		SS –
8.	Joe Torre - C	3B -	xAl Rosen
9.	Dick Allen – 1B	OF -	xDel Ennis
10.	**Roger Maris – OF		Minnie Minoso
			Rocky Colavito
			Vada Pinson
			Al Oliver

** - Indicates not included among HOF finalists, but included in top 21
x - Indicates not included in HOF top 21

The Search for Specific HOF Standards

The HOF processes would benefit from more specificity and consensus as to standards. Voters should be able to articulate, at least to themselves, exactly why they approve or reject particular candidates and exactly why such candidates rank ahead of or behind others.

1.

Veterans have been considered and rejected by the Writers; almost all have been evaluated and rejected as Veterans more than once. Why should they be inducted now? One justification for continuing review is that I believe the baseball family still needs more consensus regarding HOF standards and, once such consensus is firmly established, all eligibles deserve reasonable consideration under those standards.

Without going into depth, let me review some of my basics. The HOF represents the games highest honor. The Hall should be viewed as a “highly select” honorary society. This conclusion is supported by the vigorous induction procedures (e.g., 75% voting requirements; ballot limits) and most of the precedent. Most of the exceptions to “highly-select” precedents involve inductions at second stage regarding Old Timers and Veterans. It is neither necessary nor wise to perpetuate erroneous or marginal judgments. Thus, it should never be sufficient for induction merely that a candidate seemingly compares favorably to a member, particularly a member at the lower ends of the HOF hierarchy.

Most HOF members present specific all-star type features of “enormous” quality raising them far above most outstanding players and linking them to other Hall of Famers, particularly members at or near the higher end of the HOF hierarchy. Members considered to be among the top 100 players of the past century or similar in quality present highly relevant measuring standards. Some candidates who might not qualify as all stars, still may warrant consideration for features of “high historical importance”. It is also necessary to consider both positive and negative features. Many candidacies are and should be damaged severely by weaknesses or deficiencies.

So we come to it: determine the 10 finalists in each group; then decide which, if any, are qualified. There may not be 10 viable candidates in each of these two groups. There should be some, but not nearly the maximum. Yet, by identifying the 10 leaders, important progress is made. I believe that quality evaluations are hindered by the existence of so many candidates with “mentionable” credentials who fall clearly short of “highly select”. If a Veteran can’t rank top 10 now, when, if ever, can he ever rank top 10? He can’t receive votes without such ranking. Thus, those who do not receive top 10 ranking or at least present features arguably supporting such ranking can be excluded from consideration.

There are important differences in identifying finalists and in determining whether any finalists deserve induction. The questions are different. Who among the eligibles should be considered to be among the 10 most qualified? Regardless of the perceived degrees of qualifications presented by each candidate, by rule, a fixed number of finalists must be identified. Once, the finalists are identified, the issues focus on qualifications for the game’s highest honor. In any given election, several may be deemed qualified and deserving of induction; none may be worthy. Which finalists, if any, are worthy of highest honor?

2.

Here is another good example of the lack of consensus regarding HOF standards. Often there are other good reasons for changes in the post-1943 lists. New candidates become eligible in each election and may be favored ahead of previous finalists. However, the most recent results regarding post-1942 players confirm my concerns about vagueness. For the second time, one of the two screening committees ranked a candidate among the top five, and the other committee didn’t include that player in its top 20. A similar situation occurred in 2002.

3.

There is another value in this process which I may discuss further in a future book. The process creates a form of official HOF “under-class”: players falling short of “ultra-elite” HOF standards, but deserving permanent remembrance as players of high career distinction.

Conclusion

As always, I welcome comments or suggestions. I hope this discussion stimulates thought and response.

Wilbur Cooper

1912 – 1926, 15 N/L Seasons

216 Wins – 178 Losses – 14 Saves; .548 Pct.; 3480 Innings Pitched; 2.89 E.R.A.,

1252 Strikeouts, 853 Bases on Balls.

In connection with my radio show, I decided to create a points system and identify the 100 leading players of the Pittsburgh Pirates from 1900 to the present. I don’t have much confidence in the reliability of any such points system or formula for player evaluation, so I won’t bore you with the specifics. However, my research indicates that I may have under-valued Wilbur Cooper (P) in my list of potential Hall of Fame candidates.

The left hander performed most of his career with the Pirates and is the only pitcher to record at least 200 Wins as a Pirate. His career lasted from 1912 to 1926. His best seasons were from 1917 through 1924 and his four 20-win seasons all were in the 1920’s.

He presents two clusters of features which I consider important in HOF evaluations. First, among non-member pitchers performing extensively in the 1920’s, he presents a major career combination: 200+ career Wins; 3000 + Innings Pitched; Earned Runs Ave. below 3.00; at least 3 20-win seasons.

More importantly, I place a high premium on pitchers with at least 5 20-win seasons. All but four pitchers meeting this requirement in the past century gained membership. Cooper also won 19 games each in 1918 and 1919. Both seasons were shortened (125+ and 140). Cooper’s best season may have been in 1917 when he went 17-11 for a team finishing last with a record of 51 – 103.

Radio Show

In connection with my book, I present a radio show called “Rich Memories of Old Time Baseball. In 2008, the show runs from May through August on Monday nights, 8:00 – 9:00, KQV – 1410 AM. Most shows are re-broadcast on Sundays – 4:00 – 5:00.

One of the show’s segments involves the favorite old time memories of long time fans. If you have a favorite memory you want to share, feel free to contact me on the website or call 412-391-3700.

As the title suggests, the show is about old time baseball from the turn of the twentieth century into the early 1980’s. However, we also deal with some more contemporary topics, such as the Hall of Fame; steroids and other performance enhancing substances; the plight of smaller markets, etc.

Changes for Next Veterans Elections

No one should dispute the qualifications of our newest Hall of Fame members – Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, Jr. However, I believe others also ought to receive the call soon.

The Hall of Fame would benefit from more consensus regarding minimum membership qualifications. In time, such consensus probably will develop. Also, several procedural changes would assure more institutional consistency.

For example, the 75 percent voting requirement for admission serves an appropriate purpose by preventing mass inductions in any one election. However, the level is too high in determining whether anyone should be inducted. A small but determined minority can thwart the judgment of the majority and shut down the process.

The Writers
"Zero election" years by the Writers wastes time, disappoints the public and delays honors for well-deserving heroes. In every election, the ballots always have included at least one (and more) worthy candidate. Every first ranked candidate falling short eventually gained induction, either through the Writers or by a committee. Almost every candidate receiving at least 50 percent of the votes from the Writers has been inducted. (Gil Hodges is the most prominent exception.)

From election to election, the credentials of retired players don’t change. Shouldn’t emphasis be on the qualifications of the players rather than on the mindsets of the voters? The game needs and deserves its glorious Cooperstown week-ends - every year.

If no candidate receives the necessary 75 percent from the Writers, the candidate with the most votes should be inducted. It would be helpful, but not necessary, to give additional weight to first-place votes.

I can see a deluge of strong candidates becoming eligible in the next few years. The Writers also should reconsider the rule, which excludes candidates receiving a low percentage of votes. Some potentially worthy players have been excluded prematurely because they had the misfortune of appearing on the ballot when there were more than 10 superior candidates.

Veterans
Disappointingly, no Veteran candidate will be inducted along with Gwynn and Ripken, Jr. this weekend. No Veteran has gained induction in the three elections under the new procedures which began in 2003. The committee consists of living HOF members, mainly players. Will or can any Veteran ever be inducted under the present format? What good is a process that produces no inductions?

Of course, no one should be inducted just to prove that the Committee serves a useful function. Significantly, a majority of voters - in Ron Santo’s case, a high majority - favor induction of some candidates. Four received more than 50 percent of the votes, headed by Santo with almost 70 percent.

Among others, I suggest the following measures:
· If no Veteran receives 75 percent, one candidate with at least two-thirds support should be inducted. (Under this scenario, Santo would have been inducted in 2007.) (A reasonable minimum threshold could be as low as 55 percent.)
· Two years between elections is too long if there are no inductions. After zero election years, the Hall should conduct special elections for Veterans.
· Players, even HOF players, have no special expertise regarding managers, executives, umpires and other non-players. The non-players should be assigned to another committee.

HOF players are heroes of the game. If the process doesn’t operate well, HOF players may be subject to criticisms tarnishing their heroic images and damaging the institution.

The real challenge is to accord respect to all voters without having the institution unduly dominated by the minority.