Hopefully by now, with some downtime over Thanksgiving week, you’ve had time to read my major piece on the Hall of Fame’s upcoming Veterans Committee ballot. If not, you can catch up on Part 1 here (covering Dick Allen, Ken Boyer, John Donaldson, and Steve Garvey), and Part 2 here (covering Vic Harris, Tommy John, Dave Parker, and Luis Tiant). The actual voting will be occurring this weekend, and in the lead-up, we finally got the last piece of information in that puzzle: who the actual sixteen voters from the Veterans Committee will be.
​
This year’s voting body will consist of Hall of Famers Paul Molitor, Eddie Murray, Tony Pérez, Lee Smith, Ozzie Smith, and Joe Torre; MLB executives Sandy Alderson, Terry McGuirk, Dayton Moore, Arte Moreno, and Brian Sabean; and writers/historians Bob Elliott, Leslie Heaphy, Steve Hirdt, Dick Kaegel, and Larry Lester.
​
So, why is this relevant? Well, as I mentioned in those preview pieces, a big problem facing the Veterans Committee these days is that the ballot is actually too crowded. The process was neglected for, really, the majority of the last three decades, which allowed for a bit of a backlog of candidates to build up. And on top of that, they keep a stricter limit on vote totals than even the main Baseball Writers ballot, only allowing VC voters to choose up to three of the eight candidates they bring up for each vote (despite the fact that they require every candidate to first be approved by a panel of baseball historians to even reach a vote in the first place).
​
I made an affirmative Hall case for seven of the eight players up for consideration on this year’s Veterans ballot, but if I were a real voter in the process, I wouldn’t be able to officially vote in the affirmative for even half of them. Because they’re all competing for those same handful of votes, the question moves from “is this player Hall-worthy” to “are they the most Hall-worthy on the ballot”, something that is much more nebulous. Is it better to vote for the best player available? The ones from underrepresented eras or positions or leagues? The ones actually still alive to enjoy the honor? Do players who passed away in recent memory garner more attention, since they’re at the front of voters’ minds? Is it better to focus on players with a chance to get in, even if there are strictly “better” options available? There really isn’t any guidance here, so it’s up to our specific voters to decide.
​
​Read more »​