2022 Golden Days ERA HOF Nominees

[GreenWeenie]

https://baseballhall.org/discover/golde ... allot-2022



Since there's no MLB business being conducted, this caught my eye.  I thought that today would be a good day to bring it up for comments because it takes us back to our younger and more impressionable days.



I looked at other pages on the mlb.com site, including videos of Bob Costas' and Steve Blass' remarks plus the other committees and qualifications for elections.



My first question was- 'When are the results announed?'  I haven't seen that on these pages, so if it's there, I missed it.  Does anyone know?  I wonder if they'd be announced while there's a lockout in place.  I'd support anything that makes us feel better than today.



I'm fortunate to have seen most of these nominees play or manage in person.  I've seen some while watching televised games.  There's one (Billy Pierce) who I don't recall much, mainly because of my age and when he played. 



From what I can tell, there's no limit to the number of guys who can get elected.  As long as they get 75% of the committee's votes, they're in (unless someone finds a correction to that.)



I'm not a guy who likes seeng every Tom, Dick, and Harry get into the Hall Of Fame, but I have to say- If I was on the committee, I'd have a hard time NOT to vote in favor of any of these men.  Some might not have "the numbers" that some folks give weight to, but I agree with Costas that, in their cases, they have a historical significance to The Game.



I'll conclude with a guy that I was "on the fence" with for decades- Danny Murtaugh.  For the longest time, I leaned a little more "away" from than in favor of.  That was until our man, Surge, wrote something [I can't remember if was here oun our OBFF or our previous boards] that made me swing to the "For" side.  I can't remember the specifics of what Surge wrote, but I think that it may have had somethign to do with Murtaugh's decision-making in the 1960 and/or 1971 World Series.  I write that in hopes that Surge remembers what he wrote and would post it again.  Most everyone else just says that the guy won two World Series (as Blass says in the video) and/or that he fielded the first all-minority lineup card.  While those are important by themselves, I'll admit that it took more to get me off the fence.  Surge did.



This is to take nothing away from the other nominees.  There are too many for me to list my opinions on.  They're all remarkable achievers, and, as I said, I'd vote in favor of all of them that I have more knowlege of.  Pierce is one who I'd have to go only by reading stats.



Thoughts on any of this?

[Bobster21]

I'll add to the Murtaugh discussion. He took over a team on August 3, 1957 with a dismal record of 36-67. They had not had a winning season since 1948. In the years since they had been the laughingstock of MLB with records of:



1949: 71-83

1950: 57-96

1951: 64-90

1952: 42-112

1953: 50-104

1954: 53-101

1955: 60-94

1956: 66-88

1957: 36-67



Murtaugh got off to a rocky start losing 5 of his first 6 games as mgr. And then something clicked that hadn't been clicking in a decade. They went 25-20 the rest of the way to finish 26-25 since Murtaugh took over. An impressive feat considering they were playing .349 ball (36-67) when he took over and hadn't been relevant since 1948.



With a chance to lead the team from the beginning in 1958 the former NL doormats had only 1 losing month the entire season, went 84-70 and finished in 2nd place in the 8-team NL. 1959 was marred by injuries and slumps but they again had a winning record (78-76) and finished 4th.



The 1960 team won the WS with a lineup that lacked power but led MLB with a team BA of .276 and led the NL in runs. Murtaugh had a strong rotation but pieced together a BP all season long with Face his only reliable RH reliever from start to finish. Murtaugh let his players play and barring injuries, Maz, Hoak, Groat, Clemente and Skinner were rarely out of the lineup. But he also got good production from platoons of Burgess/Smith, Stuart/Nelson and Virdon/Cimoli.



After a down year in 1961, the Pirates won 93 games in 1962. The next 2 years were down years as age was catching up to many of the plays and Murtaugh left for health reason after that. But he returned to a younger team in 1970 and 1971 and won 89 and 97 games including the WS in 1971. And unlike 1960 when most of his starters played every game, Murtaugh handled this team differently, mixing and matching his lineups to get plenty of playing time for Oliver, Pagan, Robertson, Cash, Maz, Patek, Davalillo, Clines and Stennett.



When he again left after 1971 for health reasons he returned and won the division in 1974 and 1975 and finished 2nd in 1976 despite winning 92 games.



In all, Murtaugh managed 15 years; 12 full and 3 partial and had only 3 losing seasons (and one of those was no worse than 80-82). He had 2 WS championships, 2 NL pennants, 4 division winners, a 2nd place league finish (1958) and a 2nd place division finish (1976). For his 12 full seasons he averaged 86 wins including seasons of 95, 93, 97, 92 and 92. And he achieved all this by starting with a terrible team that couldn't get out of its own way and starting his managerial career by turning around a 36-67 team in 1957 to finish 26-25 under him, finishing in 2nd place the next year and winning the WS 2 years after that. I think Murtaugh has always been underrated because of his laid back style and not seeking the limelight. But he took a bad team and made them an NL power.

[ArnoldRothstein]

He accomplished what he did in a league where the good pitchers were Marichal, Gibson, Koufax. Seaver, and Carlton. He never had the luxury of one of those. The 1960 Yankees had a 15-game winning streak heading into the Series, and the 1971 Orioles 14 games. Both led by Hall of Fame managers. Churned through six different starting pitchers in the first six games of the '71 Series.

[GreenWeenie]

I'm thinking that Murtaugh surely would've been in long ago had he not had those breaks between stints. Can't imagine what else it would've been. To me, that just makes what he did all the more impressive, not negative.



He didn't strike me as flashy as a Weaver or even Anderson. He came across more like Walter Alston.....and belongs right up there with them, IMO.



But, who knows what the voters think sometimes. I can't fault them. I was on the fence before, too.

[Ecbucs]

556077777C4577777C7B77120 wrote: I'm thinking that Murtaugh surely would've been in long ago had he not had those breaks between stints.  Can't imagine what else it would've been.  To me, that just makes what he did all the more impressive, not negative.



He didn't strike me as flashy as a Weaver or even Anderson.  He came across more like Walter Alston.....and belongs right up there with them, IMO.



But, who knows what the voters think sometimes.  I can't fault them.  I was on the fence before, too.


if they would have beaten big Red Machine in 1972 he would be in by now.

[GreenWeenie]

Certainly agree with that.

[ArnoldRothstein]

Hodges, Kaat, Oliva, Minoso elected from Murtaugh's group. Bud Fowler and Buck O'Neill from the early baseball group.