This is discouraging.

Remember in "Broadcast News" when Holly Hunter tells William Hurt that he's crossed the line. Hurt says "Well, they movin' that little sucker, don't they?"

Ron Santo must be wondering why this line has moved on him, and just how much better than George Kell, and Pie Traynor, and Fred Lindstrom he needed to be.

That's true.

The writers from 85-98 made some really dubious choices, preferring at various points Elston Howard, Roy Face, Harvey Kuenn, Mickey Lolich, Jim Bunning, Catfish Hunter and Tony Perez to Santo.

The veterans have, in my view, some much tougher decisions, although you'd have to give Gil Hodges a lot of credit for his work as a manager to have him as an equal of Santo.

Gil Hodges has an easier time of it, though, since he played for some of the most famous teams of all time, and nearly every one of his teammates there is also in the Hall of Fame. I realize that's a cynical way to see it, but there it is. Let's not forget that in the "new" Vets Committee, it's those very guys he played with that are voting on him.

The vets didn't do a bad job, though, in my view. There are eight men on that ballot who I'd vote for without hesitation, and four of them finished in the top five. Hodges was the exception, but Santo, Oliva, Kaat, and Torre are all deserving in my view. Tiant, who finished eighth, is another. (I would also pick Gordon, Minoso, and Allen, who received much less support).

The screening committee had also done a fine job of making a list of 25, which didn't omit very many deserving candidates.

Make no mistake; this process works, and is going to work. It's taken a couple of years to get the process down pat, but I think in years to come we'll see a steady one nominee per year coming off the Vets list, which is probably about where things should be. The share of the top candidates crept up this year from last, which is a good sign that the voters are listening to each other as they should. I'd like to see the needed majority down to 2/3 from 3/4, but I think someone (Hodges or Santo) go in next year. And we are going to see a better quality of selection by the Vets Committee than in years past - and that's good too.

Given the results of the first couple of elections by the new Vets committee (0 inducties) I think it would now be safe to switch from an every other year method to an annual one. I think it would help build momentum and eventually get guys like Santo in, without getting dozens of guys in who shouldn't be there.