Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
I really think the problem started in 1946 when they started putting in 20th century players in because the writers weren't voting them in. 11 players in 1946, many who were really questionable, the committee became what it is today.
|
The history of the 1945 and 1946 Old Timer's Committee selections is pretty interesting. Back then, the BBWAA could vote for anyone who had played after 1900 so long as they hadn't played the year before the election. This created a huge glut of players and no one could get the required number of votes. The Old Timer's Committee selections were a direct response to the BBWAA's failure to elect anyone and an attempt by the HOF to unclog the backlog of eligible candidates so that someone might actually have a chance to receive 75% of the vote in later BBWAA elections. In fact, in 1945, the Committee was instructed by the HOF to elect at least 10 players. In 1946, after the BBWAA had again failed to elect anyone (due to a screwy two-step election process which practically ensured no one would be elected), the Committee was again instructed to step in. In large part this was due to fears that older qualified candidates would be overlooked by younger BBWAA voters who didn't have much information about them and who would therefore be hesitant to vote for them.
In terms of who it elected, the Old Timer's Committee appears to have focused on the following criteria: 1) players who had received the most popular support from the writers in the 1945 and 1946 BBWAA votes; 2) players who remained in the game as coaches and managers after their playing days ended; 3) players who played positions that had not yet been filled in the HOF (C, 3B and LF in 1945 and LHP in 1946); 4) key players from powerhouse teams like the old Orioles and the Chicago teams; 5) players who had accomplished great single season feats like Chesbro's 41 win season, Duffy's .438 batting average and Waddell's strikeout record; and 6) players associated in championship lore, i.e., Tinker to Evers to Chance and the "Heavenly Twins" of Duffy and McCarthy.
I think "the problem" is that we look at the HOF eligibility differently now than the Committee did then. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I am saying that it is hard to apply current HOF criteria to elections that occurred nearly 70 years ago based on different conditions and considerations. The attempted translation just doesn't work very well.