[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

If these players’ contemporary voters, who watched them play their entire careers, didn’t think they were hall-of-fame worthy, why should modern voters, who never actually saw them play, now find them worthy?

I agree there are exceptions, especially if racism or other factors kept a worthy player out, but if these factors weren’t present at the original time, modern voters should not reweigh these players’ worthiness worthiness when the contemporary voters, who were in the best position to decide, said no.

Just my two cents.

You would think this would be correct, but then you can find clear examples of oversights. The best one might be that Arky Vaughan had to go in through the veterans, and you can make an easy case for him being the second best shortstop ever still to this day, more than 35 years after he finally went in.

You may have only been talking about these particular guys, but we can find plenty of worthy 19th century players still and the people who covered them didn't get a chance to vote on them. An example would be Bill Dahlen, who SHOULD finally get in tomorrow. The guy ranks more valuable than Derek Jeter as a shortstop in NY, yet Jeter went in first ballot with all but one vote and all anyone can wonder is why he didn't get that vote. How about wondering why a better player who retired 110 years ago can't get in? That's why the veterans committee is necessary.