Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222
Eligibility based on number of years played is certainly a bit confusing.
You have a bunch of guys who played in the Negro Leagues that do not have 10 years of major league experience. Martin Dihigo has 9 years, Jose Mendez has 7, and Louis Santop has only 4. I guess the idea is that in addition to their major league Negro League experience, they also have non-major league Negro League experience.
Still, it would be nice for Ross Barnes to be recognized for his popularization of the sport, but you are right, there may not be enough interest in the guys who played for the National Association in the 1870s.
|
But how come the same standards are not used for 19th century century players whose careers started before 1871/1876? Almost all played in the highest levels of baseball prior to open professionalism. The HOF exists or should exist to show the history of the game and honors ALL eras of that history. In fact, the HOF has the audacity to refer to pioneer players as "executives" on their own site, apparently not daring to call them pioneers for some unknown reason. George Wright is an executive. Yeah, right.
I just checked the HOF's site. There are forty executive/pioneers. Thirty-three were actually executives. Only seven were players, at least for part of their baseball careers. The list, with induction year: George Wright (1937), Candy Cummings (1939), Harry Wright (1953), Rube Foster (1981), Frank Grant (2006), Sol White (2006), Bud Fowler (2022). Probably, only George Wright, Candy Cummings, Frank Grant, and Bud Fowler were inducted as players.
Is it reasonable that only two white "pioneer" players have been elected to HOF in its history and these elections took place 85 and 87 years ago?
I'm all in favor of fairness, equity, or whatever else people want to call it today, but, as I've already said here, 19th century baseball players are the most underrepresented group in the HOF and it is a black eye on the HOF.