Inaugural Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 1936

[Rhotchkiss]

The inaugural Baseball Hall of Fame election results were announced in the media on Feb. 2, 1936, and featured Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner as the Class of 1936.

Let's see some cards of the first 5

[ldrunner27]

Here's mine

[scotgreb]

Little doubt that the hall got this first vote correct . . .

My five:

Cobb T206 Piedmont PSA 3.jpg Johnson, Walter T206 Piedmont 150 PSA 25 22128170.jpg Mathewson T206 Piedmont Dark Cap PSA 3.jpg Ruth 1933 Goudey144 PSA 4-5.jpgWagner, Honus 1910 E90-2 PSA 1 24803873.jpg

[3-2-count]

I have a few to share! These guys were shoe in's......

[CardPadre]

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

The inaugural Baseball Hall of Fame election results were announced in the media on Feb. 2, 1936, and featured Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner as the Class of 1936.
Let's see some cards of the first 5

Some serious eye candy there, Rich!

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Some serious eye candy there, William!

Truly my kind of card, sir!

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Some serious eye candy there, William!

Truly my kind of card, sir!

Ha ha, thanks!

[Leon]

a few scarce ones

[alywa]

IMG_5723 2.jpg

[mrreality68]

Sadly I currently fall 1 short

I guess I have to get a Walter

Here are mine

[todeen]

I recently sold the Wagner and Johnson to pay for another purchase. Mathewson is a T207 end panel.




Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[cliffyb]

Here’s mine[ATTACH]i[/ATTACH]

[Rich Falvo]

Cobb Front.jpg

[brianp-beme]

Here is my version of the inaugural messed up first class of five.

Brian

[Rhotchkiss]

Notice Cobb's grip on Leon's Orange Borders card and Wagner's grip on Tim's Polo Grounds card. Both guys have their hands separated on the bat. This grip was common in the dead ball era: The batters would wait to see the pitch. If it was a fast one, they would slide the upper hand down and swing for power. If it was a slower or tricky pitch, they would slide their lower hand up, thus choking up, and try to punch the ball into an open area for a single. I believe Willie Keeler was also an expert at this.

Very cool to see that on these cards.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Here is my version of the inaugural messed up first class of five.

Brian

Some serious eye candy there, Brian!

Once again, my kind of cards!

[cgjackson222]

Matty Dark Cap is my favorite image on a card

[Luke]

They made one mistake

[GasHouseGang]

I was going to ask, why do you think Cy Young didn't make the initial cut of Hall Of Famer's?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I was going to ask, why do you think Cy Young didn't make the initial cut of Hall Of Famer's?

Cy Young (49%) was a ways behind Lajoie (65%) and Speaker (59%) as well.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Cy Young (49%) was a ways behind Lajoie (65%) and Speaker (59%) as well.

Lajoie could have easily made it. He was amazing. They named the team after him for god sake's!!!

[paul]

I've heard there was some confusion among the voters about how to vote for Cy Young. According to this story (I don't know if it's true) there were separate ballots for 19th century players and modern players. Young's vote got split between the two ballots and he ended up falling short of the 75% requirement on both ballots.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I was going to ask, why do you think Cy Young didn't make the initial cut of Hall Of Famer's?

Probably because he was the oldest of all the players being mentioned, and had stopped playing much earlier than the rest of them. it was clearly a modern bias, the exact same kind that still exists to this day. The general public and those electing the initial HOF inductees had much more experience and ability to have actually seen the players that did get elected in the inaugural class. And that carried over to other players that also didn't get elected in the initial class, but still did better than Young in the voting, like LaJoie and Speaker.

As others have mentioned, the fact that there were a limited number of voters, and thus a limited number of players that actually could have been elected/inducted that first year, says a lot about the fact that Cobb had the highest percentage of votes of anyone. You can take all the statistics and everything else you want, and factor in all the modern bias as well, but when you look back at how the people who actually got to witness and compare these players in person, and how they said with their HOF votes that Cobb was the best, says it all as to who they thought was the best IMO. The hype and such that continued with Ruth, and his playing for the Yankees, kept pushing and promoting his legend. He continued in the public eye and still had stories being written about him, acting in movies, having movies made about him, and then culminating in his own legendary farewell appearance at Yankee Stadium. Meanwhile, Cobb was a bit more private and not so much in the public eye and as continuously attracting public attention. Much of that may be attributed to him not residing in a major media area, like New York City, after he was done with baseball. And then you have the not so favorable story of Cobb's life that came out right after he passed away in 1961, that included all the lies that Al Stump had put in it about Cobb. And that was just as the civil rights movement was at its height, and basically amounted to pouring gasoline on a fire in regard to the even more toxic public opinion that was then directed towards Cobb because of it. And even as much as Cobb did have issues when he played, and may not have gotten along well with all other players, he definitely had everyone in and associated with MLB's respect. Ruth did not, and it wasn't even close. The fact that Ruth openly wanted to be a manager of an MLB team, and no team would have him, kind of says it all when it comes to baseball's perception of him. Meanwhile, Cobb managed and played for Detroit for six seasons. He didn't have an overly great managerial history, but at least he was given the opportunity, something no one in MLB ever thought Ruth was deserving off.

And then also came the eventual change in how the game was viewed in later years where the emphasis switched from being a great overall player to being more of a slugger and home run hitter. Cobb is definitely what would be considered a five-tool-player, long before the term was ever coined, and remained so for much of his career. Meanwhile, Ruth was never a five-tool player, even at the height of his prime. Nowadays the sluggers seem to get all the hype and attention in baseball, much more so than the players with the highest average and most hits. Just look at how much Ichiro seems to have been ignored by the fans and media, yet he is arguably a hitter on the same level as Cobb and Rose.

And quite honestly, the initial HOF class showed an additionally definite, overall, then modern bias as it only allowed for a very limited few players to be elected, yet professional baseball had technically existed since about 1869 at that point, almost 70 years. What should have been done was something more in line with what occurred when MLB finally recognized and inducted all the Negro League Players they did, in one entire group, back in 2006. Instead, many of the 19th century and other early dead ball era players were ignored and passed over, despite being very deserving of such recognition. And unfortunately, as time has gone on, people's knowledge and memory of them has shrunk ever so much more, making their eventual recognition even less possible.

[MVSNYC]

Ryan great thread!

Awesome cards, guys!

Here's a few...

[Exhibitman]

[LincolnVT]

Joe Jackson should have been in the first group IMO.

[ValKehl]

I favor real-photo cards. Here are both types of WaJo's W501 card:

[molenick]

It's possible that Young was not in the initial class is because there were two separate ballots meant to cover pre- and post-1900 players. The ballots did not have names on them...my understanding is that there were essentially 10 blank lines and you were meant to write in the names yourself.

So it's possible that the people voting in the separate elections assumed Young would be covered by the voters in the other election and left him off (or just weren't sure if he was considered pre- or post-1900). Just conjecture on my part...

[drapala]

My goal is to get a playing days "card" of every HOFer for less than $200. Here's my sub-$200 first five.

[philliesfan]

Here is my Christy and my beat up Babe!
1909 T206 C Mathewson PSA 4.jpg

1926 W512 Ruth 1020588002.jpg

[mrreality68]

Revision

After seeing Mike’s Blanket Johnson I realized I had one also so I have all 5 of the initial HOFers

[BobC]

Originally Posted by molenick

It's possible that Young was not in the initial class is because there were two separate ballots meant to cover pre- and post-1900 players. The ballots did not have names on them...my understanding is that there were essentially 10 blank lines and you were meant to write in the names yourself.

So it's possible that the people voting in the separate elections assumed Young would be covered by the voters in the other election and left him off (or just weren't sure if he was considered pre- or post-1900). Just conjecture on my part...

This just helps demonstrate the initial stupidity of the HOF voting, and helps to underscore the obvious bias they had against the 19th century ballplayers. If you look at the entire lists of who got votes, there were many more than just Cy Young who got votes from both the current and veteran's committees. Honus Wagner, John McGraw, Jimmy Collins, and Napoleon Lajoie, among others, got votes from the 19th century veterans committee AND the current players committee as well. When they set up the voting, they originally only gave the 78 voters on the 19th century veterans committee instructions to vote for only 5 players each, while giving the 226 current committee voters instructions to name 10 players per ballot. They purposely wanted to limit the potential number of HOFers from the 19th century to no more than just 5. Which begs the question, why? Unless it was an obvious bias against the much older players, and/or maybe that they really only wanted more current players elected so as to get a better reaction from fans who likely wouldn't know much at all about many of the 19th century players.

And then to make matters worse, when most of the 19th century veterans committee voters put down 10 names, instead of just the 5 they were supposed to, those in charge ended up counting each of those votes on those ballots as only a 1/2 vote, which ended up making it virtually mathematically impossible to have ended up electing any 19th century players to the HOF at all. That, plus the fact that there were also no specific instructions given, nor efforts made, to restrict a player to only being voted on by the current or 19th century players committees, further shows how biased the people in charge were against the older players from the 1800s. If the people running this initial HOF election had really been on the up and up, and fair to ALL players, they should have clearly designated prior to any voting which committee was voting on which players, and not allow any player to be voted on by both committees Also, when they found that some of the veterans committee voters were naming 10 players, instead of only the 5 they were supposed to, their ballots should have been immediately returned with additional instructions to limit their voting to only 5 names like they were supposed to, and to then return their corrected ballots ASAP. That way at least a one or two 19th century players would have likely made it into that initial HOF class also.

It was also my understanding that there wasn't a specific set list of player names on the ballot to vote on, but that for the more current players committee there was an initial list of 33 players included as suggestions, and that when they later sent out some revised ballots, they added 7 more names to the list. But voters were free to write-in any other players they felt deserved it, and those write-in votes counted. There was a suggestion list for the 19th century players as well, but there was even more confusion as many thought they were to vote for a 10 player all-star team, and others argued about including some players on the suggestion list that had already been included on the current players suggestion list as well. And it apparently wasn't till during the tabulation and after the voting that those in charge finally decided to limit the 19th century to only 5 players per ballot, but because so many had included 10 names, they retroactively decided to count each named player as only getting a 1/2 vote, which as I said earlier, made it impossible for any 19th century player to be elected.

In retrospect, it is downright appalling how biased and asinine the procedures and rules in place for this initial HOF class election were. And how those responsible for putting it together and seeing to the compliance and follow-through to these rules so easily bypassed and abandoned their own original instructions to committee voters. Whoever set this initial class election up and ran it should have been barred from having anything to do with any future HOF elections, ever!

[BobC]

Double post.

[molenick]

Thank you, Bob, for some information I was not aware of...I did not know the voting procedures for the Veteran's Committee stipulated only five votes...that alone makes it harder for anyone to get 75% of the vote, even before the 1/2 vote situation you mentioned.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by molenick

Thank you, Bob for some information I was not aware of...I did not know the voting procedures for the Veteran's Committee stipulated only five votes...that alone makes it harder for anyone to get 75% of the vote, even before the 1/2 vote situation you mentioned.

To be honest with you, I wasn't fully aware of everything myself, and did a little checking after your post. When I saw the info on the botched-up procedures and vote counting for the 19th century players, it just blew my mind how idiotic what they ended up doing really was. You literally, after the fact, change the rules so that the entire vote by the 19th century veterans committee was absolutely worthless.

Here's a listing of who all got votes from both committees. What is also interesting is those that were listed as suggested HOF players, and then ended up never getting into the Hall. Makes you wonder how when the vast majority of those listed on those initial ballots did get into HOF eventually, what happened to the few that didn't. One would think that those on the suggested lists were all deserving, yet what changed? Or is it more of the modern bias where those older players became more and more forgotten as time went by, to the point where they don't get the credit and consideration they really deserve from modern fans and critics. Those people back then actually got to see these people play, and really know how good they truly were, and that is why they put them up for HOF status. Who are we today to now go back and say they were wrong, without being disrespectful and biased towards how the game used to be played, and who was considered as great at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_B...Fame_balloting

[DeanH3]

Agree that Cy could have been included and nobody would question it.

[rats60]

.

[molenick]

I think that we need to take into account both the opinions of people that saw the players play and the statistics available to later voters that were not available at the time. I like to think of our evaluation of players as an evolutionary process...we get farther and farther away from having seen them play but we know more and more about them statistically (and not only are there more statistics available now, they are much more easily accessible than they were to earlier voters).

And I don't just mean advanced statistics (which some people don't like), I mean traditional stats as well...people voting in 1936 did not know about Sam Thompson's RBI totals (zero votes) that were only retroactively calculated while producing the 1969 Baseball Encyclopedia. Besides Thompson, there are other players in the 1936 election that many people consider top-tier 19th century stars that got no votes (Roger Connor) or few votes (Nichols three votes, Brouthers two votes, Hamilton two votes, Keefe one vote). On the other hand Jerry Denny got six votes (probably because he was a "suggested" player, while Nichols, Brouthers, Hamilton, and Keefe were not).

So while I think it is interesting that some players with a lot of votes did not later make it, I don't think we can make a blanket statement about the voting and say that Herman Long should be in the Hall because he got 15-1/2 votes. It might mean that we should reassess his candidacy, and maybe there is something about him that statistics are not capturing...but I would take Glasscock (two votes) or Dahlen (one vote) over him as a 19th century shortstop that should be in the Hall. And I think it is safe to say that despite his place in the voting, he wasn't the eighth best 19th century player.

[Kawika]

[molenick]

Here are three of mine...I have a Ruth I need to scan.

[mrreality68]

Wow a lot of great cards for these great players

Keep them coming

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by molenick

Here are three of mine...I have a Ruth I need to scan.

Michael, the horizontal Mathewson (your example Dockman) has incredible color and appears to be in perfect register, the best horizontal Matty I have seen. I would love to see a larger scan of it!

Brian

[BabyRuth]

My 5

[fkm_bky]

That M110 Wagner is incredible!!!

Bill

[Hankphenom]

You guys are really bringing it for this one!

[mordecaibrown1]

Great collection of groups there, I'm just missing the Walter

[molenick]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Michael, the horizontal Mathewson (your example Dockman) has incredible color and appears to be in perfect register, the best horizontal Matty I have seen. I would love to see a larger scan of it!

Brian

As requested. Also, I appreciate PMs complimenting the cards, but please assume anything I post is not for sale unless otherwise stated.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by molenick

As requested. Also, I appreciate PMs complimenting the cards, but please assume anything I post is not for sale unless otherwise stated.

Nice...Matty is even more spectacular now! My eyes are normally drawn to the beaten up, but his horizontal card is the bomb, and this example just explodes in my brain.

Brian