Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

wtf?

My 82 year old mother would tell you that those three letters stand for "well that's fantastic"

[molenick]

You can get elected as a pioneer or early years selection...that committee last had an election in 2016 and no one got in (top vote-getters were Doc Adams, Bill Dahlen, and Harry Stovey). The last people to get in via this committee were Hank O'Day, Jake Ruppert, and Deacon White in the 2013 election (results announced in 2012). The next scheduled meeting of the committee is this December.

One problem is that they cover a very broad range of years. There are four different veterans committees and the one called Early Baseball currently covers 1871-1949. So in the last election, Bucky Walters and Marty Marion were on the ballot along with pioneers and actual early players (I don't think of Marty Marion as an early player). The first hurdle is getting on the ballot and it is much harder when you are competing against people over such a wide range of years. This to me is four eras (pioneer/pre-league, organized 19th century, dead ball, pre-integration live ball). The other three committees are much more focused (for example, the Golden Days committee covers 1950-1969).

The other problem is that after this year's election, they are not meeting again for another ten years! So basically if Adams, Barnes, Creighton, Dahlen, Ferrell, Magee, Mathews, etc. don't make it this time they are not getting in for a long time (unless the HOF changes its rules).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by molenick

You can get elected as a pioneer or early years selection...that committee last had an election in 2016 and no one got in (top vote-getters were Doc Adams, Bill Dahlen, and Harry Stovey). The last people to get in via this committee were Hank O'Day, Jake Ruppert, and Deacon White in the 2013 election (results announced in 2012). The next scheduled meeting of the committee is this December.

One problem is that they cover a very broad range of years. There are four different veterans committees and the one called Early Baseball currently covers 1871-1949. So in the last election, Bucky Walters and Marty Marion were on the ballot along with pioneers and actual early players (I don't think of Marty Marion as an early player). The first hurdle is getting on the ballot and it is much harder when you are competing against people over such a wide range of years. This to me is four eras (pioneer/pre-league, organized 19th century, dead ball, pre-integration live ball). The other three committees are much more focused (for example, the Golden Days committee covers 1950-1969).

The other problem is that after this year's election, they are not meeting again for another ten years! So basically if Adams, Barnes, Creighton, Dahlen, Ferrell, Magee, Mathews, etc. don't make it this time they are not getting in for a long time (unless the HOF changes its rules).

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

Never forget.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

That could be true of some committees, but I think this committee would allow someone in as a pioneer without that requirement (and without them being designated as an executive, which is the other way you can get in without playing ten years).

I think that is how Cartwright, Chadwick, Cummings, etc. got in. Also the fact that Doc Adams was on the most recent ballot as a pioneer means it is possible, unless the rules have changed (see below for that vote and committee members).

I just don't like the fact that there are only ten people on a ballot covering a very large time period. Even if they made it two committees (19th century and 1901-1949) as opposed to the four I suggested, I'm sure many of us could think of ten very legitimate candidates (we would probably have trouble limiting it to ten).

That would at least help focus the committee. Plus if they were two different committees, the 19th century committee might lean more towards being made up of historians. Not to say that the other members were not qualified....just that the arguments for Ferrell, Dahlen, Walters, etc. are largely statistical and the arguments for true pioneers like Adams and Creighton require more of a knowledge of that era (again, not to say that the other members are not up on their 19th century baseball history).

Of course, the argument for some 19th century players is statistical as well....but it still needs to be taken in the context of that period.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst part is that I believe this committee still requires a decade of Major League Baseball service to be selected, and thus Creighton who died before it existed cannot ever be considered in the current system. Barnes only played 9 years and thus cannot be considered either. Marty Marion can be considered by the committee for pioneers, but not the two actual pioneers who clearly merit induction.

If you ask the HOF powers that be, they will tell you that players whose careers that don't include 10 recognized major league seasons that are "pioneers", such as Barnes, Creighton,etc, are eligible to be considered. In theory this is true. Originally, the HOF had a pioneer type category. Candy Cummings was elected in 1939 with a career of less than 10 recognized major league seasons. I may be wrong, but I think Cummings was the first and only pioneer player elected that didn't meet the 10 year rule. The truth be told, the HOF has no motivation to elect any pioneer players, and I emphasis players because early managers, umpires, executives are better represented as pioneers in the HOF than players. This is ludicrous. There is almost no chance the HOF voters will even consider pioneer players and bypass the 10 year rule. Mind you, some of the players that played less than 10 major league seasons played more than 10 years before the recognized major leagues were formed. As an aside, most Negro League players in the HOF never played a major league game and are included. Pioneers that don't meet the 10 year rule are the only players, for all right and purposes, that have almost no avenue for election. Like Negro league players, pioneers were not able to meet the 10 year rule through no fault of their own other than being born too early.
Also, major league baseball doesn't recognize the 1871-1875 National Association as major league even though the best players of the day were playing in it. It follows that the HOF excludes the NA when calculating major league service time. This clouds the waters even more. This determination is illustrated by the fact that both Candy Cummings and George Wright are list as executives by the HOF and don't use the term, heaven forbid, "pioneer". In fact, the HOF doesn't even call this duo players because of the 10 year rule. What a joke.

[molenick]

It does seem like those part pioneer/part league players are the ones that get shafted. Barnes and McVey played baseball for more than their nine league years, but the voters see nine years played and say that is not enough. Dick McBride is another player that was a star before and after league play started but his hybrid status works against him. I think Creighton has a better chance than any of them because he is purely a pioneer (not that he is a better candidate...just that the argument for him is more straightforward as a pioneer and the game's first big star). But considering that he's never even been on the ballot, I guess he is a long shot as well.

[G1911]

I believe this is correct, that Cummings is the only "player" for which the 10 rule didn't apply (or it didn't exist then, the exact rules in the early years are difficult to come by and sources contradict, implying there weren't many rules but maybe guidelines, I claim no expertise). It was bent for Joss

Doc Adams can be considered as an executive/writer, but I don't believe Crieghton has ever appeared on a ballot and cannot under the current committee (he died before it's starting year of consideration as well). Barnes may have but has not been considered due to the 10 rule in a very long time, and this doesn't seem likely to change. I stand corrected on the NA, so he has only 4 years instead of 9. If we're going to designate new major leagues the NA seems a clear-cut choice though

It's a joke, these two seem like obvious no-brainer top-tier nominees. Creighton especially should be exempt from this rule and make a ballot, as he died before a league now retroactively considered Major League Baseball even existed.

HOF card collectors might be against his inclusion, but I've never seen an argument actually against him or Barnes being inducted for their historical contributions and Barnes' level of play.