2006 Negro League Induction

[jboosted92]

There were a few players, that were very close to the ballot, ones like John Holway and stats should have gotten them inducted ( Dick Lundy for one)

what are the odds, this gets revisited...at all....or is it 0% and loss to time...it just seems like a shame for about 10-12 players

Your thoughts?

[jjpm74]

Someday, I'm sure those players not inducted will receive additional scrutiny. If there are any that stand out in your opinion, start a campaign for them. That's what got Bert Blyleven inducted into the HOF.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Someday, I'm sure those players not inducted will receive additional scrutiny. If there are any that stand out in your opinion, start a campaign for them. That's what got Bert Blyleven inducted into the HOF.

But Blyleven got in on the writer's ballot. Regardless of what his campaigners claim, the man received steadily-increased support over the year until he finally got inducted. IMO, the campaigners give themselves too much credit for this one.

The special committees are an entirely different story, and not exactly comparable. Much more limited voting body, more inclined toward historical research, you would hope. (Joe Morgan should be automatically disqualified from these committees, as he has gone on record as stating he does not believe you can vote for anyone who you did not see play.) Unlike Blyleven, the Negro League candidates were not on a ballot and up for scrutiny year after year after year.

There were, to me, a few omissions in 2006 as well as some questionable choices. I'd like to think it was not a once-and-for-all thing, but for that to happen they need someone connected to the HOF with strong Negro League interests. Does anyone fit that bill now?

[dgarza]

more inclined toward historical research, you would hope.

From what I read online, the committee was funded in 2000 and members were chosen in 2001, giving them about 5 years to research the players until the 2006 vote.

There were, to me, a few omissions in 2006 as well as some questionable choices. I'd like to think it was not a once-and-for-all thing,

The Hall can always create a special committee for anything whenever they want, seemingly out of the blue. The Hall could decide to create an 1860s special committee tomorrow.

There's no reason to assume that anything is once-and-for-all. The Hall never said it would never look at these players again.

[ol' aches and pains]

But Blyleven got in on the writer's ballot. Regardless of what his campaigners claim, the man received steadily-increased support over the year until he finally got inducted. IMO, the campaigners give themselves too much credit for this one.

Blyleven did a fair bit of campaigning for himself, as well. Not that I mind, as he should have been in years ago, but there are damned few Negro Leaguers who are still with us, unfortunately.

(Joe Morgan should be automatically disqualified from these committees, as he has gone on record as stating he does not believe you can vote for anyone who you did not see play.)

I wasn't aware of that. By the same logic, you can't vote against anyone you didn't see play, so you're right, he should disqualify himself if that's what he believes.

There were, to me, a few omissions in 2006 as well as some questionable choices. I'd like to think it was not a once-and-for-all thing, but for that to happen they need someone connected to the HOF with strong Negro League interests. Does anyone fit that bill now?

Agreed. It was shameful that Buck O'Neil wasn't elected, while Effa Manley was. I think O'Neil's contribution to the game spanned many decades after his playing days, and he deserved a place inthe Hall.

And to me, it sure seemed like it was a once-and-for-all thing, as if they were putting those candidates in en masse, and washing their hands of the issue.

[Captain Cold Nose]

.

The Hall can always create a special committee for anything whenever they want, seemingly out of the blue. The Hall could decide to create an 1860s special committee tomorrow.

I thought the next special committee was for 19th Century players. I could be mistaken, but I saw a press reslease or something, heralding the special negro League vote in 2006, that said to the effect of it was once and for all. Maybe i'm just remembering how someone described it without it having any official designation.

I had no idea there was five years of research (atr least) that went into the 2006 selections, but that's something. You would think it shouldn't have taken so long, though. It's not like new data came up in those five years.

[jalbright]

When they did the 2006 committee, it was with the intent to be done with Negro Leaguers once and for all. Thing is, times change and the amount of information on these guys change, too. The biggest problem is convincing the Hall to tackle it, when there aren't a lot of candidates that are excluded who clearly (rather than having a solid argument for inclusion) belong.

[dgarza]

When they did the 2006 committee, it was with the intent to be done with Negro Leaguers once and for all.

I do not see this intent in any of the HOF press releases from the time. Was this intent expressed elsewhere? Or was it an unwritten and unspoken understanding?

The press releases say they wanted to do create a comprehensive documentary record. But that's for historical purposes.
The 2006 election was to review these players again.

I guess since all players who made the cut were voted on individually (no voting number limitations), you could get the sense that it was a conclusive vote, but I don't see where that intent was explicit.

[philliesfiend55]

There were a few players, that were very close to the ballot, ones like John Holway and stats should have gotten them inducted ( Dick Lundy for one)

what are the odds, this gets revisited...at all....or is it 0% and loss to time...it just seems like a shame for about 10-12 players

Your thoughts?

The Hall Of Fame at the time of the 2006 vote was adamant that this would be the final chance at election fo Negro Leaguers.That seems far too rigid and hopefully they will become more flexible. I would hope to see another election within a few years.
It was a shame that the only two living players and links to the Negro Leagues' past at the time of election, Buck O'Neill and Minnie Minoso, were not elected. I don't know if the Hall voters ever officially shared who they voted for so any remarks that players missed election by one or two votes are only hearsay. One of the voters and expert on the negro leagues died prior to the election and yet they still counted his preliminary preferences as votes. Since he did not actually live to see the election day (2/26/06), his "vote" should not have counted and another expert should have replaced him on the committee and been given the vote. Some voters faced a lot of angry criticism for not electing certain players and managers, and probably rightly so.

[jalbright]

I do not see this intent in any of the HOF press releases from the time. Was this intent expressed elsewhere? Or was it an unwritten and unspoken understanding?

The press releases say they wanted to do create a comprehensive documentary record. But that's for historical purposes.
The 2006 election was to review these players again.

I guess since all players who made the cut were voted on individually (no voting number limitations), you could get the sense that it was a conclusive vote, but I don't see where that intent was explicit.

I know it was a point we mentioned several times in a thread which was contemporaneous with the election, and no one took issue with the assertion back then. For examples, see these, all from the same thread:

Absolutely correct--each name is supposed to get an up or down vote--75% yeas, they're inducted, otherwise, they're not. The 75% requirement will be a limiting factor. Also, I can't see them taking many more than half the nominees--even a dozen will bring some howls of protest, and it will get worse with each additional inductee. It will be interesting to see how willing the committee is to stand up to that pressure--but given the fact this has been presented as the last shot and the fact these folks have spent oodles of time researching the Negro Leagues, they're sure to be motivated to get all the candidates they feel are qualified. Add to that the fact it's a small group (12 voters), which means a well-liked or formidable personality might have an outsized influence on the voting, there are a lot of variables which could greatly affect the outcome. One heartening thing is there weren't many restrictions on who or how many could or should be nominated, and the list is a pretty solid one.

Jim Albright

I think the reason why so many got in, which, to me, is what kramer_47 is disagreeing with, is that very well might have been the final special election in regards to Negro Leagues. I have been led to believe it was set up that way. The Hall of Fame has changed how they hold elections in the past in regards to players not on the writer's ballot, the revamping of the Veteran's Committee a few years back the foremost example, but, for now, I think that's it. It's too bad these so-called experts made what seem like such poor choices in a few cases. They had one shot to finalize some wrongs and came up short.
Maybe they'll hold a special election for players in the 19th century. It would be a logical next step.

I will say this, the current Veteran's Committee seems dedicated to not electing anyone. The Hall has a basic problem that it refuses to acknowledge--it wants to close the door permanently on guys, whether they're from the 19th century, the Negro Leagues, served in wartime, whatever. Football doesn't do that, and I don't believe basketball does either. If they simply eliminated that problem so that if and when new information becomes available, we could then get an honest hearing for guys (including Gil Hodges), we wouldn't have this pressure to elect guys who don't prove to have been good choices. Really, the model for the recent Negro League panel of well-informed experts is the way to go for these cases from the past (or if we get to Japanese players some day), but without the "this is the last time we're going to look at this" pressure.

Jim Albright

BTW, I didn't like the idea of "this is the last time" we'll look at Negro Leaguers at the time the panel was announced, and said so. I should have realized that this kind of set up would encourage bad picks as well, which it did. For a sport that supposed treasures its rich history, it sure treats that history callously.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Here's another fairly contemporary comment on the same point, in a different thread. Again, it drew no argument:

If Torriente, Suttles and Mackey don't make it, there should be an investigation. I'd say Santop belongs for sure. They've kind of stretched their mandate to get Moore and Minoso on the ballot. If these guys are not going to get very serious consideration, why would one do that?

The above comment seems to miss one key fact: the Hall has selected this group of folks who have dedicated oodles of time to promoting the cause of the Negro Leagues with the stated idea this is the last time they're going to visit the issue of Negro Leaguers. Under such circumstances, I can't see such a group naming less than a half dozen to the Hall, maybe quite a few more.

For a discussion of who might go, see this thread in BBF: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36458

Jim Albright

[dgarza]

I know it was a point we mentioned several times in a thread which was contemporaneous with the election, and no one took issue with the assertion back then.

Could be that people just assumed those comments and/or assumptions were correct. But I still have not seen anything that actually said the 2006 vote was intended to be the last. I'm not debating that it might have had the feel of finality at the time, but I think it might have been just an assumption because I haven't seen anything to back it up.

[J W]

Even though there are a few more players who deserve election based on the data available, I've got no big issue if they stand by their intentions in Cooperstown. The waiting room is much different than it was before 2006 when people were yelling about Mule Suttles and Cristobal Torriente.

[Freakshow]

Could be that people just assumed those comments and/or assumptions were correct. But I still have not seen anything that actually said the 2006 vote was intended to be the last. I'm not debating that it might have had the feel of finality at the time, but I think it might have been just an assumption because I haven't seen anything to back it up.

It was very much publicized at the time that the 2006 vote was "once and for all". For example, Bruce Markusen at Cooperstown Confidential posted this a couple days before the results were announced:

Since this is supposed to be a one-shot deal—i.e, no future elections for the Negro Leagues—I think the voters are feeling pressure to put as many deserving candidates in as possible.

My opinion at the time was this was a big mistake, because the analysis and understanding of history is an ever-unfolding process. Better to make it a standing committee to gradually elect the overlooked greats from Black baseball. I suggested they plan on three elections, with the option for more, each time electing three persons:

--one player from the established Negro leagues, 1920-60 (they actually elected 7 from this group)
--one player from pre-Negro league days (they elected 5 from this group)
--one player or non-player elected as a contributor (they also elected 5 from this group)

At the press conference on February 27, 2006 announcing the results, there was this exchange:

Q. Fay, is this the culmination of the effort? Where do you go from here? Further research, perhaps other elections down the road, or is this it?

FAY VINCENT: I'm going to ask Dale to speak to that. I think he's in a better position.

DALE PETROSKEY: Well, you know, five years ago when this research project was put together, we realized there was a lack of information or suitable information about the Negro Leagues, including the statistical basis upon which you judge players. We viewed this as a one time vote in which players who are worthy of the Hall of Fame would not have to wait another day to have a plaque in Cooperstown. That said, we're also a serious research institution. As more information comes to light down the road, the door is always open to the possibility of perhaps further consideration.

So Petroskey confirms here that they thought of it as a one time vote. At the same time he didn't entirely close the door to future consideration.

Recently I wrote this analysis of how the HOF is failing to do its job:

Unfortunately, in recent years the Hall has already gotten more restrictive. In the past five years the number of names per ballot in the BBWAA election has sunken to 5.5, with an all-time low of 5.1 in 2012. At the same time, the Veterans Committee accomplished almost nothing. Despite the Game’s expansion of the past few decades and the corresponding increase in players who meet the Hall’s statistical standards, there are fewer players being inducted. Here are the number of players from MLB elected to the HOF in the past 44 years:

BW+VC = Tot
16 + 24 = 40: 1969-1979
20 + 11 = 31: 1980-1990
17 + 12 = 29: 1991-2001
17 + 2 = 19: 2002-2012

The baseball writers are electing players at virtually the same rate now as they were when they were considering the players from 16-team MLB. At one time the Veterans Committee was ready to scoop up the BBWAA leftovers, but the botched reformation has resulted in no HOFer retiring after 1974 being chosen by the VC.

So the HOF is falling behind on all fronts:

--The BBWAA should be electing more players as the game expands. With the number of teams expanding, as well as the game’s advancement over time, we should expect to see more players from the 70s-90s in the Hall than from the 20s-40s. This is a long way from happening.
--The VC has considered and rejected all players retiring 1975-89. This includes HoMers Grich, R.Smith, Nettles, Allen, Wynn, Da.Evans, Torre, Minoso, Simmons, Freehan and other popular favorites like Tiant, John, Bo.Bonds, Kaat, Oliva, Concepcion and Munson.
--Phasing out the VC and similar secondary reviews is a goal to shoot for, but it can’t happen if the BBWAA doesn’t pick up some of the slack, inducting more players closer to the Hall’s margins.
--Throughout its history, the Hall has elected 19th century players haphazardly and sporadically. A scholarly approach to honoring the Games’ first stars is long overdue.
--The stampede of negro leaguers elected in 2006 left a few deserving players in the dust. The books should not be closed on these players, as the Hall seems to want to do.

There are other ways to show the HOF should be electing more players, but I’ll let that suffice for now. The easiest way to accomplish this aim is for the HOF to simply decide how many players it wants to elect each year, rather than leave it to chance. The obstacle to this approach is the 75% rule. The 75% threshold used by the Hall is onerously high. However, my impression is the rule is now so entrenched in tradition it seems improbable it would ever be dislodged. So plausible suggestions to improve the election process must take 75% as a given.

The other thing to recognize is that we’re in the minority, I think. Those of us that want to see the Hall elect more players are running contrary to the general consensus. Most people are satisfied with the rate the HOF is electing guys because 1) they’ve never studied the issue and 2) it doesn’t really matter, it‘s only the freakin‘ Coop.

[ol' aches and pains]

Even though there are a few more players who deserve election based on the data available, I've got no big issue if they stand by their intentions in Cooperstown. The waiting room is much different than it was before 2006 when people were yelling about Mule Suttles and Cristobal Torriente.

I think they erred in not inducting Buck O'Neil, as a contributor to the game, if nothing else. He was certainly more deserving tha Effa Manley, who being a woman, never played in the Negro Leagues. O'Neil was one of the best ambassadors Baseball ever had. If they knew this was the last hurrah for the Negro Leaguers, how could they overlook O'Neil, who was 95 years old at the time? In fact, he died in October, 2006. This was as big a PR blunder as waiting until Ron Santo died to elect him. I've lost a lot of respect for The Hall over the last few years.