Apparently the pre thing is case sensitive, so those tables again:

BEFORE MONDAY


AFTER MONDAY

Does anyone know if the vote totals for all the candidates on the ballots have been published anywhere? I didn't see that info on the HoF's site. I am curious to know just how much support folks like Grant Johnson and Dick Redding got.

The vote totals will not be published, AND the electors will not reveal who they did or did not vote for, apparently by their agreement.

Well, if your stating that Manley's selection process was worse than Bulkeley's, then I could agree with that, Mike.

As could I.

Most importantly, when are we all getting our hands on the reams and reams of stats?????

The vote totals will not be published, AND the electors will not reveal who they did or did not vote for, apparently by their agreement.

Thanks for this information, KJOK.

I guess they decided transparency was not a priority . . .

I can see why, with a small group of voters, most of whom are not public figures, they would want to protect the secrecy of their individual ballots, but the vote totals ought to be released.

The second is even more interesting. The Committee was set up to study the Negro Leagues (1920-1960) and built a database for the Negro Leagues. However, their player selections are actually somewhat slanted to pre-Negro League players. Grant, Hill, Santop, Mendez, and (too a lesser extent) Taylor, plus even Torrienti somewhat, were all at their peak before the Negro Leagues were formed. You have too wonder about this data collection. The true Negro Leaguers (the two Browns, Mackey, Suttles, and Wilson) were all obvious Hall of Famers before the Negro League project even began.

So basically the Hall of Fame spent 250K to qualify just Cooper? Weird.

I'm just asking -

What if when they had rounded up nice hard stats for 1920-1960 guys, they found out that their reputations far exceeded their actual production? If so they then turned their election focus to players who's actual statistics are still undocumented - the pre-league guys. No one really knows what Santop's numbers are so you can't really throw stones at the committee (Santop IMO is an excellent choice, but just an example).

In a way this is similar to the HOM findings on Cool Papa Bell. He is certainly famous, but his numbers are not "bowl you over" outstanding. But if the HOM electorship was pre-disposed to finding and honoring great Negro Leaguers, we might then turn our attention to Pete Hill, who has basically the same anecdotal qualities, but without hard evidence that proves that his reputation may exceed his production.

I think that still exists in MLB today of course - Jeter's fielding statistics seem to be poor, but since the statistics are sketchy many people still vociferously believe he is a great defender.

Just a thought, not a accusation or belief that is what happened. More likely the depression thru WW2 stars had been cleared off the shelves while the same hadn't happened to the two prior generations of players.

More likely the depression thru WW2 stars had been cleared off the shelves while the same hadn't happened to the two prior generations of players.

See my post above, but I think this is precisely accurate.


In unrelated commentary, here's an extreme viewpoint on the election. A great friend of mine is vociferously of the opinion that no one should have been elected. I think his argument is that the data isn't well known enough, and so no one goes in until they know everything they all did, until all the stats are completely available. He believes that inducting 17 people who no one really knows about diminishes the stature of the people already in the Hall.

So there's certainly wide range of opinions out there.

I think it is a good point that the process might have flowed better, and been better accepted, had the data been released first, where it could be publicly discussed, before the committee voted.

He believes that inducting 17 people who no one really knows about diminishes the stature of the people already in the Hall.

Sounds like he subscribes more to the "Hall of Celebrity" than the "Hall of Fame (Merit)."

Yeah, putting Mule Suttles in the HoF really diminishes Freddy Lindstrom.

Sorry I'm a day and a half late, hopefully not a dollar short.

I can't believe they didn't elect Johnson.

I agree with the consensus, that I'm really glad about the obvious guys going in.

I will take Gadfly and Webber's word for it on Effa Manley until someone convinces me otherwise. Ultra bummed that the worst selection is the most hyped and recognized. What a double-whammy there, geez.

"Frank Grant-
If he had actually played in the Majors, he would now be forgotten, like Fred Pfeffer or Jack Glasscock; but ok."

Jack Glasscock is a (deserving) HoMer, for what it's worth . . .

Super-bummed about Grant Johnson getting shafted. I really can't believe that - is it possible we somehow overrated him in our analysis? Or did they just blow it?

"Would any of their electees be more properly termed as being "insightful"?"

That's an awfully tough-standard, and I think unfair question. Insightful, from our perspective basically means someone we completely missed, or someone that we will naturally disagree with. So we won't see the selection as insightful, any selection that would be insightful we would either deem obvious (we elected them too, so duh), or wrong (if we didn't elect them, we won't appreciate their 'insight'). Maybe the insightful selection is one of Cooper, WBrown, Mendez or Taylor, and we are the ones missing something.

I will give those four a closer looking over before the next ballot. Cooper had fallen off my radar. Brown's lack of walks, and what I thought were maybe slightly inflated translations (my internal 'discount' downplayed them some) kept him from moving him higher. I thought Mendez was basically Lefty Gomez or Dizzy Dean. Maybe he was Newhouser. I always held Taylor similar to Beckley, but not as good. Maybe he was as good.

Did I mention that I still can't believe they didn't elect Johnson. Man that pisses me off.

By the way, I think we should either come up with definite reasons why the committee might have missed on Cooper, W.Brown, Mendez and Taylor, or we should be more inclined to elect them.

Note, I'm not saying we should say why they don't belong. We should give reasons for why they may have overrated these guys (like they played in favorable parks, weak leagues, etc.).

If we can't come up with reasons why the committee could have overrated these guys, I think we need to move towards electing them ourselves, considering they have a lot more information than we do, and they seemed to do a good job electing the other players.

I think I'm going to post this as a separate thread, I think it's that important.

Super-bummed about Grant Johnson getting shafted. I really can't believe that - is it possible we somehow overrated him in our analysis? Or did they just blow it?

It's very hard to be absolutely certain about anything from black baseball between 1895 and 1910: the stats are scarce, and I don't think they had access to any more information than we did. However, I think our analysis of the stats that we did have, and our consideration of the evidence of his career's development, was as rigorous as it could have been, and the MLEs that we've recently been able to develop for the CWL in the early teens has only served to reinforce our conclusion that even in his late 30s Johnson was much better than a league-average hitter.

Since we don't know anything about the data they looked at, the arguments they made or how the voting went, it's kind of hard to evaluate the quality of their choices, isn't it?

Oh well. The shortcomings of even this pretty good election at the HoF can remind us of the value of our own project. If they made all the right choices and had a rational, transparent process from which observers could learn about meaningful standards of excellence and the rich history of the game of baseball, there wouldn't be anything for us to do. We don't get much notice, but at least the people who do notice us can always find out exactly how and why we have elected those we have elected. . .

FYI, the Newark Star-Ledger had this column as its A-1 centerpiece on Tuesday. Their columnist, Jerry Izenberg, used to watch a lot of Newark Bears games as a kid 60 years ago.

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1141107912298110.xml?starledger?colize&coll=1


Izenberg wrote this 2 days earlier in a column that ironically did not even mention Ms. Manley:
"Mackey is on the new (and what could possibly be the last) ballot ever taken on the Negro Leaguers. He managed the Eagles to their only Black World Series title in 1946. He was then 51 years old but, incredibly, he still actually caught about a quarter of the team's games.
He had been around black baseball for a quarter of a century by then and those who played with him could tell you that he was a far better defensive catcher than Josh Gibson ... that he had what Manning called "soft hands, every pitcher wanted to throw to him."
He was a master teacher as well. When he caught for the Philadelphia Stars, he tutored a 15-year old kid named Roy Campanella. "He had all of Biz Mackey's moves," Irvin says. "See Campy and you were seeing Biz." "

Bah, that's Newark Eagles (well, he watched both).
Man, there is no stopping the 'Post' button once it's left the station...

I am quoting briefly the beginning of two articles by Gadfly but my comment pertains to the whole articles.
#85 [385]
Well, I got up, went to the BTF News blog to see who got elected and then spent an hour venting. I hope no one minds if I simply repost it here. I must admit that I do agree that Morgan Buckley still remains the biggest joke in the Hall of Fame. But Buckley was elected by basically historically blind men working without light and Effa Manley was elected in the full light of day by experts with enough information. Yuck!

Only a fortnight or two ago, I read something around here by someone named Gadfly. Honestly, I understood it to mean that the only person among 39 whose election he couldn't fully support or maybe even advocate is Buck O'Neil. At least, that's how I recall it.

On more calm reflection, the interesting thing about the election was that 4 executives got in. Although this came as a shock to me, it really should not have. The Hall of Fame has always been way too liberal in giving out memberships to the ownership/executive branch. Historically, the baseball owners, who do actually control the Hall of Fame, have always liked to honor themselves. They never seem to get that the fans root for the players. It simply seems strange to me that this would affect the Negro League election. I don't know why.

This wasn't a committee of Baseball men in any sense. The 50-year Veterans Committee typically included something like 5 members among 15 who were baseball executives (mainly chief executives) plus some announcers and players with current baseball jobs among the other 10. Before 1953, Baseball was even more powerful in determining who would be honored. So this committee's perspective on executive roles must be new in Hall of Fame history.

I was a little surprised about all the executives getting in also, but then I looked at the "SABR Top 40 Negro Leaguers" survey from a few years ago, and saw:

#23 Cum Posey
#24 Effa Manley
#25 JL Wilkinson

and thought maybe the committee figured "we can't reallly include Posey but exclude Manley, and we can't include Manley without including Wilkinson", etc. and then they figured they couldn't also exclude a representative for Cuban owners within the Negro Leagues, so they included Pompez too...

the Hall of Fame itself only gets credit for wiping egg off of its face through the process. If the process also makes a lasting contribution to the study of the Negro Leagues by providing better statistics than we've ever had before, that will be a real accomplishment for the Hall --an example of that organization taking a lead in the study of baseball's history, rather than just stepping in behind the work of others.

Formally, I understand, the NBHOFM is only administering a research grant for MLB. Is it reasonable to call it a Museum initiative? (Maybe. Does anyone think he knows?) I have understood the election of new Hall of Fame members to be a separate and secondary process, piggybacking on the research project.

I never really picked up on the fact that she might go in. Which is actually pretty stupid, considering that 1) her biographer, James Overmeyer, was on the committee and 2) Leslie Heaphy, a female expert on 'Woman Studies' and the Negro Leagues, was also on the committee. With these two advocates on her side, her election was probably a foregone conclusion.

There is more or less to be said.
For now:

Some of you may be interested in joining SABR and its Negro Leagues and Women in Baseball research committees (chaired by electors Clark and Heaphy).

Co-chair Claudia Perry reported to SABR members, unfortuantely after the fact, that Leslie Heaphy was on NPR Monday night, re Effa Manley's election.

Books by Heaphy on Negro Leagues from 1869, Lanctot on the 20th century Negro Leagues business, and Overmyer on Effa Manley are easy to find on the web. You won't find the books, of course, but opportunities to buy them --and bibliographic data, maybe some abstracts, tables of contents or discussions.

Six(?) of the electors are specialists on the early days, Latin America, or the Negro Leagues business.

Claudia Perry is co- or vice Chair of the Women in Baseball Committee. In a follow-up to SABR members, she notes that one can listen to the Leslie Heaphy on Effa Manley segment by internet at http://www.npr.org (National Public Radio).

I was a little surprised about all the executives getting in also,

Contemporary Owners/Executives in HOF:
Comiskey, Griffith, Landis, Barrow, Rickey, Yawkey, MacPhail, Harridge (Mack)

Contemporary Managers in HOF:
Mack, McGraw, WRobinson, Huggins, Harris, JMcCarthy, McKechnie (Chance and Terry get XCredit here)

With only Rube Foster representing the NeLs, it shouldn't be that surprising in retrospect.

I must say that my only objection to Effa Manley's election (as of this moment) is that she is COMPLETELY overshadowing all of the overlooked stars of the NeL that just got elected today. Instead of learning about how Cristobal Torriente was like Roberto Clemente and Jud Wilsonw as like Wade Boggs, we are learning about how cool it is that a woman was elected to the HOF, deserved though she purportedly is.

Although Manley's election stole the headlines, I don't think there was going to be much coverage of Torriente or Wilson anyway. Take a look at the transcript of the news conference on the HoF site--it's clear that the only candidates the reporters were interested in were O'Neil, Minoso, and Manley. The others were considered ancient history, aka "boring."

On more calm reflection, the interesting thing about the election was that 4 executives got in. Although this came as a shock to me, it really should not have. The Hall of Fame has always been way too liberal in giving out memberships to the ownership/executive branch. Historically, the baseball owners, who do actually control the Hall of Fame, have always liked to honor themselves. They never seem to get that the fans root for the players. It simply seems strange to me that this would affect the Negro League election. I don't know why.

Although I too was initially surprised, on further reflection I realized I shouldn't have been. The election committee consisted of academic historians (as distinguished from popular historians). Academic historians are trained to think in terms of baseball as an economic and social institution within the context of African American culture; we see that orientation in several of the books that members of the committee have written. So it shouldn't have been surprising that they would tend to be as interested in the executives as in the players.

I never really picked up on the fact that she [Effa Manley] might go in. Which is actually pretty stupid, considering that 1) her biographer, James Overmeyer, was on the committee and 2) Leslie Heaphy, a female expert on 'Woman Studies' and the Negro Leagues, was also on the committee. With these two advocates on her side, her election was probably a foregone conclusion.

I've wondered, though, what argument they might have made (other than Manley's gender) that would have been compelling to at least 7 other members of the committee. I think that argument was that Manley stood up for the Negro Leagues by insisting that she be paid for the contracts of Irvin and Doby. It seems to have really stuck in the craw of many NeL historians that Rickey and many other MLB owners didn't compensate NeL owners for their talent. Historically, I don't think the lack of compensation ultimately made much difference -- integration doomed the Negro Leagues, and compensation for their talent would have, at most, delayed their demise by a year or two. But I think the failure of Rickey and the others to pay for the players' contracts came to symbolize the unfairness and lack of respect bestowed on the Negro Leagues by the powers of major league baseball.

Another comment -- I was a bit surprised that the HoF didn't post the statistics of the new inductees (similarly to how they included the statistics of the old HoFers in the new book, Shades of Glory). It would have been good advertising for their new database/encyclopedia and presumably would have helped justify the players' selections.

So the book Shades of Glory is the new book with the new stats that MLB paid $250,000 for? Is that right? And the book is available already?

No, unfortunately. Shades of Glory is a general history of African-American baseball before integration, with a small appendix containing stats for Hall of Fame NeLers (previous to this election) from the Out of the Shadows / Hall of Fame project.

As I understand it, the rest of the project will be presented in some kind of multivolume format, with a statistical encyclopedia as well as volumes for biographical material, more detailed season-by-season narratives, etc.

The second is even more interesting. The Committee was set up to study the Negro Leagues (1920-1960) and built a database for the Negro Leagues.

It was? I've read this again and again, so it must be true, but I missed it. I think the committee was set up to elect new Hall of Fame members.

Hogan, Clarke, and Lester applied for and won a research grant a few years ago. Were Greg Bond, Leslie Heaphy, Todd Bolton, Adrian Burgos, and Neil Lanctot merely their workers?


It is certainly obvious why Grant, with his 19th Century Minor League pedigree

How does that make it obvious? Overmyer may get royalties for his biography of Manley, surely not for his talk on Grant. Black History Month was practically over and Women's History Month about to begin. Does any white owe Hall of Famer membership to minor league play?


I'm just asking -

What if when they had rounded up nice hard stats for 1920-1960 guys, they found out that their reputations far exceeded their actual production? If so they then turned their election focus to players who's actual statistics are still undocumented - the pre-league guys.
. . .
More likely the depression thru WW2 stars had been cleared off the shelves while the same hadn't happened to the two prior generations of players.

There writes a man who has answered his own question.


"Would any of their electees be more properly termed as being "insightful"?"

Insight in contrast to what?
Sol White, I suppose.

Pompez or Manley, depending on the winning arguments.


He believes that inducting 17 people who no one really knows about diminishes the stature of the people already in the Hall.

So there's certainly wide range of opinions out there.

Yes, indeed.

Numerous SABR members are concerned about the flak that the society is getting for dissing Buck O'Neil.

John Thorn can't understand why not Bud Fowler. (I replied privately.)

Did you notice on the front page of baseballthinkfactory today was a story about a citizens' petition to add Buck to the 17?

Did you notice on the front page of baseballthinkfactory today was a story about a citizens' petition to add Buck to the 17?

Yup. Didn't sign it, either.

>Numerous SABR members are concerned about the flak that the society is getting for dissing Buck O'Neil.

Huh?

You mean people think SABR mde the selections?

it's clear that the only candidates the reporters were interested in were O'Neil, Minoso, and Manley. The others were considered ancient history, aka "boring."

Did you notice on the front page of baseballthinkfactory today was a story about a citizens' petition to add Buck to the 17?

In addition, George Vescey wrote a ridiculous column in the NYT this week whose thrust was: O'Neill (and Minoso) are still alive, so there's still time to elect them!

Which is interesting because I didn't realize that being alive was a key requirement to getting elected.

As I understand it, the rest of the project will be presented in some kind of multivolume format, with a statistical encyclopedia as well as volumes for biographical material, more detailed season-by-season narratives, etc.

Gary A, I know I always ask this, but do you have any sense of when "they" might begin publishing these?

Which is interesting because I didn't realize that being alive was a key requirement to getting elected.

I posted on another thread that if O'Neil had been deceased (God forbid), you wouldn't be hearing a tenth of the outrage that we have experienced.

I also pointed out that Double Duty Radcliffe would have had the same hoopla surrounding him had he still been around. There was a big push to get him into the HOF a few years ago, but that all ended with his death.

I understand trying to induct a player when he is still alive, but I don't understand the big falloff.

the reason I implied Buckley was a better pick then manley even though Manley did more for baseball is because regardless of whether or not he did anything(and to the best of my knolage he didn't) he was still the first president of the NL which I can understand how someone can think that warrents election (though still an outragisly dumb pick) he wasn't getting put in for any PC reason

bumped for Paul Wendt

If I may add (this has probably been brought up before, but it's on my mind now):

It is true that to be eligible for the HOF VC election you have to fall into one of the four categories: player, manager, executive or umpire. However, among these candidates, the Coop can and must consider "the sum of an individuals miscellaneous accomplishments". Quoting from the VC rules: "The Committee shall consider all eligible candidates and voting shall be based upon the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game."

That they failed to elect Buck O'Neil tells me that the African American committee was not fully aware of the rules for election to the HOF. The guy's a no-brainer.

Also, like everything re the HOF, the restriction to the above four categories is a purely arbitrary limitation and has no rational basis to support it. Their definition of "contributor" is sorely in need of revision.

The HOF has invested $250k and is certainly entitled to get a return on their investment. Good luck. With the baseball intelligentsia dwindling (and those interested in Negro League history being an even more exclusive club), I'd be surprised if they can move 10,000 copies of the new encyclopedia.

I replied in #300
> The money is from We The People, right?
> NBHOFM is merely the administrator of a grant.

No and Yes.
No, the money is from Major League Baseball.
Yes, the museum is merely the administrator of the grant as opposed to the sponsor of the research. I suppose that it owns the raw produce of the research and it might publish or co-publish or sponsor the publication of some finished works.

Larry Hogan, et al, win grant -NBHOFM 2001-02-19

I did not find a July 2000 press release by MLB or NBHOFM.

Overviews
wikipedia
nbhofm

2005 July
nlbpa

2005 November
nlbpa
mlb
nbhofm

That they failed to elect Buck O'Neil tells me that the African American committee was not fully aware of the rules for election to the HOF.

Or maybe (like myself) they were aware of the rule, but still didn't feel comfortable fitting him into one of those slots, since (IMO) he wasn't a standout in any of those categories (though I'm getting more sold on his managerial career).

I (and others) have mentioned a "Contributor" category to be used for guys like Buck, but Maury Brown's (I think it was him) category name "Ambassador" has a more stately air to it.

Dan and John,

Was the NgL committee subject to the VC's rules? It may not have ignored them so much as not had to play by them.

Also wouldn't O'Neill, as an MLB coach, be eligible with the VC as well in its next election?

Was the NgL committee subject to the VC's rules? It may not have ignored them so much as not had to play by them.

Excellent point, Eric.

Also wouldn't O'Neill, as an MLB coach, be eligible with the VC as well in its next election?

I honestly don't know.

Or maybe (like myself) they were aware of the rule, but still didn't feel comfortable fitting him into one of those slots,

I'm saying that, by the rules, they don't have to worry about his slot; that he qualifies as a "player" simply makes him eligible. From this, the electors consider the sum total of "the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game."

Was the NgL committee subject to the VC's rules? It may not have ignored them so much as not had to play by them.

I take it for granted. There was no dispensation that I'm aware of exempting them from The Rules. At the same time, I highly doubt the rules were ever really emphasized, if mentioned at all, to the committee.

Also wouldn't O'Neill, as an MLB coach, be eligible with the VC as well in its next election?

Coaches are not eligible for VC election, under the current definition (player, manager, executive or umpire).

Coaches are not eligible for VC election, under the current definition (player, manager, executive or umpire).

When we get caught up to the present and have time for other things, I strongly believe that another way the HoM can improve on the work of the HoF would be to create a "Managerial" wing that would include managers, general managers, and coaches. I don't think we should pile coaches into such a wing hand over fist, but simply doing a systematic study of coaching careers would highlight a lot of valuable history, and I think we'll find a few who were greatly influential, of both pitching and batting varieties.

Coaches are not eligible for VC election, under the current definition (player, manager, executive or umpire).

Wouldn't that mean Buck's coaching career wouldn't be a criteria for his candidacy then? Another thing: does his work with the NeL Baseball Museum really fall under the executive category?

Sounds like only his playing and managerial career would be would be acceptable under the rules.

At any rate, the HOF's rules are a mess and should be clarified just a wee bit better. :-)

Wouldn't that mean Buck's coaching career wouldn't be a criteria for his candidacy then?

I have always interpreted (perhaps incorrectly) the phrase "contribution to the game" to be a catchall, meaning "all other things relating to baseball". Otherwise they would have worded it more specifically.

the HOF's rules are a mess and should be clarified just a wee bit better. :-)

Now, what fun would that be? :-p

I have always interpreted (perhaps incorrectly) the phrase "contribution to the game" to be a catchall, meaning "all other things relating to baseball". Otherwise they would have worded it more specifically.

Do we have any contemporary accounts from when the rule was created so we can get a better idea of where they were going with this?

It is true that to be eligible for the HOF VC election you have to fall into one of the four categories: player, manager, executive or umpire. However, among these candidates, the Coop can and must consider "the sum of an individuals miscellaneous accomplishments". Quoting from the VC rules: "The Committee shall consider all eligible candidates and voting shall be based upon the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game."

That they failed to elect Buck O'Neil tells me that the African American committee was not fully aware of the rules for election to the HOF. The guy's a no-brainer.

--
The four-category basis for eligibility --logically independet of and more than 20 years prior to the four-category classification of HOF members-- dates to the establishment of the Committee on Veterans in 1953. The same legislation or legislative season limited the BBWAA purview to players.

--
baseballthinkfactory columnist Bruce Markusen thinks there is a Negro Leagues Committee that is a subset of the Veterans Committee. Does anyone know why? (I visited the btf home page, read his column, and replied including this question more or less.)

>>
Numerous SABR members are concerned about the flak that the society is getting for dissing Buck O'Neil.

Huh?

You mean people think SABR made the selections?
<<

Yes, many people who watch Keith Olbermann's show presumably think SABR made the selections. Reportedly (I didn't see or hear it), he trashed SABR for O'Neil or for O'Neil in context of the 17, noted that he is a SABR member, and claimed that he might not renew his membership because of this.

Somewhat related:
In a letter to SABR-L entitled "Setback" Bill James explained that this is a great setback for those who would like to see students of the game involved in Hall of Fame selection. Not caused by dissing Buck O'Neil but by electing 17 nobodies (in the eyes of Hall of Fame spokesmen, although they will never say it in public).

#44 begins with two paragraphs quoted from Dan Greenia #33.

Two paragraphs by me, which begin with dashes, answer John Murphy (replying to DanG) and question the Markusen-Greenia interpretation.

this is a great setback for those who would like to see students of the game involved in Hall of Fame selection. Not caused by dissing Buck O'Neil but by electing 17 nobodies

BJ is right, of course. But, the rules set them up to fail. Hurry, Hurry! Last chance to getchyer Negroes elected! This offer may never be repeated!

question the Markusen-Greenia interpretation

I don't see it. What is the linkage between what I wrote and what Bruce wrote?

What is the linkage between what I wrote and what Bruce wrote?

Ok, I see now, after going and looking over Bruce's Cooperstown Confidential. Our similar interpretations of the "contributions" clause were arrived at entirely independently.

Bruce Markusen thinks there is a Negro Leagues Committee that is a subset of the Veterans Committee.

I don't think he's saying this. I think he's saying that the committee that just elected persons from African American baseball falls under the general classification of a "Veterans Committee", and as such is bound by the same rules for election as the "regular" VC. Again, this is also my assumption, having heard nothing to the contrary.

BJ is right, of course. But, the rules set them up to fail. Hurry, Hurry! Last chance to getchyer Negroes elected! This offer may never be repeated!

This should be of some concern to 19th-century fans too (IMO). If the Hall thinks a committee of scholars didn't do a good job with the NgLs, imagine how little motivation they'll have to convene one to assess Deacon White, Ez Sutton, and the gang.

This should be of some concern to 19th-century fans too (IMO). If the Hall thinks a committee of scholars didn't do a good job with the NgLs, imagine how little motivation they'll have to convene one to assess Deacon White, Ez Sutton, and the gang.

This idea (not yours :-) that if the candidate is either dead or unknown (or both), we can just ignore them then really irks me significantly. For people who agree with that premise, maybe what they need is a Hall of Famous instead of a Hall of Fame.

by electing 17 nobodies

Who were they supposed to elect?
Satchel Paige for the 2nd time?

Dr. Chaleeko Membership Posted: March 10, 2006 at 01:57 PM (#1892416)
> [Dan Greenia] BJ is right, of course. But, the rules set them up to fail.
> Hurry, Hurry!
> Last chance to getchyer Negroes elected! This offer may never be repeated!

This should be of some concern to 19th-century fans too (IMO). If the Hall thinks a committee of scholars didn't do a good job with the NgLs, imagine how little motivation they'll have to convene one to assess Deacon White, Ez Sutton, and the gang.

No motivation at all, but no less than last month.

But yes, I think that is all part of Bill James' point.

I think he's saying that the committee that just elected persons from African American baseball falls under the general classification of a "Veterans Committee", and as such is bound by the same rules for election as the "regular" VC. Again, this is also my assumption, having heard nothing to the contrary.

!
That isn't a reason and I can't imagine having that predisposition.

OK, Paul. If we assume the African American electorate was not bound by the rules of VC election, that would explain the resulting debacle, eh?

!
That isn't a reason and I can't imagine having that predisposition.

Ah, maybe I can give a better answer than #454.

The problem we have is we simply don't know; we don't know what, if anything the HOF told the committe in the way of rules or guidelines they should be following for the election. And we don't know how this may have been understood by the electorate, individually and as a group.

IMO, it's not unreasonable to assume the HOF considered the normal VC rules to be in force for this election. It's also reasonable to think that these rules were never a primary focus at any time during the whole process of identifying and narrowing down the list of candidates, and all through the election. With everything the committe was charged to work out, it is quite conceivable to me that the issue of exactly what should constitute a contribution worthy of election was never strictly defined. Also, that VC Rule 6b (or whatever the number) was never discussed.

All I'm driving at is a plausible scenario to explain how the committee could have failed to elect Buck O'Neil, given the text of the VC rules which qualifies him as a virtual no-brainer (to me, anyway) selection.

As for Bill James' setback post, I would appreciate Paul or somebody copying that over to here. As set forth (in part) by Paul in #445, it stands as a supreme slap in the face to the members of the committee. That there is even a hint of such an insulting attitude within the HOF deserves a swift and sharp response from the electorate, IMO.

it's not unreasonable to assume the HOF considered the normal VC rules to be in force for this election.

OK, I believe it seems reasonable to you.

The NBHOFM Board of Directors acted to establish a Committee on African-American Baseball in 2005. I don't know of any relationship to its 1953 act, establishing the first Committee on Veterans. I don't know any clear parallel to any subsequent acts governing the VC, such as the provisions for a separate Negro Leagues ballot within the annual VC meeting 1995-2001.

--
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:55:15 EST
Subject: Re: Setback
by Bill James is in the archive of the SABR-L email list (SABR-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM). It hasn't been published and it shouldn't be read except with access to all SABR-L discussion of this election. 2005 SABR membership is good until sometime in April and I don't know that that expiration governs access to the archive at LSoft.

It is only one man's opinion, expressed in his favorite color, inflamatory, of what Jane Forbes Clark, Dale Petroskey, and other public figures in NBHOFM government (if there are others) will think and say of this election.

James seems to take for granted what seems to me a fond delusion, that the general participation of scholars in election of Hall of Fame members (his own suggestion a decade or two ago) was viable, capable of suffering a setback last fortnight.

One might suggest that it was the only viable method of induction. With O'Neill and Minoso in their eighties and everyone else who played in the Leagues equally aged, it would have been far from appropriate or fair for them to shoulder the burden of choosing guys from the pre-League era, let alone their own era.

I'm, of course, saying this because the 19th century realistically merits a similar scholarly going through since it was swept under the rug by writers with little if any recollection of its doings. Scholars are likely the only group who could effectively comb through the questions of QOP, league quality, mound distance, NA, pre-League, etc....

I don't know ... I don't know ...

We agree on that, anyway; as I previously said, "we simply don't know." A little imagination is necessary in this case, speculation (dare to be stupid is my motto).

James seems to take for granted ... that the general participation of scholars in election of Hall of Fame members ...was viable....

Of course it's viable. And as Dr. C suggests, perhaps the only viable method of induction. Any dissatisfaction on the part of the HOF is its own doing; rather than implement a structure designed to ensure a satisfactory result, they punted. It's obvious they should have done two things: 1) Allow for more than just this one election, and 2) Limit the number of inductees in one year (a long-standing VC procedure, BTW).

This exchange from the transcript of the press conference after the election sheds a little light on the process (or the lack of one):

"Q. Any of these players who did not get into the Hall of Fame this time, would they have another chance, is there a possibility they would have another chance? Could you talk a little bit about some of the elements that went into deciding the consistent great play over a long period of time? What were some of the other elements that went into the decision making of the members of the panel as to why they chose a particular player?

FAY VINCENT: Well, it's a perfectly fair question, but it's impossible for me to respond for two reasons. I really don't know the answer. I think it's fair for me to talk about what the committee did. And it did, with respect to all the candidates, basically three things. It looked at the reasons why the candidate should be a member of the Hall of Fame, that is what were the positive elements in the candidacy. That included whatever information we had. Pretty rigorous look at statistics, look at anecdotal evidence, look at the regard of other players, look at the way owners treated a player, how many times did a player move from club to club, how did the clubs do. We considered things like how many players pitched on Sunday, because Sunday was considered to be the high point of the baseball week in these leagues. We considered and heard data. What I can't do is tell you how an individual evaluated the data. For example, some may have been very rigorous on statistics. If you didn't have a statistical underpinning over a fairly long period of time or, to put it another way, if you had disabilities, if you had been out of baseball, if you had not performed well for some sort of (indiscernible), in that circumstance, there might have been committee members that would have punished you, been negative about that. As I say to you, the difficulty I have with your question is I simply don't know how individuals handled those particular elements. It's clear, some would have focused very heavily on one dimension, and others on another. I don't know the answer and will not know the answer. We have the result."

That's a great piece of circle-speak. That's like a two-minute answer when he could have just said, "I wasn't in the mind of the voters, I dunno."

That's a great piece of circle-speak. That's like a two-minute answer when he could have just said, "I wasn't in the mind of the voters, I dunno."

No it isn't. He was trying to give people an idea of the different stuff different people considered. That, really, was what he was asked. I certainly wouldn't have known that the project had counted Sunday starts if Vincent weren't asked to give a little info on what elements the voters were making their decision on.

I think these passages from the February press conference fairly answer some questions that I have read here and elsewhere. I'm not going to check and see whether this duplicates something in the first 461 contributions.
--

Transcript of Negro Leagues, Pre-Negro leagues Special Election Results Announcement

February 27, 2006

. . .

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.

. . .

Q. Jane, do you have any idea yet as to how this induction process will take place next July, whether it will be one person and who that person would be accepting for all these people?

JANE FORBES CLARK: I think we do. We've spent a lot of time thinking about the ceremony and how to handle this number since we've never had this number before. Obviously, Bruce Sutter will be treated like any other living inductee. Had we had living inductees from this election, they obviously would have been treated the same way. What we are looking to do is to have the inductee's family member be introduced, come up and read their plaque, have the appropriate pictures taken with the commissioner and with Dale and I. That's how we'll be handling it. Instead of giving each inductee family member giving a speech, they'll be reading their plaque.

Instead of giving each inductee family member giving a speech, they'll be reading their plaque.

I understand the why. But it still feels ooky.

tidbits from the SABR research committee newsletter,
Negro Leagues Courier, edited by Col. Sammy J. Miller

"Inductees Mendez, White, Santop, Taylor, Pompez, and Hill did not have representatives"

Nine voters were present, eight named plus Miller who missed the Friday afternoon event, dedication of a new Satchel Paige statue. He names eight other Negro Leagues Cmte members including HOFamer Monte Irvin, sometime HOMeritocrat Ted Knorr, and John Holway.

Friday evening reception, (Miller himself?) spoke to the majority of inductee family members.

Sunday Induction program:
- Buck O'Neil
- Charley Pride (national anthem)
- Sharon Robinson
- "The 17 new Negro Leagues related players' family members read the plaques of their ancestors or Commissioner Selig read them. Pictures were taken"
- Bruce Sutter

Two clippings newly available from the Negro Leagues Cmte are much longer than the others (measured in 8.5x11 photocopy pages,I suppose):
- NEW YORK TIMES, "The Forgotten Pioneers" **5pp (no date)
- From HOF "Glory days: 17 special electees emerge from the Negro Leagues, pre-Negro leagues eras" **6pp

He doesn't mention any disappointment.,

tidbits from the SABR research committee newsletter,
Negro Leagues Courier, edited by Col. Sammy J. Miller

The Jerry Malloy Negro League Conference (Kansas City, July 6-9)

Two voters and HOMeritocrat Mike Webber are among six thanked for their heroic efforts.
Satchel Paige centennial events were part of the conference.

One title available in print points to the next research committee event
**2pp Upcoming (10-6-2006) John Henry "Pop" Lloyd Committee Event


SABR36 Negro Leagues Committee Meeting Summary (Seattle, June 29)

This meeting was smaller than the one in Kansas City, conference Sunday, and the leaders were not present. Was any voter present? As expected by this outsider, ""discussion centered on how the election was held . . ."

"The attendees were asked to write the Hall of Fame to request the publication of the statistical encyclopedia."
emphasis mine

--
P.S. Mike Webber would be a "HOMeboy" if not for the older giant Ted Knorr, in the preceding article. I tried to "Submit Your Comment" but couldn't do it without revision.

James Riley is former president of SABR, research director at the Negro Leagues museum in Kansas City, and author of BlackBaseball.com. He led or shared leadership in one effort to win the big grant 5-6 years ago. The Hall of Fame (NBHOFM) did not award the grant to his group or appoint him to the Committee on African-American Baseball that elected 17 new HOF members in February.

There is no big surprise in his statement but it belongs here. Please forgive any duplication.
Blackbaseball's statement regarding the 2006 Hall of Fame Special Election

It is news to me that Blackbaseball includes material published this year. That "statement" may be all that is new. At Players of the Negro Baseball Leagues, the list "In the Hall of Fame" has not been revised and the list "Should Be in the Hall of Fame" has not been marked up since the election. The two lists are directories for webpages that feature the players individually: all 18 of the old HOFers and ten of the twenty "Riley ShouldBes" with the other ten and "The Best of the Rest" evidently in development.

Buck O'Neil is not one of the twenty Riley ShouldBes. Perhaps this is the basis for Larry Lester's observation that Riley himself --the research man to O'Neil's public face at the museum-- has not judged O'Neil worthy. On the one hand, the section title limits coverage to "Players"; on the other, it limits coverage to "Leagues" but Grant Johnson and Pete Hill are included. The Rube Foster article says,
Rube's keen mind and ability to handle men naturally lent itself to achieving the next sequential step in his expanding perimeter of involvement. . . .
Rube wore three hats, as a player, a manager and an executive. And they all set well on his head. However, it was for his contributions to baseball as a manger that he is best remembered.

The ten ShouldBes featured individually are Mackey ("the top candidate for future election"), Lundy, Santop, Suttles, Allen, Taylor, DeMoss, Wright, Hughes, and Marcelle. The ten not featured are Hill, Torriente, Wilson, W.Brown, Redding, Poles, Beckwith, R.Brown, Byrd, and Johnson. I suspect that the 20 are listed in rank order.

A few days ago, I sent this leading comment to SABR-L.
No doubt, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum will publish some of the data in some form or two if it judges that publication will generate enough value in some sense or two.

Research Associate Gabriel Schechter has replied as an individual, hoping to inform although he does not speak for the organization(*). He believes that the raw data will be made available somehow, regardless of any publication that will depend on judgment of the market. He observes as I have done in phone conversation: one kind of availability might be on-site access to a database that is not available in the same way remotely.

(*)Research Associate is not one of the curatorial positions. Or if you prefer academic analogy, he is not a member of the college faculty.

278. Gary A Posted: December 21, 2005 at 05:11 PM (#1788955)
I used to have a list of NeL managers' games won, but that was on an old computer, and apparently it didn't make the transfer to the new one. It was also based on old data (pre-Holway's Complete Book). In the league era (post-1920 thru 1948), Candy Jim Taylor (C.I.'s brother) won the most games by a good amount. Interestingly, Oscar Charleston was second. I think Vic Harris won the most pennants, and he, Jose Mendez, and Dave Malarcher were high up on the winning percentage list (I don't remember in which order). Malarcher and Jim Taylor were the only managers to win two world series.

Only two double winners? That is a surprise to me.

--
270. KJOK Posted: December 17, 2005 at 08:58 PM (#1782226)
Here's the original list of 94 Gadfly:

[link] 94 Negro League Players Considered

That NBHOFM webpage is no longer available. Does anyone have the list of 94?

--
By the way
#the 200s page of this thread includes some discussion of the first and second-stage nominations.

The original distinction announceent of 30 Negro Leagues and 9 "pre-" candidates (#235) was revised to 29 and 10 by moving Donaldson to the "pre-" group.

Does anyone have the list of 94?

Negro League list of 94 candidates.

Negro League list of 94 candidates.

It still bugs me that Quincy Trouppe didn't even make the ballot. Grrrrr. Effa Manley is a HOFer and Quincy Trouppe STILL has never even been considered. Did I say GRRRRR yet? GRRRRRR.

Shooty, I couldn't agree more. But if they only considered his NgL play, his case is much shakier than it might otherwise have been.

Shooty, I couldn't agree more. But if they only considered his NgL play, his case is much shakier than it might otherwise have been.

True, Eric. I just think the committee should have been smart enough not to be so literal about what constitutes a Negro Leaguer. And, of course, Minoso made the ballot. I really am still at a loss for what they were thinking with Trouppe. All in all, I don't want to sound bitter because I'm very pleased they honored a lot of guys who deserved it. As a Trouppe fan, I'm disappointed is all.

Did you guys know there exists a Puerto Rican baseball card with Chet Brewer and Quincy Trouppe pictured together? That is freakin awesome.

Did you guys know there exists a Puerto Rican baseball card with Chet Brewer and Quincy Trouppe pictured together? That is freakin awesome.

Wow! Ever seen it? If you do, copy down the stat lines and send them my way!

Chet and Quincy and some other dude

Here's a link, but the cards are blank backed so no stats. :( It's a very cool picture of them, though.

Thanks, DanG

The other dude is identified as Manuel Hernandez.

Not among the 94 nominees:
Beside Trouppe, elected here,
Leroy Matlock, Carlos Moran, and Jules Thomas have received at least one vote here.

I know I'm coming late to this, but the original 94 to be considered were compiled from nominations made to the committee, a year or so before the 39 finalists were reduced to 17 inductees.

How many people on this forum nominated those they considered worthy? I personally wrote up nominations for five or six players, some of whom made it into the Hall, some of whom did not survive the first cut, but all were on the list of 94.

To be considered for inclusion, all a player or executive needed was to be nominated, and the Hall announced the procedure. Members of the committee could not make nominations, but anyone else could. All I remember among mainstream sportswriters was the call for every fan to nominate Buck O'Neil, as if they were signing a petition. Small wonder worthy candidates missed the first cut.

Paul, the reason that there were only two double winners in the Colored World Series is that there were only 11 Colored World Series total. The first four were 1924-27; the ECL collapsed in 1928, and it wasn't until the late 30s that there were two stable leagues again, and the remaining seven CWS ran 1942-48.

the original 94 to be considered were compiled from nominations made to the committee,

Gosh, I think we all kinda missed this open invitation. Plus, I believe that at the time this would have occured we were still in the early "years" of elections and had not much discussed the later NeL stars such as Trouppe.

on World Series
The first four were 1924-27; the ECL collapsed in 1928, and it wasn't until the late 30s that there were two stable leagues again, and the remaining seven CWS ran 1942-48.

I see. There was only one season(?) without a major Negro League but a 14 year gap in "World Series" competition.

I suppose that only a few clubs were playing at the highest level during the times of both series (eg Kansas City, Homestead) and not all of those were league members (KC yes, Homestead no). Right?

on nominations
: I don't remember whether any call for nominations was distributed to all SABR members or even to all SABR-L subscribers. I may have responded to a notice in the Negro Leagues Cmte newsletter. And I didn't know anything about the Leagues except to place them in the 1920s-40s and to recognize a few proper nouns. I believe I said something like "I suppose Bud Fowler, Frank Grant, and Sol White are already nominated" and the answer was yes.
: I suppose that some irregular HOM contributors made nominations: David C. Jones, Eric Enders, Gary A., Gadfly.
: If I recall correctly, this was before I was reading HOM discussions of black players. In general, if not Fowler-Grant-White and John Donaldson (1910s), the timing was tight for most people here, those who learned about black players mainly through this project.

I don't remember seeing any list of "nominees to date" and I suppose there was none. With the committee members taking but not making nominations, I suppose the only comprehensive views were those of isolated individuals who tried to contribute complete personal lists of worthies.

Probably they considered this reasonable because the only point was to cover everyone who might be elected to Cooperstown. There was no interest in nomination itself as a secondary or tertiary honor, no interest in covering even the top 50 players if in fact only 10-20 would be elected

They treated the induction ceremony itself as a secondary or tertiary honor on ESPN.

"Gosh, I think we all kinda missed this open invitation."

I have no idea how "open" it really was, as I got word through the (1) NL Committee newsletter and (2) the official announcement on the Hall web site when the committee was formed. I honestly don't know how many gave input into it.

"this would have occured we were still in the early "years" of elections and had not much discussed the later NeL stars such as Trouppe."

Very likely. I was disappointed when I saw the final list that Trouppe wasn't nominated, as well as a few more Cuban players, but I concentrated my nominations on what I knew, which was mainly Kansas City Monarchs players.

I think that 10 years down the road, this process should be revisited with the intent of considering those who were not nominated on first try, and those who might benefit from what further research and analysis has followed in those years.

For now, I still believe the Negro Leagues Hall roster is short, but that they are now and for the first time the second-most underrepresented group, having slipped past 19th century players.

i thought our group sent the HOF committee a listing of our HOM not HOF plus high-level backloggers during the nominating period in question.

i thought our group sent the HOF committee a listing of our HOM not HOF plus high-level backloggers during the nominating period in question.

Which is what discussion in the earliest part of this discussion shows, and which probably would have left out Trouppe, simply because he had not yet chronologically shown up on the HOM radar.

I am optimistic that the Hall will agree in another decade to revisit things one more time, assuming the continued bellyaching about Buck O'Neil doesn't poison that chance. Negro League stats still are incomplete (or least not as complete as they could be), and there is still more to gather on the pre-league period as well as on Cuban players.

Paul,

That NBHOFM webpage is no longer available. Does anyone have the list of 94?


Here is the list of those 54 Negro Leaguers who were nominated but who did not make the cut to the 39 finalists:

Ball, Walter
Bankhead, Sam
Baro, Bernardo
Bolden, Ed
Brooks, Chester
Brown, Dave
Brown, Larry
Cannady, Rev
Cockrell, Phil
Coimbre, Pancho
DeMoss, Bingo
Duncan, Frank
Fernandez, Jose
Fowler, Bud
Gardner, Jelly
Grant, Charlie
Greenlee, Gus
Harris, Vic
Holland, Bill
Jethroe, Sam
Johnson, Oscar
Kimbro, Henry
Leland, Frank
Lyons, Jimmy
Malarcher, Dave
Manley, Abe
Manning, Max
Martin, JB
Martinez, Horacio
Mathis, Verdell
McClellan, Dan
McNair, Hurley
Monroe, Bill
Patterson, John
Payne, Jap
Petway, Bruce
Radcliffe, Alex
Radcliffe, Ted
Robinson, Neal
Rogers, Nat
Smith, Chino
Smith, Clarence
Stovey, George
Vargas, Juan
Walker, Moses
Warfield, Frank
White, Chaney
Wickware, Frank
Wiley, Wabishaw
Williams, Clarence
Williams, George
Wilson, George
Winters, Nip
Wright, Bill

And those 22 who were finalists but not elected:
Allen, Newt
Beckwith, John
Bell, William
Brewer, Chet
Byrd, Bill
Dixon, Rap
Donaldson, John
Hughes, Sammy
Jenkins, Fats
Johnson, Home Run
Lundy, Dick
Marcell, Oliver
Minoso, Minnie
Moore, Dobie
Oms, Alejandro
O'Neil, Buck
Parnell, Red
Poles, Spotswood
Redding, Dick
Scales, George
Taylor, C.I.
Taylor, Jim

I see. There was only one season(?) without a major Negro League but a 14 year gap in "World Series" competition.

The leagues were pretty shaky during the 30s, and teams (and players) thought the expense greater than the potential returns. Barnstorming was more lucrative than a championship series.

I did get the list of 94 (I think, thus 55 eliminated by the second stage cut to 39) and incorporate it in my desktop database. More on that later, after I incorporate the updates of biographical data that Riley published in the appendix to his second edition.

The list I got (in an email at the time of the announcement) had 93 names, not 94.

OK, thanks.
Alphabetical order is a big help. The difference is
William Walker Cash; Bill, Ready (1943-50, catcher --Riley)