That's actually a pretty decent list. I would sub out Mickey Vernon, and Allie Reynolds, for players like Bob Carruthers, and Harry Stovey.

Bill Dahlen is probably the most deserving guy on the list, with Sherry Magee and Wes Ferrell being two guys I would love to see make it, but probably won't.

Mays was 207-126 from 1915-29 for the Red Sox, Yankees, Reds and Giants. He won 20-plus games five times and ranks 62nd all-time with a .622 winning percentage. He was 3-4 with a 2.35 ERA over the course of four World Series, two of which Mays' teams won.

It seems like there's a very important piece of information that they forgot to mention. Since I'm sure the voters will remember it, there's no way that he gets elected.

I can see the hall electing 3 or 4 of these guys. 9 votes needed to get in and the voters will be historians, media members, and HoF'ers. I guess it all depends on the ratios but I can't see the historians and writers selecting no one. Historians because it isn't in their nature to say nobody from their field of study who isn't in doesn't deserve to be in. And for the writers because if they are still active they have a column or two to write out of this plus it is likely that they were not around the first time when these guys failed to get in. If they are old time writers they still have a good chance of getting voted in since old timers tend to soften their views on their era and are more likely to vote in these old guys.

So then it comes down to the HoF'ers and how old or crusty they are.

It seems like there's a very important piece of information that they forgot to mention. Since I'm sure the voters will remember it, there's no way that he gets elected.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that he did it intentionally?

Wes Ferrell! I demand he be put in, if only because his brother is in there, and because holds the HR record for people who were primarily Pitchers!

Is there any evidence whatsoever that he did it intentionally?

Does it really matter? He's still remembered even now as the guy who killed Ray Chapman. It also doesn't help that he already had a reputation as a headhunter even before hitting Chapman.

By the way, I'm not arguing whether or not he should be elected - I really don't care either way - but rather whether or not he's likely to get elected by the voters.

Why is 1942 the cutoff year? That seems like an odd choice. Also, they mention in the article that this group is going to meet every five years. Is 1942 going to stay the cutoff date for this or will it move so that 5 years from now they'll be considering players whose career began prior to 1947 (a more logical dividing year in Major League baseball)?

It's probably just a coincidence, but every one of those 10 nominees played at some point for either Boston or the Yankees.

It's probably just a coincidence, but every one of those 10 nominees played at some point for either Boston or the Yankees.

Mike Sowell's book The Pitch That Killed is excellent, and required reading for anyone interested in Mays and Chapman.

In Sowell's depiction, the pitch was an accident, Mays was a belligerent, angry character, and he showed no overflowing remorse afterwards. Compare Juan Marichal, who was provoked, showed remorse, and mended fences with Johnny Roseboro after hitting him deliberately. The difference is that Marichal was completely understandable in human terms at every point. Mays was just a cold, odd, socially-misfit character. He had a long-term feud with Ty Cobb, of all people; they seemed made for each other.

Mike Sowell's book The Pitch That Killed is excellent, and required reading for anyone interested in Mays and Chapman.

I think that that was the best book about era, bar none.

There's also rumors that Mays threw a game in the 1921 World Series, Fred Lieb talks about in his book Baseball As I Have Known It. I would take the rumors with a grain of salt, but they are there.

Seconded on The Pitch That Killed, great book. I really need to check out Sowell's book on Ed Delahanty.

See this Hall of Merit thread.

Top of the list should be Dahlen. As a long-career shortstop, he was the finest defensive shortstop of the 1890-1910 period, no offense to Joe Tinker. (Hugh Jennings supporters will quibble, but Jennings only played shortstop for 5 years.) And Dahlen could hit, too. He wasn't as good a hitter as his contemporary, George Davis, but Davis was also very, very good. The only real argument about Dahlen is whether to rate him just ahead of Davis or just behind Davis (I vote for ahead of Davis, but I'm outvoted). The Hall of Merit all-time SS list: 1. Wagner (unanimously), 2. Pop Lloyd, 3. Ripken, 4. Arky Vaughan, 5. Davis, 6. Dahlen, 7. Appling, 8. George Wright, 9. Cronin, 10. Banks. In other words, we're not arguing that he's better than some HOF shortstop, we're arguing that he's better than most HOF shorstops, including such illustrious and obviously qualified players as Cronin and Banks.

Bottom of the list should be Reynolds. By my favorite RA+ equivalent record method, I have him as an equivalent of 153-124. Compare Mike Cuellar 167-144, Wilbur Wood 163-136, Sam McDowell 154-123, Mark Langston 178-151, Jim Perry 196-169. While I don't doubt that you could find a worse pitcher in the Hall of Fame, there are just too many pitchers that are that good or better for this to be a Hall of Fame case.

I have Mays at an equivalent 189-154. This is Jack Morris/Dennis Martinez/Herb Pennock/Chuck Finley territory. Except he's several games better than that because he was an excellent hitter. It's clearly a better case than Reynolds, but I still wouldn't put in in.

I'd vote for White and Magee, and maybe Ferrell (better than his brother!) As for the others: none of them would lower the standards of the Hall of Fame.

I'd vote for Dahlen and Magee... and maybe White, but nobody else.

I think it's hard to speculate on what the committee will do until we know who's on it. But my guess is that they'll either elect 1)Dahlen or 2)Nobody. Given that they're focusing on 20th century guys, the most notable omission to me was Stan Hack.

Speaking of who's on the committee, I'm wondering which HOFers played with these guys. Off the top of my head...

Feller played with Gordon and Reynolds
Doerr played with Stephens
Berra played with Reynolds, I don't know about Gordon (was Yogi up in 46?)
Ford played with Reynolds
Aaron and Schoendienst played with Vernon

There's probably more guys with Vernon, he bounced around a lot and lasted until 1960.

Joe Gordon also managed Al Kaline and Jim Bunning briefly (1960 Tigers).

If Dahlen's inducted ESPN Classic will inevitably go to commerical or interview Rickey Henderson's limo driver during that part of the ceremony.

It's probably just a coincidence, but every one of those 10 nominees played at some point for either Boston or the Yankees.

Well, from what I can gather from documentaries on WWII-era baseball with panels featuring Billy Crystal, Bob Costas and Larry King, I'm pretty sure those were the only two teams in baseball at the time.

Oh yea, the Dodgers too.

Deacon White: C/3Bman (when 3B was the 3rd most impt defensive position), long career, hit .312 when the league avg was .266, and often led the majors in RBI when in his prime. Obvious HoFer pick; jsut not quite as obvious as Dahlen. Think at least Joe Torre with a much better glove.

Keltner list for Bill Dahlen:

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Yes (provided you insert the word "eligible" to avoid comparing to Jackson, Rose, and those who haven't been retired for five years). Not quite as good a hitter as Grich or Santo, but career length and SS positional value carries him past them.

I've always just assumed, from looking at stats and positional rankings, that Dahlen was in the HoF already. It would never have occurred to me that he wasn't.

i thought it was odd that they left off the ray chapman stuff too, but i guess the HOF doesn't like to court controversy. i read somewhere that mays was pretty bitter about never getting hall consideration. and seemed to be in denial about the real reason.

Mays, Reynolds, and Vernon?

Magee's been a personal favorite of mine for twenty years or so, when I was playing around with the MacMillan encyclopedia trying to devise All-Star teams for the early years of the century. I'd never heard of him before, but he was placing among the top three NL outfielders seemingly every year in the 1910s.

Dahlen's most associated with the career record for errors committed at any position. He should be a shoo-in, but that may hurt, and definitely will impact on his perception as the best defensive shortstop of the turn-of-the-century.

White should be another no-brainer, but he goes so far back in time, it's hard to work up any enthusiasm.

Gordon and Vernon will likely do better than expected because they stayed around forever as coaches and manager (in Gordon's case). Every Hall of Famer will likely have run into them in uniform in those days. Reynolds has all those World Series rings and this superficially great winning percentage boosting his score. None of the three quite makes it in my book - with Vernon the weakest -, but they'll get votes because of those factors.

The late and regretted Dick Thompson gave his best effort to convince all of us that Wes Ferrell belonged in the Hall, but I think his record still falls a couple of good seasons short. Bill James was convinced Carl Mays should be in, and would have been were it not for that pitch.

It's hard to see who will emerge from this crowd. The most-qualified candidates have obvious drawbacks, while the weaker ones have factors pulling in their favor. It's not obvious at all who - if anyone - wil make it. I can see the votes going every which way, with no consensus forming.

Bottom of the list should be Reynolds. By my favorite RA+ equivalent record method, I have him as an equivalent of 153-124. Compare Mike Cuellar 167-144, Wilbur Wood 163-136, Sam McDowell 154-123, Mark Langston 178-151, Jim Perry 196-169. While I don't doubt that you could find a worse pitcher in the Hall of Fame, there are just too many pitchers that are that good or better for this to be a Hall of Fame case.

1. I'm not sure how Reynolds's relief work is addressed by that analysis. It's possible he had more high-leverage innings than similar starters.

2. It ignores his fine playoff record.

All that said, it still may not add up to a HOF. But he seems like a fun pitcher, one I really wish I could have watched.

"Why is 1942 the cutoff year? That seems like an odd choice."

From TFA:

"Additionally, the Museum will soon announce the 10 finalists for a second ballot of players to be considered by the Veterans Committee, those whose careers began in 1943 or later."

So the more recent guys are considered separately, presumably to reduce era confusion. Though Mickey Vernon is a whole lot closer in time to Ron Santo than to Deacon White.

I'm excited about White and Dahlen being on the ballot, and Gordon's absence has always puzzled me (he should be the poster child for wartime credit). I also would like to see Ferrell get in, mostly because I like Dick Thompson (and miss having him around here).

"The late and regretted Dick Thompson"

I had not heard that he died. Sucks.

52 is way too young.

The late and regretted Dick Thompson gave his best effort to convince all of us that Wes Ferrell belonged in the Hall, but I think his record still falls a couple of good seasons short.

Well, turns out Thompson's main arguments were extremely faulty, which also hurts Ferrell's candidacy.

So the more recent guys are considered separately, presumably to reduce era confusion.

Right, I got that they divided the group in half. I was wondering why they chose 1942 as the dividing line rather than something like 1947 (integration) or 1920 (deadball/liveball).

Wake me up when it's time to stuff the Frick ballot for Bill King again.

Right, I got that they divided the group in half. I was wondering why they chose 1942 as the dividing line rather than something like 1947 (integration) or 1920 (deadball/liveball).

Here's the deadline:

1943, Gil Hodges debuted.

They wanted to put him with the newer ones, not the older ones.

Here's the deadline:

1943, Gil Hodges debuted.

They wanted to put him with the newer ones, not the older ones.

Thanks. That would have been my guess (that it was tied to one specific player, not that it was tied to Gil Hodges specifically).

Sorry Kiko. My duh. I rarely read the articles so I was feeling very clever about actually clicking the link for once.

So, will Vern Stephens finally get a HoF vote?

I think it's a really well done list. Some are obviously more qualified than others, but I wouldn't have a problem with any of them going in. Yes, Reynolds had a short career, but being the ace of the only team to win five straight World Series should count for something...

And 1920 or 1947 would make a lot more sense as dividing lines

This is a terrific list for the HoVG, but not the HoF.

Bottom of the list should be Reynolds.

Maybe so, but if there could ever be a HoF wing for three man rotations, Reynolds, Raschi and Lopat would be the first joint inductees. You could almost do it on the basis of their postseason records alone.

Regular season ERA / World Series ERA

Raschi 3.76 / 2.24
Reynolds 3.63 / 2.79
Lopat 3.21 / 2.60

Not only were these three pitchers the backbone of that 1949-53 dynasty which won a never to be matched 5 straight World Series, but during those Series, Raschi relieved in 3 games (including 2 in 1947) and Reynolds in 6, in addition to their regular starts. And of these 5 Series, 3 were against the Brooklyn Dodgers, teams with OPS+ numbers of 112, 115 and 125. There's never been a rotation in history with a greater set of postseason accomplishments.

(From #25, with respect to Reynolds.)

2. It ignores his fine playoff record.

Very well then, I bring you Orel Hershiser. RA+ equivalent record of 191-157 (distinctly better than Reynolds 153-124), and Hershiser has October 1988 on his resume.

As for relief leverage: Reynolds had 125 relief appearances in his career, tilted toward his last few years. That's maybe 10% of his 2500 IP total. It could have an effect, but I can't see it as a large enough effect even to pull him up to level with Hershiser. And the biggest blind spot of using RA+ is defensive support. Reynolds had some pretty good defenses behind him when he was with the Yankees. Allowing for that doesn't help his case.

Reynolds was a very good pitcher, of course - I'm not trying to say he was a bum. And as I said, you could find worse pitchers in the Hall of Fame, not that that should be the criterion.

Ferrell judged only as a pitcher isn't really good enough. If I go just by his RA+, I get 167-124. But after I found a way to adjust his offensive context for his own hitting, that jumps to 177-115 with some rather big years, and that gets him to the edge of consideration as a peak candidate. Is Ferrell the most deserving non-HoF pitcher? No, because that's Bert Blyleven. Of course, Blyleven is in a different pool, not directly competing with Ferrell. But I think the dangers of underrepresenting pitchers are stronger with modern guys than pre-WWII candidates. And there are a whole bunch of pitchers with 90's-centered careers who aren't even eligible yet.

I would guess the 1942 cutoff has more to do with the war.

Dahlen belongs. White is a no brainer if you count his NA time (which I think you should). Magee is a solid choice. I'd pass on the others.

Beaning Ray Chapman wasn't the only, or perhaps even the primary reason, for Mays not getting in the Hall. My understanding is that the writers on the HOF committee belived that he had thrown one or more World Series games. Obviously there was no solid evidence of this or Landis would have banned him. The writers may have just believed the worst about a nasty guy.