Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Hall of Fame’s 2006 Negro League Election

This is phenomenal news, especially this:

Written recommendations for inclusion on the ballots from fans, and historians not a part of the committees, will be accepted through the month of October. Recommendations can be sent by e-mail to info@baseballhalloffame.org, or can be submitted by mail to: Committee on African-American Baseball, 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326. A letter or e-mail of receipt will acknowledge all proposals. All proposals will be made available to the Screening Committee and a final set will be kept for archival purposes.

A few of the committee members will be at the SABR Convention. I think it’s very obvious that we should submit something from our group of Negro League experts, recommending our electees to them. At the convention I will make a point of explaining the Hall of Merit to any of them that will listen, so they understand the context in which these players were elected - not just against each other, but also considered against white players of their eras as well.

Thanks to Chris J. for pointing this out!

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 27, 2005 at 10:51 AM | 488 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 4 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 
   301. Paul Wendt Posted: February 02, 2006 at 04:25 PM (#1847690)
Mike Webber notified SABR-L, the society email list:
The next SABR Monarchs Chapter meeting is February 4, 2005, from Noon to 3pm. It will be held at the Johnson County, Central Resource Library, 9875 W. 87th Street, Overland Park, KS 66212. Dave Anderson will be giving a presentation about umpiring and home field advantage, Phil Dixon will present his research about John Donaldson, one of the pre-Negro Leaguers on the HOF ballot this year. We will also have a discussion and vote on the 39 Negro Leaguers that are on the special February ballot of the HOF.

No doubt Negro Leagues literacy is relatively high in the KC chapter, with the most famous team, the star of Ken Burns' Baseball, the museum, and sometimes the annual Jerry Malloy conference (including 2006 July 6-9).
   302. Big Banjo Posted: February 02, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#1847760)
Speaking from a Chicago-area perspective, shelf space for baseball books has been cut in half at the Big Stores (Borders/Barnes) over the past ten years, but the number of Boston Red Sox/ Fenway books has grown exponentially, triggering an increase in the purchase of barf bags here in the Windy City. All kidding aside, the decrease in shelf space probably has much more to do with how we purchase our baseball books than the number of different tomes being published. That being said, I'd be curious to see the sales statistics for baseball-specific books (the top individual sellers) during the past ten years as compared to the top sellers of the 50's 60's and 70's. My impression is, although there may actually be more books published, the economic success of the top sellers is probably less. On a semi-related, equally useless topic: Besides Bill James, who has single-handedly changed the way hardcore fans look at the game, and they way MLB Executives actually conduct their business, what other "classic" baseball books have been released since, say, '85? Forgive my ignorance, I'm sure there have been some, but what are they? What new books have had the impact of Glory of Their Time, Ball Four, Boys of Summer, Babe, even Malamud's "The Natural," if we want to toss fiction into the mix. Thinking out loud here, and struggling to bring this back to the purpose of this thread, I suppose the release of a true Negro League Encyclopedia, with detailed statistics for the 3000 men who participated in apartheid baseball, is a book that is of incredible importance to baseball. My only concern is that they'll stop cranking out Red Sox/Green Monster books. I need more Jim Rice and Pudge Information!
   303. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 02, 2006 at 09:38 PM (#1848074)
For those not in Red Sox Nation, it's worth mentioning that there's nearly as many if not more books about the Yanks on the shelves. Every Yankee who ever lived is chashing in with a bio. I hope Kekich and Peterson write one together. They'll call it Swing Pitcha, Pitcha.
   304. sunnyday2 Posted: February 02, 2006 at 10:13 PM (#1848133)
Yankees. Red Sox. Red Sox. Yankees.

What the hell is the difference?
   305. Rick A. Posted: February 03, 2006 at 02:05 AM (#1848393)
Yankees. Red Sox. Red Sox. Yankees.

What the hell is the difference?


As a Yankees fan, I'm required to say:
Only about 20 World Champiomships. ;)
   306. KJOK Posted: February 04, 2006 at 07:15 AM (#1849962)
This is apparently the first book to come out of the HOF project, and it's release coincides with the election:

Shades of Glory Book
   307. DavidFoss Posted: February 04, 2006 at 05:20 PM (#1850159)
The shelf space of everything at Barnes & Noble and Borders seems to be declining of late. The square footage of some of the stores hasn't changed, so what's new in the past ten years? The music section, the video/dvd section and loads of technical computer books -- plus the realization that a lot of people buy things online these days. Its very convenient to buy stuff online, but you can't really fully replace browsing in person, in my opinion.

As for why there aren't any new 'classics'? I don't think you can refer to a book as a classic until its withstood the test of time. That said, Moneyball certainly has had an impact -- high sales, visibility and written by a baseball outsider.
   308. Paul Wendt Posted: February 08, 2006 at 09:12 PM (#1854989)
What new books have had the impact of Glory of Their Times, Ball Four, Boys of Summer, Babe, even Malamud's "The Natural," if we want to toss fiction into the mix.

Impact? What was the impact of Babe or The Natural?

Classic? As David Foss said,
I don't think you can refer to a book as a classic until its withstood the test of time.

Celebrated? David Halberstam, George Will, and Roger Angell represent this score of years rather well.

Meanwhile, there has been a boom in encyclopedias and serious works of history and business and biography, and appreciation of black and Latin American and women's baseball.

Boston Red Sox/ Fenway books has grown exponentially, triggering an increase in the purchase of barf bags here in the Windy City. . . . My only concern is that they'll stop cranking out Red Sox/Green Monster books. I need more Jim Rice and Pudge Information!

Maybe you aren't reading enough of the Ted Williams genre. Splinterific!

The shelf space of everything at Barnes & Noble and Borders seems to be declining of late. The square footage of some of the stores hasn't changed, so what's new in the past ten years?

At Barnes & Noble and Borders, more shelf space is devoted to types of pastry, flavors of coffee, today's newspapers.
   309. Paul Wendt Posted: February 08, 2006 at 09:15 PM (#1854995)
Phil Dixon will present his research about John Donaldson, one of the pre-Negro Leaguers on the HOF ballot this year.

The NBHOFM website lists Donaldson both among 30 leaguers with 9 predecessors (the main listing of 39) and among 10 pre's with 29 leaguers (the daily biographies now in progress). He is a better fit with the leaguers.
   310. KJOK Posted: February 09, 2006 at 08:36 AM (#1855832)
This is apparently the first book to come out of the HOF project, and it's release coincides with the election:

Shades of Glory Book


Also, there's a good interview with Larry Hogan, the principal author and one of the Negro League HOF electors, on MLB.COM.
   311. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 09, 2006 at 03:12 PM (#1855900)
It is currently listed and described at Amazon as well.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/079225306X/sr=8-1/qid=1139494222/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4641260-0839947?_encoding=UTF8
   312. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 22, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#1871368)
From the New York Times online obit section:

Robert W. Peterson, whose pioneering history of the Negro leagues, "Only the Ball Was White," recaptured a lost era in baseball history and a rich facet of black life in America, died Saturday at a hospital in Salisbury Township, Pa. Mr. Peterson, who lived in Lower Macungie Township, Pa., was 80.
.
.
.
Mr. Peterson was named to the 12-member unit that will vote Feb. 27 on the possible induction of additional figures from black baseball. In view of his failing health, he had cast a ballot in absentia.
   313. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2006 at 06:22 PM (#1871375)
Thanks, Eric. Sad news.
   314. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 22, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#1871404)
Salisbury Township, Pa.? Damn, if I am not mistaken that is near where I grew up and my parents still live. Kinda wish I had known that.
   315. Brent Posted: February 25, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#1874906)
There was a nice discussion of Negro League Baseball and the upcoming HoF election on the Kojo Nnamdi Show featuring Lawrence Hogan (Professor, author of the new book, Shades of Glory, and head of the Hall of Fame's NeL research team), Stanley Glenn (President of the Negro League Baseball Players Association former catcher with the Philadelphia Stars), and Dale Petroskey (President of the Hall of Fame). It's available on Real Audio or Windows Media.
   316. sunnyday2 Posted: February 26, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#1875734)
I guess the announcement is tomorrow already???

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/sports/baseball/26chass.html
   317. Howie Menckel Posted: February 26, 2006 at 06:40 PM (#1875754)
from the Times story:

"That baseball is aware of Donaldson and all black players from the Negro leagues era and earlier is largely the result of Robert W. Peterson's seminal work "Only the Ball Was White," the book that put a spotlight on the forgotten black players. Peterson was a member of the committee but was dying of lung cancer and knew he would not be able to attend the Tampa meeting.
Jeff Idelson, a Hall official, said Peterson mailed his ballot. The envelope was postmarked Feb. 10, Peterson died the next day. The envelope arrived at the Hall on Feb. 13.
"When we tally the votes at the end of the meeting, we'll open his ballot and include it," Idelson said."

there's also a push by Fay Vincent for John Donaldson.
   318. DanG Posted: February 27, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#1876515)
Yes, Marc, the announcement is due today at 2 pm.

At ESPN, the teaser for Rob Neyer on 2/23/06 said “Seven of the new Hall of Fame candidates have compelling cases to get into Cooperstown.” Someone who is an “Insider”, can you tell us which Negro league candidates this refers to?
   319. DanG Posted: February 27, 2006 at 04:51 PM (#1876519)
It should be noted that all nine NeL players in the HoM but not in the Coop are on the final ballot of 39. That's Beckwith, R. Brown, Grant, Hill, Johnson, Santop, Suttles, Torriente and Wilson. Most of these figure to make it today.
   320. DavidFoss Posted: February 27, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#1876573)
Most of these figure to make it today

All in one fell swoop? I suppose there is no reason for delay, but I kinda figured they'd do one or two a year to stretch it out (and allow for a stronger spotlight on the inductees).

I suppose the number of inductees has been mentioned many times before. Apologies for not re-reading the thread.
   321. DanG Posted: February 27, 2006 at 05:40 PM (#1876582)
I kinda figured they'd do one or two a year to stretch it out (and allow for a stronger spotlight on the inductees).

Remember who you're talking about. The HOF seems to lack the sense to do something like you mention, and AFAIK, intends to be one-and-done with this whole ordeal of dealing with the Negro league remnants.
   322. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2006 at 06:27 PM (#1876679)
To be honest, I feel very uneasy about the election. I think I'm too close to it because of the time I've put into a lot of these candidates.

Deep breaths....
   323. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2006 at 06:31 PM (#1876689)
If they come back with

Mackey
Donaldson
Lundy
O'Neill
and a bunch of executives

I'm going to set Fay Vincent's remaining hairs on fire.
   324. DanG Posted: February 27, 2006 at 06:42 PM (#1876709)
Yeah, I get bad feelings about the outcome, too. It would be a colossal blunder if they come out with 10+ new members. My wish is that they would say, "OK, here's four for this year. We've decided to continue these elections for two more years to be sure we get it right." Something like that.
   325. ronw Posted: February 27, 2006 at 06:54 PM (#1876733)
Remember Doc, we don't have some of the stats they do. For example, have you ever run Red Parnell through your system?

One man's opinion about locks, but I am not an insider:

Mackey
Suttles
O'Neil
Minoso

I don't think the committee will overlook the all-time lists that Mackay and Suttles top. Obviously O'Neil and Minoso are also the only living candidates. O'Neil would have more of a "pioneer/manager" status than player status, and in my opinion, is probably deserving of that HOF status

Others whom I think are on the infamous "list of seven"

Torriente
Wilson
Ray Brown
   326. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2006 at 07:05 PM (#1876756)
You're right, Ron, we don't have the info they did. They again we like Trouppe and they don't.

I would have to think that Torriente and Brown have the most open/shut cases of anyone in the group of 39, but you just never know when 12 people come together what'll come down.

DanG,

I wouldn't mind if they did what you've suggested, as long as it happens. On the other hand, if they elect 15 guys and they are all goo choices, I don't mind that either.
   327. Gary A Posted: February 27, 2006 at 07:09 PM (#1876766)
I'm not really an insider either, but my guesses for certain induction would be:

Mackey
Suttles
Redding
O'Neil
Minoso

I suspect they'll probably do 10-15; of the rest, Torriente, Mendez, S. White, R. Brown, J. Wilson, Manley, and Wilkinson seem good bets. From that Times article the other day, it appears that Fay Vincent is pushing Donaldson pretty hard (not really sure why).

AFAIK, they are NOT doing any more elections, so NeLers will in effect be permanently ineligible after this (or until somebody else changes the rules again).

It's in less than an hour, so we'll see...
   328. Mike Emeigh Posted: February 27, 2006 at 07:22 PM (#1876794)
The people actually doing the voting are, by and large, quite knowledgable about NeL history; this is not your typical HoF voting group. I feel more confident that they'll do the right thing than I would if some other blue-ribbon writers/old-timers panel were doing the voting.

-- MWE
   329. DavidFoss Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#1876865)
MLB radio says *seventeen* are inducted.
   330. Guapo Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#1876866)
The HOF website says 17 electees, including Effa Manley, but I can't find any more details right now.
   331. Guapo Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:04 PM (#1876867)
Ray Brown
Willard Brown
Andy Cooper
Frank Grant
Pete Hill
Biz Mackey
Effa Manley
José Méndez
Alex Pompez
Cum Posey
Louis Santop
Mule Suttles
Ben Taylor
Cristobal Torriente
Sol White
J.L. Wilkinson
Jud Wilson
   332. Guapo Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#1876870)
And if you want the link:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/news/2006/060227.htm
   333. DanG Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#1876874)
No John Beckwith or Grant Johnson, who now take the top places on the "Best Negro League players not in the Coop" list.
   334. DavidFoss Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:08 PM (#1876879)
Sol White (who got some support here back in the day) is listed as an Executive inductee. Along with Manley, Pompez, Posey and Wilkinson.

The other 12 are players.
   335. Tonight's special is maggot-infested carcass Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:11 PM (#1876885)
####### moronic. what a watered-down honor. Fans will never be able to fully learn and appreciate each of these people, it's just a big group which won't be taken seriously.
   336. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:14 PM (#1876892)
No Beckwith and no HR Johnson, but otherwise somewhat close to our own findings. I wonder what info they've got on Andy Cooper that makes his case. Taylor's pretty iffy, but IIRC, he did a lot of managing too, so I can see him as a combo guy. Amazingly no alive guys.

Positional breakdown:
C: 2
1B: 2
2B: 1
SS: 0
3B: 1
LF: 1
CF: 2
P: 3
Owner/executive: 4
Historian/infielder: 1

OK, so my fretting might have been a bit excessive.... ; )
   337. DanG Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:14 PM (#1876894)
Does this mean a big bump up in our elections for Willard Brown, Andy Cooper, Jose Mendez and Ben Taylor?
   338. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:19 PM (#1876906)
Or to rephrase DanG's question...should it mean a big bump?

We've got to wonder if in fact they've some compelling information that we don't that would make them leap at a first baseman with average power and a lefty who pitched forever for great teams.

On the other hand, until we get our hands on that information, what good is it to bump a candidate upward?

And what does this to Dick Redding's candidacy?
   339. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:19 PM (#1876907)
>####### moronic. what a watered-down honor. Fans will never be able to fully learn and appreciate each of these people, it's just a big group which won't be taken seriously.

I said this a month or two ago. If MLB really gave a #### about the NeL they would have had annual elections for awhile to let the names get bandied about and to sink in among baseball fans.

But no. The people being honored are just part of the Cooperstown 17 and those not honored have no known opportunities for their case ever again to be made. Meanwhile every MLer that ever played is eligible throught the VC. Not a fair shot.
   340. ronw Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#1876911)
So those who are out from the 39

EXEC - none
MGR - Jim Taylor, C.I. Taylor, (O'Neil)
P - Bell, Brewer, Byrd, Donaldson, Redding
C - none
1B - (O'Neil)
2B - Allen, Hughes, Scales
3B - Beckwith, Marcelle
SS - Johnson, Lundy, Moore
OF - Dixon, Jenkins, Minoso, Oms, Parnell, Poles
   341. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#1876918)
I'd want to hear from the voters about why they made the choices they did before I go moving people around. But could this help to put Mendez (in the 16-25 range on my ballot) ahead of Redding (about #10) if I think there's a logical argument.

And while I'm disappointed that Beckwith and Johnson didn't make it, I can understand how it happened (Beckwith has an overblown reputation, Johnson has a lack of notoriety even for his era).
   342. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#1876921)
Having said all of that, if they're gonna elect 17 they coulda done worse.

I agree that HR Johnson is a big oversight. I was not a huge Beckwith fan and I never thought Dobie Moore would make it, nor did I really think that Oms or Lundy or Poles would pass muster, so no real complaining there.

Along with Johnson, I AM surprised however that Andy Cooper would rank ahead of the Cannonball, Dick Redding. And I'm a little surprised that John Donaldson didn't make it, not that I thought he deserved it, but he had more of a campaign going than anybody.

Other mild surprises: Minnie Minoso?

Oh, Buck O'Neil is more than a mild surprise. Who knew that Cooperstown could really have an election without politics?

Meanwhile, of the 17 that went in I won't complain about any of them. I don't know enough about the executives to complain there. Andy Cooper maybe.

My big complaint is that instead of electing Torriente and Suttles this year, and Santop and Mendez next year, nobody will hear those names more than once or twice. All the average fan will ever know is "17."
   343. karlmagnus Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:25 PM (#1876924)
Isn't Effa Manley the first female HOF member? Dead cute, too, if the picture I just saw was accurate. That has to be clever PR.
   344. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:28 PM (#1876933)
I must say that they really missed on Johnson, Redding, and Beckwith while Cooper, Taylor, and White are iffy. I don't like Mackey asmuch as some but he looks to be an eventual HOMer. Willard Brown will be a HOMer eventually as he is in our top 10. Can't say that I know much about the non players or what some of the players were able to do as non players.

I wonder how much Beckwith's character issues played a part in his selection?

Also, it is kinda cool that now the HOM is more exlcusive than the HOF, or at least will be by about 17 people in after our '2006' elections.

However, overall decent job. Jud Wilson, Cristobal Torriente, Pete Hill, Ray Brown, Mule Suttles, these gusy are easily deserving of the honor and it is nice to see them elected.
   345. DL from MN Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:28 PM (#1876934)
I am using this "expert" opinion to shift up Mendez and Willard Brown mainly because I've been taking their numbers with a huge grain of salt. My confidence interval just shrank. I feel pretty good with my placement of Dick Redding (28th) and Biz Mackey (9th) so they aren't moving.

What does this whole process say about Quincy Trouppe and Dobie Moore? Should I be adding salt?
   346. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:34 PM (#1876954)
If I count right, that's 12 players. Added to the current enshrinees, it's 29 players from the Leagues inducted. If we count Campy, Jackie, and Doby's Negro League time, it's about 31 guys who played from time immorium to 1950ish.

I think I've said this before, but among all the MLB players who earned 200 raw Win Shares, about 35% of them were inducted eventually into the Hall. About 600 of the 16000+ players have earned 200+ Win Shares. If parity with that rate were a goal and was assumed, then we could estimate how many Negro Leaguers should be enshrined. Jim Riley's book suggests that over 4000 people played in the NgLs. Since 16000 men have played MLB, we can figure that one quarter of the number of HOF players would roughly equal the number of NgLs who should be inducted. Or in other words, around 50 Negro Leaguers.

Of course that's kind of high. There's a bunch of factors that might reduce it, including uneven levels of competition among leagues and teams, integration, etc.... OK, so reduce the number by 20% and call it 40 instead. That's 11 more guys than we've got now. And the HOF apparently intends to never have another NgL election.

Hmmm....
   347. Mike Webber Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:36 PM (#1876958)
What does this whole process say about Quincy Trouppe and Dobie Moore? Should I be adding salt?


I realy wish we had Quincy's numbers that the committee put together, but the fact he wasn't among the 39 is telling. Dobie Moore's problem is he probably isn't getting any non-league credit from this committee, Larry Lester said as much about Chino Smith.
   348. karlmagnus Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:36 PM (#1876959)
The process should surely be zero sum, so if you move some up based on this you should move others down. Personally I'm not shifting anybody, although if Chris Cobb and other experts plus the new NEL book produce new evidence, I might.

I have to say the poster on the other thread who claimed Effa Manley was the HOFs worst selection, and PC run riot needs to join the real world. She's the owner of a VERY important team, so even if male she'd have a decent shot. More important, I would think there are millions of marginal family visits to Cooperstown that will now happen because of the reduction of wifely resistance. Given her looks, it can't hurt with the marginal members of the young male demographic, either. NOBODY except possibly the odd descendent will schedule a visit to the HOF for Morgan Bulkeley.
   349. Mike Webber Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:39 PM (#1876961)
I wrote this in the other thread: Effa Manley is now the single biggest joke in the hall of fame. Margan Buckley and Tommy McCarthy no longer have to be brought up as an example as the poorest choice of all time.
Does anyone have a defense for this selection?
Political correctness run amuck.

Karl, give me a hint, why is she important? I know one thing she did that MIGHT be considered significant, and it is something below the Don Larsen and Johnny Vandermeer level.
   350. DanG Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:47 PM (#1876985)
I realy wish we had Quincy's numbers that the committee put together, but the fact he wasn't among the 39 is telling.

In fact, neither Trouppe nor Easter was on the larger list of 94 candidates, prior to the cutdown to 39.
   351. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:48 PM (#1876986)
DL, I think both QT and Moore have circumstances that make them difficult selections. For Moore it's having to accept the scant Wreckers information and the fact that Dobie had only ten years. They probably didn't look at it from the peak/career perspective we do, but if so, his case is as divise as Jennings who took us a year or two of debate to elect on a splinter vote.

Meanwhile Trouppe has other peculiar issues:
1) He played in North Dakota for a long period of time (three years IIRC) during which time his play is essentially undocumented.
2) Before he left for ND he had a couple undocumented seaons in the States when the NNL collapsed in on itself (just like Andy Cooper did)
3) He played his peak years in Mexico
4) He was an old player when he finally got into white baseball and the big leagues.
5) He played a lot of baseball in the Caribbean, some of which is not thoroughly documented.

That's the anatomy of a guy whose career is so fractured that it's hard to make a compelling throughline for when you've got 97 other guys to get through on a weekend of cutting down the provisional ballots to the final 39.
   352. DavidFoss Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:49 PM (#1876990)
I have a feeling that Mendez and Redding have been splitting each other's votes here. (Though I'm sure there are those who are voting for both)
   353. Chris Cobb Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:54 PM (#1877004)
Good analysis of the process and the results.

I'd agree that the results are pretty good, justifying having experts vote, but that the "induct them all in one bunch, one time only" stinks.

One question for us: should the sudden addition of 12 players to HoF change our election schedule?

If the goal of the HoM is to get the right best X players in the history of the game, where X is the number of possibly not right players picked by the Coop, does this big shift affect what we do, or not?
   354. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:56 PM (#1877014)
Copying verbatin my own earlier post on this thread - #103. Let's see how the voting's changed since the Cool Papas book. Only this time I'll bold the guys in the HoF, instead of guys in the HoM (& italize those put in before the current election):

Got the Cool Papas book with me right now. 8 of the 12 voters were in this book & asked to pick 27 players not then in Cooperstown who they thought were most worthy. Not all the respondents filled out 27 names. But here's their results:

Biz Mackey 8
Turkey Stearnes 8
Oliver Marcelle 8
Cristobal Torriente 7
Mule Suttles 7

Dick Redding 7
Dick Lundy 7
Pete Hill 6
Louis Santop 6

Hilton Smith 6
Ben Taylor 6
Jud Wilson 5
Ray Brown 5
Jose Mendez 5
Willard Brown 5

Chet Brewer 5
Sammy Hughes 4
Spot Poles 4
Sam Bankhead 4
Wild Bill Wright 4
Frank Grant 4
John Beckwith 3
Newt Allen 3
Sam Jethroe 3
Bruce Petway 2
Andy Cooper 2
Bill Byrd 2
George Winters 2
Grant Johnson 1
Sol White 1
Bingo DeMoss 1
Bernardo Baro 1
Alejandro Oms 1
Fats Jenkins 1
Tetelo Vargas 1
Rap Dixon 1
Minnie Minoso 1
Vic Harris 1
Frank Wickware 1
Frank Warfield 1
John Donaldson 1
Horacio Martinez 1
Dobie Moore 1
Dizzy Dismukes 1
Double Duty Radcliffe 1
Larry Brown (catcher) 1

The info they have on Andy Cooper must be really good. And pretty damaging to Marcelle.
   355. DanG Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:57 PM (#1877015)
Also, it is kinda cool that now the HOM is more exlcusive than the HOF, or at least will be by about 17 people in after our '2006' elections.

Actually, the difference isn't that much. When our election schedule was established five years ago, the HOF had 211 players (188 MLB, 18 NeL, 2 Mgr (Griffith, McGraw), 3 Pioneer). Our schedule calls for 213 through the 2001 election.

Since then, our schedule has added 3 per year (15 players, brining our total to 228), while the HOF has added only 8 BBWAA selections. So these 12 elected by the Black ball committe gets us nearly back on schedule. The HOF now has 231 players, only three more than we will elect throught the 2006 election. In all likelihood, we will catch up with their total by 2008.
   356. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 27, 2006 at 08:59 PM (#1877017)
Uh, Oops.

Sorry about
that. Fixed?
   357. Mike Webber Posted: February 27, 2006 at 09:02 PM (#1877030)
BTW - I do think the committee did a good job, Manley aside.

Still out of the HOF are:

Owners - none

Managers - Jim Taylor, C.I. Taylor

Catchers - none

First Basemen - O'Neil

Second Basemen - Allen, Hughes, Scales

Third Basemen - Beckwith, Marcelle

Shortstops - Johnson, Lundy, Moore

Outfielders - Dixon, Jenkins, Minoso, Oms, Parnell, Poles
   358. yest Posted: February 27, 2006 at 09:06 PM (#1877043)
I wrote this in the other thread: Effa Manley is now the single biggest joke in the hall of fame. Margan Buckley and Tommy McCarthy no longer have to be brought up as an example as the poorest choice of all time.
Does anyone have a defense for this selection?
Political correctness run amuck.


Joke yes
biggest well there's a lot of compition there
of the 17 I would have only included 5 given the information I currantly have
though even if we had the information for everyone who got in simmiler to todays major leauge players and complete information abought every controbtion to the game I highley doubt I would get more then 12
   359. DavidFoss Posted: February 27, 2006 at 09:21 PM (#1877083)
I don't know enough about Manley to know how deserving she is, but its a bit annoying that she's getting 'top billing' today -- with the giant photo at MLB.com and everything. Lets see some write-ups on the other sixteen people (and especially those twelve players!)
   360. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2006 at 09:21 PM (#1877084)
Mike Dub,

Didn't Mrs. Manley actually do some stuff? Even if it was simply her job? What I mean is that I thought Bulkelly actually did nothing and that his figureheadom was short lived as it was ineffectual. If my sense of Bulkelly is correct that puts her behind him (or ahead?) for the worst executive in the Hall.
   361. yest Posted: February 27, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#1877102)
whether Effa Manley is better hall of famer then Morgan Buckley comes down to this is it more harder or more important to be born a woman or get picked out of a hat
   362. Mike Webber Posted: February 27, 2006 at 09:34 PM (#1877131)
well sure Doc, Bulkelly might have been horrific, but this is supposed to be a scholarly committee, I expect better. I mean Tommy McCarthy, you got no encyclopedia, but you have some anecdotes and so forth, and you blow it. That is bad.

My main point is she has no more credentials than literally hundreds of people that owned minor or major league teams. Is she the only women to every inherit and run a minor league team? I read in the other thread she worked against lynching - and there is no diminishing that, but does that count in her favor for this honor?

And Karl, I was gong to let this pass, but I have to ask,

More important, I would think there are millions of marginal family visits to Cooperstown that will now happen because of the reduction of wifely resistance.


Are you married? I mean you don't really believe this do you? You wrote it and then sent it without reading it, right?

Karl: "Honey, lets go to Cooperstown this summer to the Baseball Hall of Fame."
Mrs. Karl: "Oh, I don't know, it doesn't sound that great, I was thinking Las Vegas, or Chicago or Seattle."
Karl: "Well you know, there is a woman in the Hall of Fame now. They gave her a plaque and everything."
Mrs Karl: "They do, well the heck with shopping on the Miracle Mile, let's go!"
   363. karlmagnus Posted: February 27, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#1877157)
People won't arrange their family vacation around it instead of Las Vegas obviously, but for day trips and detours from a tour of the Northeast, it'll help. "Millions" is too many, except on a 100 year view, but Ms Manley can be marketed to women or nerds like me or both and if the Hall is smart, it will do so. Manley-focused ad campaigns in the AAA magazine, etc.

Quantity of experience with wives considerable, quality suspect as I'm now on #3. Current vote has been 2-1 against Cooperstown, but a well marketed Manley might swing the result!
   364. SWW Posted: February 27, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#1877214)
Just so we're clear, if your wife wants to go shopping on the Miracle Mile, then you'd best get her to Los Angeles. The Windy City prides itself on having a Magnificent Mile. Better to be outstanding than to be so unexpected as to be considered heaven-sent.

I think the concern about Effa Manley is that when you do get the missus up to Cooperstown, and you show her the first woman ever to be enshrined within its walls, and she asks, "How interesting. And what did she do?", you'd like to be able to come up with something a little more compelling than "Well, she owned a team, and she was a woman, and that kind of surprised a lot of people."

Nonetheless, there can be little doubt that she contributed far more to the game than Morgan Bulkeley ever contemplated. As is ever true in the Hall of Fame, you could always do worse.
   365. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 27, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#1877294)
Not too bad, but Manley? Egads!
   366. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 27, 2006 at 10:25 PM (#1877300)
...though she will undoubtedly be the hottest HOFer for at least 100 years. :-D
   367. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 27, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#1877340)
Since Sam M doesn't post over here, I will just object on his behalf, that at least some baseball fans will disagree with #66 when David Wright's inducted in 2028.
   368. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#1877350)
To quote Roy Orbison:

RRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
   369. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 27, 2006 at 10:56 PM (#1877355)
lol
   370. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 27, 2006 at 11:16 PM (#1877393)
Thank Dan!

I wasn't aware that we would be pulling ahead of the HOf at all. I must say that I would like us to not pass the HOF by more than a hadnful of players at a time. This probably means a slimming down of players once we reach the end (assuming we continue on) maybe 2 per year. Enough not to screw that generation but so that we aren't electing a ton more backloggers.

Effa Manley was the owner of who exactly? I have heard the Newark Eagles. Isn't this the team that Phil Rizzuto played on? Also, we have to remember that the chances of George Steinbrenner being elected are roughly 95%. Unless, of course, he is even more hated by MLB than he is right now.
   371. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 27, 2006 at 11:50 PM (#1877444)
The Yankee farm team was the Newark Bears. But Phil never played for them, he played for the Kansas City Blues. They were both in the top minor league level, which might still have been AA at that point.
   372. DavidFoss Posted: February 28, 2006 at 12:02 AM (#1877458)
The Yankee farm team was the Newark Bears. But Phil never played for them, he played for the Kansas City Blues. They were both in the top minor league level, which might still have been AA at that point.

Yeah, it was kinda scary. While the 1936-39 Yankees were one of the top dynasties of all time at the MLB level, they also had three of the top sixteen minor league teams of all-time in the 1937-38 Bears and the 1939 Blues.

Top 100 Minor League Teams
   373. DavidFoss Posted: February 28, 2006 at 12:09 AM (#1877465)
According to the plaque room, here are the HOM-ers who played for the Newark Eagles:

Doby: 42-43, 46-47
Irvin: 37-42, 45-48
Paige: 38
Suttles: 36-40, 42-44
Wells: 36-39, 42, 45
   374. OCF Posted: February 28, 2006 at 12:56 AM (#1877501)
A nifty quote from PhillyBooster, moved from the thread devoted to this on the Newsblog:

If you don't like any of today's selections, that's really fine, and a sign of progress. It's really the bottom-half of the HoF that was most under-represented with Negro League players.

Until today, my list of 20 LEAST qualified HoFers would have been nearly entirely White. The Jesse Haineses, Waite Hoyts, Harry Hoopers, and Travis Jacksons who were filling spaces that should have been filled not only by Torriente and Mendez, but also by Hodges and Dahlen.

Now, if my list of Bottom 20 can include Andy Cooper and Ben Taylor, then that's a good sign that past racism is REALLY being rectified.
   375. jimd Posted: February 28, 2006 at 01:00 AM (#1877504)
I wasn't aware that we would be pulling ahead of the HOf at all.

We've been ahead of the Hall all along in number of electees, by about 65 when the HOF had its first election. This has declined to about 40 (depending on how you count McGraw/Griffith/etc.) by 1970 and now the profligate 1970's VC will get that down under 20 by the 1977 election.

The intent was for the HOF to catch up to us by the end of the project, but the VC reforms have dried up their electees, cutting the number of new HOF members from a pretty steady 4 per year to only the BBWAA 1 or 2. These new 12 pretty much make up for the absence of VC electees during 2002-6.
   376. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 28, 2006 at 01:16 AM (#1877519)
Now, if my list of Bottom 20 can include Andy Cooper and Ben Taylor, then that's a good sign that past racism is REALLY being rectified.

I don't think Taylor is a horrible choice, per se, though I haven't supported his candidacy. OTOH, the NeL Committee might know something that we don't about Cooper.
   377. Paul Wendt Posted: February 28, 2006 at 01:25 AM (#1877528)
You here read it third.

A week ago, I observed to SABR-L that Grant Johnson may have the best playing credentials of the 39, and I called him a shoo-in.

A couple days ago, I remarked sarcastically (not believing that it might happen) on the neat symmetry if Bill Dahlen and Grant Johnson, two 19-aughts shortstops, become the best 20th century players not in the Hall of Fame. (Ted Knorr had prayed semi-privately that this committee treat its candidates as white candidates from the first half of the 20th century were treated. Be careful what you wish for, I said.)

I realy wish we had Quincy's numbers that the committee put together, but the fact he wasn't among the 39 is telling. Dobie Moore's problem is he probably isn't getting any non-league credit from this committee,

Trouppe wasn't nominated

The big data-gathering project focused on the Negro major leagues, roughly 1920s to 1940s. Maybe compiled data only for official games in those leagues. (As a whole, what I have read and heard is equivocal. I hope someone will clarify it soon.)
   378. Paul Wendt Posted: February 28, 2006 at 01:37 AM (#1877534)
Got the Cool Papas book with me right now. 8 of the 12 voters were in this book & asked to pick 27 players not then in Cooperstown who they thought were most worthy. Not all the respondents filled out 27 names. But here's their results:

Biz Mackey 8
Turkey Stearnes 8
Oliver Marcelle 8
Cristobal Torriente 7
Mule Suttles 7
Dick Redding 7
Dick Lundy 7


interesting how radically opinions have changed


<i>BTW - I do think the committee did a good job, Manley aside.

Still out of the HOF are:<i>

Are there any pitchers left in the foyer, Mister PC?
   379. Paul Wendt Posted: February 28, 2006 at 02:45 AM (#1877578)
Data Sources:
Election results as reported on this board. Career spans as presented with thumbnail portrait photos and biographical blurbs on the NBHOFM webpage for all 39 candidates.

1886 Grant
1887 White
1895 Johnson
1899 Hill
1904 Taylor C.I.
1904 Taylor Jim
1908 Taylor Ben
1908 Mendez
1909 Santop
1909 Wilkinson
1909 Poles
1911 Posey
1911 Redding
1913 Donaldson
1913 Torriente
1916 Pompez
1916 Beckwith
1916 Lundy
1917 Oms
1918 Marcelle

Whew. That's the first half of the candidates ordered by career start date. This table maybe distorted for some purposes by the relatively long non-player and player-plus careers. Limiting myself to the eleven pre-1910 "debut" dates, Taylors Jim and Ben and Wilkinson are League rather than pre-League candidates.

A clerical error or two may be expected.
   380. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 28, 2006 at 03:11 AM (#1877623)
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.
   381. sunnyday2 Posted: February 28, 2006 at 05:03 AM (#1877735)
I'll even agree that all 17 are deserving, but this is still unfortunate.

I was wrong, however, in referring to them as "the Cooperstown 17." It is "Effa Manley and the Cooperstown 16."

Andy Cooper? Ben Taylor? Cristo-what Torri-who? Never heard of 'em.
   382. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: February 28, 2006 at 07:51 AM (#1877822)
I'll agree that Manley is something of a joke selection. She owned a quite successful team for a relatively short period of time, and made no real unique contributions or innovations. It's sort of like putting, oh, Drayton McLane or Peter Magowan in the HOF.

However, there's one thing that's a much bigger joke than Manley's election: The contention that her election was a bigger joke than Morgan Bulkeley's.

Monte Irvin was quoted in one of the articles today talking about how nice Mrs. Manley was to her players. (Cue the Lenny Pearson jokes...) This differs somewhat from her reputation when she was actually alive -- after all, she was such a skinflint that Ray Dandridge and Willie Wells ended up going to Mexico for extended periods.
   383. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 28, 2006 at 02:34 PM (#1877899)
However, there's one thing that's a much bigger joke than Manley's election: The contention that her election was a bigger joke than Morgan Bulkeley's.

I'll second that, Eric. While he distinguished himself outside of baseball, Bulkeley did practically squat for the NL.
   384. Howie Menckel Posted: February 28, 2006 at 02:48 PM (#1877904)
I think the importance of Grant's selection shouldn't be overlooked.
Eventually, people who look into the Hall of Fame will find out that yes, there were excellent black ballplayers even in the late 1880s, and they sometimes played against white players.
One can quibble with his selection to the HOM or HOF, but that is a pretty little-known fact that will now become more apparent to many young fans.
The concept in general is a useful one - black players have starred throughout baseball's history, not just in the 1930s.
I do wish they had elected four per year for four years instead, but c'est le vie.
   385. Gadfly Posted: February 28, 2006 at 03:01 PM (#1877910)
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!

REPOST

Life is always full of surprises.

I would have bet substantial money that O'Neil and Minoso, as the only two living candidates, were surely going to be elected. I wouldn't have actually agreed with either selection; but I wouldn't have been too upset under the reasoning that 1) O'Neil deserves it for his combination of playing, managing, and post-career (especially with the Negro Baseball Hall of Fame) work and 2) Minoso deserves it for his career and role in the Latin integration of Baseball.

That neither was elected shocked me.

But not as much as the election of Effa Manley. 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.

Quite frankly, her selection is ridiculous.

Her husband, Abe Manley, has exactly the same qualifications as her, i.e the co-owner of a Negro League team (the Brooklyn/Newark Eagles)for 14 years - 1935 to 1948 - that won one championship (in 1948). The only difference between Effa and Abe is that Effa was 1) female and 2) liked to bask in the publicity. The assertion made in the interviews that Effa, because she did all the team's paperwork, actually ran the Eagles is completely untrue.

If this is the standard, why not elect Branch Rickey's secretary?

In fact, Abe ran the team and Effa did the paperwork and publicity. In Overmeyer's book, there is an interesting example of this. Abe traded fan favorite Murray Watkins for Pat Patterson, a far far superior player, in 1946 (an unquestionably great trade). The fans were upset and Effa questioned the wisdom of Abe's move. Abe just laughed and said that the fans would appreciate Patterson quick enough.

Abe Manley was the baseball brains behind the Eagles, not Effa.

In any case, neither Abe or Effa would have ever been a good choice. For Christ's sake, what does either Manley have over Ed Bolden. Bolden owned the Hilldale and Philadelphia Stars, won multiple championships, and was the founding father and Commissioner of the Eastern Colored League. He would have been a far far better choice.

It is obvious that Effa's main qualification is simply gender.

Which makes her election a travesty of political correctness. It will be interesting to see if any negative spin comes out of this. Effa was well known for sleeping with her better looking players (Terris McDuffie, Leonard Pearson, etc.) and Monte Irvin's description of her attempted seduction of him ('her dress just kept getting higher and higher') in his autobiography is kinda gross. The fact that the first female elected to HOF was guilty of sexual harassment of her players is actually somewhat funny.

Of course, the phrase 'hostile work enviroment' did not exist then.

The actual announcement of the election also annoys me: "The electees include seven Negro leagues players: Ray Brown, Willard Brown, Andy Cooper, Biz Mackey, Mule Suttles, Cristobal Torriente, and Jud Wilson; five pre-Negro leagues players: Frank Grant, Pete Hill, José Méndez, Louis Santop, and Ben Taylor; four Negro leagues executives Effa Manley, Alex Pompez, Cum Posey, and J.L. Wilkinson; and one pre-Negro leagues executive Sol White. Manley, an owner in the Negro leagues, becomes the first woman elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame."

Notice how Effa is singled out simply because of her gender.

On the other hand, the election of Sol White is a wonderful thing. White was a fantastic player (he and Frank Grant spent three years in the same minor leagues and White, who was young, was a much better hitter than Grant, who was in his prime), fantastic manager (his Philadelphia Giants were the best black team from 1904 to 1908), founded the Lincoln Giants, and was black baseball's first historian.

If Rube Foster was the father of the Negro Leagues, Sol White was the grandpappy.

As for the rest:

Ray Brown-
Fantastic choice.
Willard Brown-
Ditto.

Andy Cooper-
Almost surely elected because the research turned up a great lifetime won-lost percentage. On the other hand, he spent his whole career with the KC Monarchs. Will be interesting to see how much of the won-lost percentage is his and how much is just the context, i.e. the Monarchs. This selection may end up not looking so good.

Biz Mackey,
Mule Suttles,
Cristobal Torriente,
Jud Wilson-
All fantastic choices.

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

Pete Hill,
José Méndez,
Louis Santop,
Ben Taylor-
Hill and Santop are great great choices, Taylor is ok (no love for brother Candy Jim, an equally good player?) and Mendez surely gets in becuase of how he pitched against Major League teams in Cuba despite a short career (John Donaldson was just as good).

Cum Posey,
J.L. Wilkinson-
The best Negro League exective in the East (Posey) and the West (Wilkinson)? Hell yeah!

Alex Pompez?
May be the first man elected to the Hall of Fame as a scout. As a Negro League exective, Pompez' greatest asset is simply longevity (1916-1952) with one real championship (1947). As a scout, he supplied the New York/San Francisco Giants with an amazing amount of Latin talent (which the Giants pretty much simply squandered). He may be the one man elected who still has an effect on today's game (Felipe Alou). Somewhat of an odd choice.

Biggest Omissions:
1) Grant 'Home Run' Johnson (think 'Black Honus Wagner')
2) Cannon Ball Dick Redding
3) John Beckwith (think 'Black Rogers Hornsby')

Although I've been looking forward to this election for months, I'm actually surprised at how disappointed I was in the actual selections, especially Effa Manley. But all's well that ends badly, just as long as it ends.
   386. Mike Webber Posted: February 28, 2006 at 03:13 PM (#1877928)
However, there's one thing that's a much bigger joke than Manley's election: The contention that her election was a bigger joke than Morgan Bulkeley's.


Eric, John, I'm just asking, based on the qualifications of the committees that did the selecting, isn't the Manley selection just as bad or worse? Do you think the 1937 committe was made up with people with these types of credentials?

Either way I'll stop saying it.
   387. Gadfly Posted: February 28, 2006 at 03:15 PM (#1877933)
Correction: My post says the Eagles won their championship in 1948. It was, of course, 1946.

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.

It's like I never noticed that the committee was led by Fay Vincent. I actually like old Fay, but that doesn't excuse him for his tendency to be a pompous self-important windbag who overrates his place in Baseball history. If they ever get around to electing Bowie Kuhn, I'll have to throw up in my mouth (not to mention, shudder, the inevitable deification of Budzilla).
   388. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 28, 2006 at 03:21 PM (#1877940)
Eric, John, I'm just asking, based on the qualifications of the committees that did the selecting, isn't the Manley selection just as bad or worse? Do you think the 1937 committe was made up with people with these types of credentials?

Well, if your stating that Manley's selection process was worse than Bulkeley's, then I could agree with that, Mike.
   389. Al Peterson Posted: February 28, 2006 at 04:10 PM (#1877984)
Wow, from the sound of it in this thread you would have thought they elected Hurley McNair and Henry Kimbro. Let's look at the election list again:

Ray Brown
Willard Brown
Andy Cooper
Frank Grant
Pete Hill
Biz Mackey
Effa Manley
José Méndez
Alex Pompez
Cum Posey
Louis Santop
Mule Suttles
Ben Taylor
Cristobal Torriente
Sol White
J.L. Wilkinson
Jud Wilson

Is the Hall of Fame better off than it was 24 hours ago? I would say so. The tone taken by some is perplexing. The money, time, and effort put in by dozens of people to expand the Negro League historical collection should be applauded. Instead we get classic Monday morning quarterbacking.

So they want to put in Effa Manley. If the same process brings in Torriente, Santop, Wilson, and others than let them do what they want. It's the Hall of Fame - a women part-owner of any sports team 60 years ago would have had a good deal of fame.

Sorry for the rant - just seems like people are dismissing the work of some pretty smart individuals and I'm not for all that.
   390. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 28, 2006 at 04:20 PM (#1877996)
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.

Gadfly, does this suggest to you that the committee was "stacked" by someone who might have favored electing Mrs. Manley?
   391. DanG Posted: February 28, 2006 at 04:35 PM (#1878011)
As far as I can see, they did no better than our modest little group here at the HoM. Of course, there's always the caveat that they're privy to classified info. Still, do you think ANY consideration was given to park effects? Or any attempt made to creat MLE's?

Their selections fall under two headings: the obvious and the questionable. Am I missing something? Would any of their electees be more properly termed as being "insightful"?

It's ironic that the HOF had the right idea from 1995-2001: elect one per year. Where they blew it then was in failing to identify the top candidates in any organized, scholarly manner. The seven NeL individuals elected in those years were at the impetus of one or two person's personal viewpoints.
   392. Chris Cobb Posted: February 28, 2006 at 04:50 PM (#1878024)
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.

As to Al Peterson's comments: for better or for worse, honorary organizations are generally going to be judged by the quality of their weakest selections, because enshrinement is forever, and these are the selections that show what your standards are. This committee was right more often than it was wrong: one obvious mistake and a couple possible mistakes of inclusion, a couple obvious mistakes of exclusion and maybe four to six more possible mistakes of exclusion. That's a good record, especially given the ill-designed "one-and-done" format they had to work with. However, their one obvious mistake was a doozie!

The committee may perhaps be getting less credit for their good selections than they should, because most folks here believe that most everyone that the committee picked would have been in the Hall of Fame a long time ago if that Hall had taken seriously its responsibility to honor Negro-League players. Overcoming the Hall's lack of seriousness about this responsibility to the extent of getting this election to happen is a major accomplishment of all who made it happen, but 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.
   393. Gadfly Posted: February 28, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#1878040)
Doc (90)-

I don't actually know how the Committee worked, but (going where Angels fear to tread) I assume it worked like the old Veteran's Committee. In other words, the twelve (well, eleven) people got in a room and debated the merits of the 39 candidates, each trying to sway the others to their particular favorites. If this is true, Effa Manley - with two people highly invested in having her elected - would have been undoubtedly helped by the dynamic.

Of course, this is the same system that resulted in some of the Hall of Fame's worst additions and the abolition of the Veteran's Committee. At various times, mediocre or even awful (Kelly, Lindstrom, etc.) choices were made by the Veteran's Committee when certain members (Frisch, Williams) swayed the voting process. I don't know if this means the Committee was "stacked" for Effa Manley, but it would explain a lot.

Interestingly, Neil Lanctot, who wrote two books about Ed Bolden's teams, was on the Committee and I wonder why he did not (maybe he did) point out how much more qualified Bolden was than either Effa or Abe Manley. Of course, the real kicker is that Abe Manley is exactly as qualified as Effa, but Atlantis will rise from the sea before he gets in.
   394. Al Peterson Posted: February 28, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#1878098)
As to Al Peterson's comments: for better or for worse, honorary organizations are generally going to be judged by the quality of their weakest selections, because enshrinement is forever, and these are the selections that show what your standards are.

OK, I see your point Chris. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link argument. But the Hall showing it's "standards" is not happening. They've been different at different points in the HOF history. And trying to put a standard on an executive position? Good luck with that one.

So once we got down to the 39 on the ballot there were 4 possible combinations

A) Person X should be in, Person X voted in
B) Person X should be in, Person X not voted in
C) Person X should not be in, Person X voted in
D) Person X should not be in, Person X not voted in

Lets put a success rate on the committee. B & C are errors - how many fall into these groups? Or course you can argue the wrong 39 got on the final ballot but I won't go there...
   395. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 28, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#1878099)
So they want to put in Effa Manley. If the same process brings in Torriente, Santop, Wilson, and others than let them do what they want. It's the Hall of Fame - a women part-owner of any sports team 60 years ago would have had a good deal of fame.

But the "fame" in HOF is not about being famous, Al, but being meritorious.

As I stated above, they did a pretty good job overall, but they could have done a better one considering who was on the committee.
   396. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 28, 2006 at 05:36 PM (#1878110)
Al,

That's an interesting point about the wrong 39/97 because it wouldn't be as important if the perpetual eligibility question weren't already (seemingly) decided in the negative.
   397. Gadfly Posted: February 28, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#1878147)
To follow up on Al Peterson's and Chris Cobb's comments, I agree with both sentiments. It is certainly a good day that so many deserving players got in; but it is certainly odd that the selections were no better than this and that one selection was so obviously driven by political correctness and publicity needs. The selection committee was made up of the best-informed Negro League historians out there. It's kind of appalling that they couldn't do any better than this.

17 Selections:
NO QUESTION (11): R.Brown, W.Brown, J.Hill, J.Mackey, C.Posey, L.Santop, G.Suttles, C.Torriente, S.White, J.Wilson, J.Wilkinson.
QUESTIONABLE (5): A.Cooper, F.Grant, J.Méndez, A.Pompez, B.Taylor.
GOD AWFUL (1): E.Manley.

Of course, some would question Sol White as a "No Question" Hall of Famer, but that would just be through lack of knowledge. Mendez was fantastic, his selection is only questionable on the question of career length. Frank Grant and Ben Taylor are actually worthy, simply probably not the best choices. It is certainly obvious why Grant, with his 19th Century Minor League pedigree, was chosen. Alex Pompez can be explained for his role in the integration of Latins to the Majors, though is extremely questionable as a baseball executive. Andy Cooper is problematic, but there are certainly other pitchers in the Hall that rode in on team driven won-lost records (Waite Hoyt, for one).

But the selection of Effa Manley is just pathetic, though understandable in terms of political correctness, gender politics, and publicity.

There are two other weird things about the selections:

As already mentioned, one, of course, is the odd bias of the Selection Committee to the executive/non-player branch. They bent over backward to put the non-players in, obviously furthering the chances of Effa Manley and Alex Pompez. Like anyone goes to the Hall of Fame to worship, say, Lee McPhail, other than his relatives.

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.
   398. andrew siegel Posted: February 28, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#1878153)
Maybe I'm the only one, but I care zero, zilch, absolutely nada, one way or the other about which executives--if any--make the Hall of Fame.

So, for me, the only question is how did they do on the players. They got three out of the top 4 eligible (Torriente, Brown, and Wilson, no Home Run Johnson); another three guys who obviously belong (Suttles, Santop, and Hill); a fair sampling of guys who have strong but not slam-dunk cases (Grant and Mendez who I support, Mackey and Taylor who I don't support but understand the arguments for, and Willard Brown on whom I haven't decided); and only one guy who I think was a mistake but on whom they have better information anyway (Andy Cooper). All in all, a very credible job. I'd give them a B+, docking them half a letter grade for our peripheral differences and half a letter grade for whiffing on Home Run Johnson.
   399. Gadfly Posted: February 28, 2006 at 06:02 PM (#1878168)
Whoops! Make that Larry, not Lee. One generation off.
   400. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 28, 2006 at 06:12 PM (#1878196)
Here's one other prism to see this election through

Pre-League (4.5): Grant, Hill, 1/2 of taylor, mendez, santop
1920s-Depression (4.5): 1/2 of taylor, f cooper, mackey, torriente, suttles
Depression-WW2 (1): r brown, wilson
Integration ERA (1): w brown

That's a better mix than previous groups have done in as much as the vast majority of electees have come from the Depression-WW2 group in other elections. The 1920s and PreLeague eras are now closer to parity with the Depression-WW2 group, which strikes me as a positive step. On the other hand, the Integration era still lacks in membership.

Here's how it effects the total NgL membership (all chronological judgments my own and subject to error)
BEFORE MONDAY
NEGRO LEAGUE 
ELECTEES BY ERA
-------------------------
Pre-League2
1920s 4 
Depression–WWII 10
Integration era 1


AFTER MONDAY
NEGRO LEAGUE 
ELECTEES BY ERA
-------------------------
Pre-League6.5
1920s 8.5 
Depression–WWII 12
Integration era 2


The Depression ERA is still ahead of the others, but it's not so drastic now. Adding Johnson, Beckwith, and Oms would help, but the Integration era is still gettint the worst of it.
Page 4 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9793 seconds
49 querie(s) executed