Boggs & Sandberg are in

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Looks like Sutter next year.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Sutter and Rice and Gossage will have their LAST great chance to get in NEXT year...

because the list of FIRST-time eligible players in 2006 has ZERO players that will ever make it in:

Rick Aguilera, Tim Belcher, Will Clark, Alex Fernandez, Gary Gaetti, Dwight Gooden, Ozzie Guillen, Juan Guzman, Orel Hershiser, Gregg Jefferies, Lance Johnson, Doug Jones, Roberto Kelly, Mickey Morandini, Hal Morris, Jaime Navarro, Luis Polonia, Mike Stanley, Walt Weiss, John Wetteland, Mark Whiten

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

Well, Boggs of course and even though I wouldn't have choosen Sandberg, I'm not upset about it and I'll consider him a marginal Hall of Famer - but there are a number in there which I will never consider HOFers even though they get inducted - and that includes many of the Veterans Committee selections.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I don't get how people think Sandberg is a not worthy of the HOF? Simply he put, he was the greatest 2B of his day and was the prototype for the 2B we see today. It's not like his numbers are puffed up by smaller ballparks or anything. Joe Morgan is probably the only 2B better than Sanberg to ever play the game.

It still find it sad that Jack Morris, THE dominant pitcher of the 80s with 162 wins in that decade, gets zero respect. In the 80s, if I needed to win one game, I'd have wnated Morris on the mound and was damn glad he was there for Game 7 of the 1991 WS.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

but Jay, you have to remember - there is no HOF handicap that allows Twins in automatically!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Even though Morris pitched for the Twins, He will always be a Tiger in my mind.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Morris also had that memorable quote about female reporters in the locker room. It was something to the effect that the only time he ever wanted to talk to a woman naked was when he was on top of her or she was on top of him.

I have to respect a guy who said what I imagine most of the players were thinking, even if his comment wasn't exactly PC. Morris is a HOFer in my book.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Jay--Ever hear of a guy named Rogers Hornsby

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

That is right up there with some of the things Dave Kingman said.

[Archive]

Posted By: mfricke

The reason I don't think Sandberg should be in the Hall of Fame has less to do with his ability and more to do with the voting process.

Sandberg was eligible last year but didn't get enough votes. What suddenly made him qualified this year? He didn't hit any more home runs or make any more catches. There isn't a limit on the number of players that can get in each year but the voters last year didn't think enough of him to vote him in. Just having weaker competition shouldn't suddenly make him a qualified candidate.

The whole system makes no sense. Players should get one chance. They're either good enough or their not. I have no problem with a verterans committee to catch any that fall through the cracks but this voting system is silly. It cheapens the Hall of Fame (in my opinion)

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The only problem with the "one shot" rule...

is that some years you have a TON of very qualified candidates up for election...

and it would NOT be fair to the other eligible players if their "one shot" was ruined by being up against McGwire, Gwynn and Ripken in the same year...

because the voters would probably ONLY vote for those "Big 3" in order to honor them properly.

In other words... because the voters now know that candidates will be on the ballot for several years...

they "send messages" by how they vote.

They only vote for the "superstars" on their FIRST year of eligibility, to signify that these players are "better" than some of the other HOF players (like Sandberg) who get in on later ballots.

REMEMBER:

The baseball writers have NOT made very many mistakes over the years.

The "mistakes" were all made by the Veteran's Committee!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Charlie Gehringer, Hornsby, even Jackie Robinson - all better than Sandberg. Sandberg is more comparable to Lou Whitaker or Bobby Grich. And, obviously, Morgan was much better.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

The first batch you listed were better than Sandberg, but Sandberg is MUCH better than Grich and Whitaker, and I would also take him over Joe Morgan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

because he's such a pain in the *ss as an announcer...on second thought, he was probably better than Sandberg.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

To state that Sandberg is better than every other 2nd baseman except Morgan is absolutely rediculous! Hornsby is on "everyones" list, including mine, as the greatest 2nd baseman of all time! Morgan better than Sandberg? - this is definitely true and it's not even close. What about Jackie Robinson? What about Collins? What about Lajoie?Sandberg was an excellent player. But the players I mentioned were outstanding players and in my view only outstanding players, not excellent players, should be in the Hall of Fame.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Whitaker was the best of the three. Also, we shouldn't forget Johnny Evers. Many people feel he doesn't really belong, and I had my doubts too, until I read Bill James' analysis of his offensive value. Despite his so-so BA, he was great at creating runs for his team, and was one of the top glove men of his time. I know they didn't really make that many double plays, but it wasn't Evers' fault. I don't know that I would take him over Sandberg, but he does belong in the Hall.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

<<< The baseball writers have NOT made very many mistakes over the years.

The "mistakes" were all made by the Veteran's Committee!! >>>

I agree with this 100%. Hey, I last went to Cooperstown two summers ago and it will always be one of my favorite places to visit, despite the Veterans Committee voting in these "only excellent" ballplayers.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i think sandberg by retiring the first time ruined(not sure of this term here) his career stats. when he came back he was not as good as when he retired. http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sandbry01.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Frankly, I just dont understand how it is that Hal thinks Luis Polonia wont get in next year. I mean how in the world do you leave a guy like that out;)

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Hal:

So what if in some years you have "a ton" of qualified candidates? If they are all good enough to get in, they all get in.

Isn't the "message sending" to which you refer exactly what is wrong with the Hall of Fame? Isn't that message really "You weren't good enough to get in with the truly deserving players?" So why should they get in at all?

I think many people wouldn't like the "One Shot" rule because there might be long stretches where nobody gets in and they couldn't have a baseball game and a party ever summer for the new inductees. But that's what would balance out the years where "a ton" of players did make it.

Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

...why Whitaker is in the HOF...oh, wait - he isn't.

The system is obviously flawed, but it's understandable - just in this thread alone we have total disagreement as to the relative merits of second basemen.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Williams

Why doesn't Andre Dawson get any love?

Or Goose Gossage or Sutter?

They all dominated the game at times, and were at one time considered to be the best in the game at their positions.

I think the Hall of Fame voting is a joke sometimes.

Look at some of the losers the Veterans Committee put in from the 20's and 30's like George Kelly, Lindstrom, Lloyd Waner, et al, and then look at Andre Dawson (even if Andre did steal the MVP from Ozzie SMith in 87)....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

How can you say Sutter and Gossage didn't get any love when 2 out of every 3 voters voted for Sutter and over half voted for Gossage?

Sutter gets in next year with Jim Rice and it might be the year they finally start appreciating relief pitchers by voting Gossage in as well.

Gossage will likely come up short, but if Gossage and Sutter were inducted together it would not only be poetic justice but also a huge symbolic gesture that the relief pitcher is indeed part of the game.

Sorry Jeff Nelson, it might be a while before the Hall starts recognizing those in middle relief.

"Joe Morgan is probably the only 2B better than Sanberg to ever play the game." That one is worthy of instant induction into the network54 silliest quotes HOF. As the first inductee, it will be the PSA 8 Wagner of the board's HOF. Except untrimmed.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

I don't believe Sandberg OR Whitaker should be in. While we're at it, Roberto Alomar is just a couple of halfway decent seasons away from 3,000 hits. However, since he tends to switch teams on a regular basis, nobody seems to notice. Do you suppose Sandberg would have gotten in with the same stats if he had played for several different teams? I don't think so.

Andre Dawson? Should be in - no doubt about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

"I think many people wouldn't like the "One Shot" rule because there might be long stretches where nobody gets in and they couldn't have a baseball game and a party ever summer for the new inductees. But that's what would balance out the years where "a ton" of players did make it."


I'm all for this. If a person isn't good enough to get in on the first try, they shouldn't be there. I think it's ONLY because the hall was allowed to become watered down with less than cream of the crop players that people like Sandberg are allowed in, but he's by far not the worst of the marginal HOF'ers. I could list off 50 names of the greatest players in the hall like Cobb, Ruth, Lajoie, Hornsby, Dimaggio, Williams, Gehrig, Young and many, many more, and then list a whole bunch of marginal players like Ryne Sandberg, Gary Carter, Kirby Puckett and the like - it just doesn't wash, does it? They're just not in the same category no matter how you want to dance around it - being the best in a position in a given 10-15 year period is just NOT enough to qualify IMHO. Either don't let these people in or have a second tier system where only the best of the best make it to the top tier.

In the situation someone mentioned above where there are 3 great players in a year, the 4th marginal person would be voted in the next year. I say if they weren't good enough to get with those 3, they don't deserve to be there - they may be not QUITE as good as ripken, mcgwire, boggs, etc., but if they belong there, they belong there, and I think the baseball writers are highly irresponsible to vote people in they didn't think were worthwhile the first time just because that's the best choice they have for the one or two players they feel they need to have each year. It cheapens the hall of fame significantly. If we had 4 people one year, no one at all for 3 years, then 1 person, then none, than 2, etc., I'd be very happy - having at least one person every year is often just silly, like next year will be...

[Archive]

Posted By: Albie O'Hanian

Bill James ranked Sandberg the 7th best secondbaseman of all-time in the new Historical Baseball Abstract which seems about right. He had Morgan 1st and Hornsby 3rd.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

So what if the HOF is smaller? In such a HOF, Sandberg clearly wouldn't have a chance.

But think about the guys who didn't make it on the first ballot - do you think voters would vote differently if they knew anyone who didn't get in on the first ballot would NEVER get in? Would Morgan have been voted in?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Boggs: what idiots did not vote for 5 batting titles, a .328 BA and 3000+ hits?

Sandberg: a marginal HOFer in my opinion. I'd probably vote for him based on the fielding aspect as a second baseman, but with some misgivings.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Boggs -- a relatively weak HOFer because his statistics were deceptive. I live in Boston and watched him throughout most of his career, and he was selfish to the core (sitting out games to preserve batting titles, and the list goes on and on) and couldn't hit worth a damn in the clutch. Still, the batting titles and 3000 hits (even more noteworthy because the Sox did not bring him up to the bigs until age 24 or even 25) qualify him. As some of my friends and I used to say at a point where he was in the top three all time for BA, he was the worst .350 hitter the game had ever known

Sandberg? No way. A very fine player, yes, but a HOFer? I don't think so.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Had a lifetime 3.90 ERA. Yes, you read that correctly. Won 20 only 3 times. Never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting. Total of one strikeout crown. In my opinion he is not particularly close to being a Hall of Fame pitcher. He had a few excellent seasons and a very good overall career, but not a HOF one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

There is an accepted tradition--I'm sure you all know this--that a "first ballot HOFER" is an honor awarded to only a few, and that the baseball writers balk at admitted more than three a year. (four max). So lesser, but still deserving player have to wait longer.

I for one am glad that Reese is in...look how long it took him!

Unfortunately, still following Hal, we also look at the YEAR the guy got in, and mistakes by the Veterans' Committee has really mucked this up. Guy on the Veterans' Committee gets a bunch of his cronies in, and "1945" doesn't seem like such a great date to be admitted anymore
(actually, I took "1945" at random--I think they did pretty well that year).

This sure is one topic on which everyone has an opinion!

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Parks

Boggs definitely deserved being named to the Hall-of-Fame. The man was the greatest American League Hitter of the 1980's and early 1990's - not necessarily the most prouductive, though. But still the best hitter in that League - Gwynn being the best in the NL.

To use selfishness as a reason to keep him out is no good. We could nit-pick a number of reasons for other players to keep them out, but I guarantee, Boggs' hitting won Boston more games than his selfishness lost them. He may have been a bit selfish but he was a great player and highly productive. A high on-base percentage is undervalued because it's a quiet type of statistic - not flashy like the HR, the SB, the batting title, the RBI, etc...However, Boggs was the second best table-setter of the 80's and early 90's behind Rickey. The guy was ALWAYS on-base.

Boggs also turned himself into a Gold-Glove fielder. He worked extremely hard at it and by the end of his career carried a pretty good glove and even won a GG, I believe.

Sandberg is not a marginal HOFer compared to other secondbasemen. Hornsby could hit, but couldn't field and we know of his legendary attitude. Lajoie could field and hit but was an average runner and Collins could hit, field run but hit with no power, Morgan was all-around, and Gehringer could field but not run too well with a little pop.

But Sandberg had what only Morgan had - speed, power and an incredible glove. In fact, his glove was better than Morgan's. Sandberg once stole 50 bases in a season, won an MVP, had that season where he was going for 20 doubles, 20 triples, 20 homers, and 20 steals - in the eighties was special, had a 40 Homer season, won gobs of gold gloves, and set fielding records. He could do it all but hit for a high average - which is a stupid stat anyway...

I mean what stat is a good indicator of performance that says:
a single = a double = a triple = a home run and walks = 0?
Batting average is a stupid stat.

I'm not saying he's better than Hornsby or Morgan or Lajoie or Collins or Jackie R, but I always felt Sandberg was one of the all-time great secondbasemen - right up there with them.

Boggs and Sandberg are good choices...way to go voters!



And lastly, I had to address the poster who called Dawson at his position in his league. That's not correct - especially when Dale Murphy was around.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Boggs without a doubt should be in the hall. There was a five year span in the late 80's where he could have won the MVP every year. (He should have won in 86, 87, 88 for sure)

Alomar and Kent will be ranked pretty high as far as second basemen go. As a Jays fan I remember how dynamic Alomar could be and at the time of their world series was probably one of the best players in the AL.

Kent has done some things with the stick that I don't think anybody had done at that position. (Using the OPS stat)

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The Voting process works JUST FINE!!!

If you EXCLUDE any player who played before 1920 ... since THOSE guys were the one who the "Veteran's Committee" was originally designed to address...

then the BASEBALL WRITERS have been PERFECT!!!

Look at this list of PLAYERS who have been voted in by the WRITERS...

and then tell me ONE player who played after 1920 who was BETTER than ANY of these guys:

Walter Johnson
Christy Mathewson
Babe Ruth
Honus Wagner
Ty Cobb
Nap Lajoie
Tris Speaker
Cy Young
Pete Alexander
Willie Keeler
George Sisler
Eddie Collins
Rogers Hornsby
Mickey Cochrane
Frankie Frisch
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Herb Pennock
Pie Traynor
Charlie Gehringer
Jimmie Foxx
Mel Ott
Harry Heilmann
Paul Waner
Dizzy Dean
Al Simmons
Bill Dickey
Rabbit Maranville
Bill Terry
Joe DiMaggio
Gabby Hartnett
Ted Lyons
Dazzy Vance
Hank Greenberg
Joe Cronin
Bob Feller
Jackie Robinson
Luke Appling
Ted Williams
Red Ruffing
Joe Medwick
Roy Campanella
Stan Musial
Lou Boudreau
Early Wynn
Yogi Berra
Sandy Koufax
Roberto Clemente
Warren Spahn
Whitey Ford
Mickey Mantle
Ralph Kiner
Bob Lemon
Robin Roberts
Ernie Banks
Eddie Mathews
Willie Mays
Duke Snider
Al Kaline
Bob Gibson
Frank Robinson
Hank Aaron
Juan Marichal
Brooks Robinson
Luis Aparicio
Don Drysdale
Harmon Killebrew
Lou Brock
Hoyt Wilhelm
Willie McCovey
Catfish Hunter
Billy Williams
Willie Stargell
Johnny Bench
Carl Yastrzemski
Joe Morgan
Jim Palmer
Rod Carew
Fergie Jenkins
Gaylord Perry
Rollie Fingers
Tom Seaver
Reggie Jackson
Steve Carlton
Mike Schmidt
Phil Niekro
Don Sutton
George Brett
Nolan Ryan
Robin Yount
Tony Perez
Carlton Fisk
Kirby Puckett
Dave Winfield
Ozzie Smith
Gary Carter
Eddie Murray
Paul Molitor
Dennis Eckersley
Wade Boggs
Ryne Sandberg


I agree that if NOBODY else after 1920 had EVER been inducted into the HOF...

then I wouldn't complain a bit.

THIS GROUP is the real "meat" of the HOF.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

I acknowledge it doesn't take his fielding into account, but according to baseball reference.com's formulas the players his statistics are most comparable to are Lou Whitaker, Steve Finley, Joe Torre, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell, and Ken Boyer. HOF is not jumping out at me. Granted, if Bill Mazeroski deserves to be in, Sandberg is far more worthy, but I wouldn't vote for either. Or Andre Dawson or Dale Murphy. I think the HOF should be reserved for true all time greats, not every excellent player who amasses respectable lifetime statistics over a long career.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

I would take Jim Rice and Luis Tiant over several of those players.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Hal,

What happened to Tinkers to Evers to Chance? Ok, I think I understand the omission.

I didn't see many 19th century players on your list.

In any case, nice list.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Hal, your list is impressive and makes a good point. It is reasonable to question the qualifications of Pennock, Ruffing, and Lyons. But three questionable calls in a group that large is not bad. Three cheers for the disbanding of the old veterans committee.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Mayer

Boggs deserves it, bum and all, as for ryno, I am unsure. I will say this Rice gets no love and was the best hitter in the AL for 5 or 6 years running. To me thats a HOFer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

The huge backlog of players to be inducted at the time of the Hall's founding is probably the reason for the lengthy eligibilty period. Imagine the players who might have been left out of the Hall in 1936 if the rules had been that you had to get in on the first ballot (Lajoie, Speaker, Cy Young, Eddie Collins, Alexander). I imagine they put the rule in place in order to clear the backlog and then never bothered to change it.

[Archive]

Posted By: mike

Does anyone know first ballot hofers only?

I know Carlton Fisk didn't go in on the first ballot; I am not sure Joe D. didn't go in on the first ballot, But he was a great clutch player.

I have to agree with some of the sentiment here: Most of the obvious selections now go in on the first ballot.

I am a huge Cubs fan. I think Sandberg was a great player, but I am not sure he's HOF material. I'll never forget the job he did on the Cards in that game during 1984 (I was a teen and in summer school so I had a lot of free time). After that game, the Cubs seemed to find a way to win. I think the biggest criticism with respect to Rhino would be that he was too conservative a fielder. Morgan got two MVPs while on the Big Red machine.

I'd take 1964-1971 Santo at third base and I wouldn't be upset with Jack Morris as my staff ace.

Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I will admit, I suffered a major brain fart and was rushed to head out the door, so I didn't ahve time to look up other players. Hornsby easily had the greatest 5 year stretch of hitting that anyone ever had, including Ruth. I love Bonds, but Bonds still hasn't hit .400 with 40HRs in the same season.

I still a firm believer in putting the dominant players at their position while they played. Sandberg was THE 2B of his era. Same goes for Jack Morris. There was no better pitcher for the entire 80s. He won more games than anyone else int hat 10 year span and was a feared pitcher. What more do you what.

Everyone can't be Grover Alexander, Matty or the Big Train. You simply have to honor the best players of their time becuase, no matter how hard you try, there is no way to compare players across. And this comes from a numbers a geeks that eats up everything put out my James, Palmer, THorn, etc. You can come up with good generalizations, but you have no way of knowing how Morris would have fared in the DEadball Era, or how Matty would have performed today. This leaves voting in the best players compared against their peers. And Morris was the best of his era.

Rice should be in under the "Koufax" rule. Rice was easily the most fear hitter of his day and put numbers that were jsut staggering for their time. He was first player to get over 400 total bases in over years and took about another 15 years before someone else did it again.

Hell, take Dwight Gooden's career, flip it around, and you have Koufax. So why shouldn't Gooden get in if he has the same type of performance? He burst onto the scene dominating the game and fizzled out instead of sucking ass for 6 years then becoming a dominant player. So why should he be penalized for having Koufax's career in reverse?

The reliever not getting any love at all is Lee Smith. Looks like he is the Paul Krause of baseball, but I fear Smith will enver get in. How do you not induct the All-time leader? I don't think anyone is gonna be closing in on this record any time soon.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

If the voters knew at the time that ONLY 1st-ballot HOF'ers would EVER get in, I think they would have voted differently in the past.

So, no, applying the rule retroactively would certainly be a bad thing, but starting it now might work.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Guys...

The list of players that I published is STRAIGHT from the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Those are not "my" choices... those are ALL of the players who have been voted into the HOF by the WRITERS!!

The reason for the lack of players from 1850-1920 is because THOSE players were elected in by the VETERANS COMMITTEE...NOT the writers.

SO... if they have DISBANDED the "Veterans Committee" after about 10 years when all of the GREAT players from 1850-1920 had already been inducted...

then we would NEVER have had any "lesser" players elected to the HOF and it would NEVER have been "cheapened."

GET RID OF THE VETERANS COMMITTEE!!!



History shows us that if a player is GREAT enough to be elected by the WRITERS... he WILL BE elected.

There is NO NEED for a "backup" plan any longer.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

I would bet you can find lots of excellent but not HOF caliber pitchers who won the most games in any given 10 year span. I am pretty sure there is a ten year span where Andy Pettite won the most games. Is anyone here seriously suggesting Andy Pettite (assuming he doesn't have some dramatic upswing or last forever and win 300 or whatever) belongs in the Hall of Fame? So what if Morris won the most games from 80-89? Is that any more important than who won the most from 84-93, probably Clemens? Or from 87-96, probably Clemens or maybe Maddux? The point is his ERA was 3.90, he didn't even come close to winning ONE Cy Young, and so forth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Baseball Prospectus wrote a really good article about Morris' hall of fame canidacy and made a convincing case for me that he doesn't deserve the honor.

I mean we could split hairs. I could say Dave Steib was a better pitcher then Morris in the American league that had some pretty bad Jays teams in the early 80's until they put it together.

It should also be mentioned that Baseball Prospectus had another article that made the case as to why Rice shouldn't be in the hall either.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

<<< I still a firm believer in putting the dominant players at their position while they played. >>>

I agree with that but just because a player is dominant at his position during a particular era, doesn't mean that he should be in the Hall of Fame. If all the players at a particular position during a particular era all stunk, whaddayagonnado put the player who stunk the least in the Hall of Fame? Of course not. It's the Bill Mazeroski thing. Was he an excellent player? Yes. Was he the best player at his position, 2nd base, during his era? Arguably yes. Should he be in the Hall of Fame? Absolutely not! Anyone who knows baseball understands that overall almost always the "weakest" ballplayer on the field is the 2nd baseman. So sometimes the best 2nd baseman in a particular era is like saying he was the tallest midget in the circus.

Jack Morris, Jim Rice and some other players mentioned in this thread were excellent players, but in my opinion not Hall of Famers. Morris is close but not quite. Rice arguably but not quite good enough. Morris and Rice were not "midgets" by any stretch of the imagination - both were excellent ballplayers, but let's not put them in the Hall of Fame just because they may have been the best at their position during their era.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

Scott,
Not sure if you are repeating your point because of my post, but just let me clarify. People certainly would have voted differently in the past if it was first ballot only, but the backlog was so large at the time of the 1936 vote that it would have been difficult for the writers to reach a consensus (especially since you could vote for active players at the time - Gehrig, Foxx, Grove, and others were getting votes).

If your rule would have been around then, I would guess guys three or four more guys would have gotten in, but many deserving Hall of Famers would have been left out permanently. Once the writers cleared the backlog of deserving players (probably by the mid 50's) the rule should have been changed to two or three years of eligibility at most.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

there really isn't any perfect way of doing it - someone would always get screwed.

[Archive]

Posted By: mike

The following list may not be entirely correct, but it's what I found quickly at http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofstat.shtml. I think several names are missing, primarily from the earlier elections.

"First Ballot Inductees In Chronological Order

Name Year Inducted
Bob Feller 1962
Jackie Robinson 1962
Ted Williams 1966
Stan Musial 1969
Sandy Koufax 1972
Warren Spahn 1973
Mickey Mantle 1974
Ernie Banks 1977
Willie Mays 1979
Al Kaline 1980
Bob Gibson 1981
Hank Aaron 1982
Frank Robinson 1982
Brooks Robinson 1983
Lou Brock 1985
Willie McCovey 1986
Willie Stargell 1988
Johnny Bench 1989
Carl Yastrzemski 1989
Joe Morgan 1990
Jim Palmer 1990
Rod Carew 1991
Tom Seaver 1992
Reggie Jackson 1993
Steve Carlton 1994
Mike Schmidt 1995
George Brett 1999
Nolan Ryan 1999
Robin Yount 1999
Kirby Puckett 2001
Dave Winfield 2001
Ozzie Smith 2002
Eddie Murray 2003
Dennis Eckersley 2004
Paul Molitor 2004"

The writers elected Joe D. on his third ballot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_DiMaggio