Is Dahlen a lock ????? VS others at position why not ??

[sayhey24]

Doc Adams had 10 votes as mentioned above. Dahlen and Harry Stovey had 8 votes each (50% of the 16-person committee).

Each of the remaining candidates had three votes or fewer.


Greg

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Dahlen and Harry Stovey had 8 votes each (50% of the 16-person committee).

Each of the remaining candidates had three votes or fewer.


Greg

I understand Adams had 10.

This is a sham. First this crap last year with Dick Allen and now this. I hope the voters are happy with themselves.

[z28jd]

The Hall of Fame voting process is pathetic. They should be ashamed of themselves

[packs]

I'd like to know what qualifies a player to vote on something like a pre-integration ballot. What kind of insight could Bobby Cox or Phil Niekro possibly have re: Stovey and Dahlen? It should only be historians voting on these ballots.

[GregMitch34]

Niekro himself is lucky to have gotten in the Hall.

[David W]

Originally Posted by packs

I'd like to know what qualifies a player to vote on something like a pre-integration ballot. What kind of insight could Bobby Cox or Phil Niekro possibly have re: Stovey and Dahlen? It should only be historians voting on these ballots.

Yes, on players who haven't played in 75-100 years, and have been dead for 50, only a select group should evaluate them.

That being said, they have had 80 years to get in the HOF, and did not make it so I would say enough, no more HOF'ers from the long ago past.

I mean, in the year 2116, will there be a huge push for Omar Vizquel? or Steve Garvey? or Dale Murphy? Or Tori Hunter? It's the same sort of thing, all have some HOF credentials, got some votes, but didn't get in when evaluated by their peers.

[packs]

I don't that's true though. For example, in 1936 Stovey had already been retired for 40 years. He received 7 percent of the vote, but how many of the voters had seen him play or were that well versed in his career?

Now we have the luxury of hindsight and thorough research. I would argue that it is the opposite. Now is the time to re-evaluate the careers of early players who may have been forgotten by their peers.

[GaryPassamonte]

This is a travesty. The 19th century players are underrepresented in the HOF. Until the selecting and voting committees are comprised of baseball historians that know the game and its history, similar outcomes will continue. Also, the pre-integration era is too long of a period of time. At a minimum, there should be separate pre and post 1900 eras.

[Klrdds]

For many years I have advocated a 5 category Veterans Committee breakdown instead of the present 3 category. Unfortunately it continues to fall on deaf ears.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by David W

Yes, on players who haven't played in 75-100 years, and have been dead for 50, only a select group should evaluate them.

That being said, they have had 80 years to get in the HOF, and did not make it so I would say enough, no more HOF'ers from the long ago past.

I mean, in the year 2116, will there be a huge push for Omar Vizquel? or Steve Garvey? or Dale Murphy? Or Tori Hunter? It's the same sort of thing, all have some HOF credentials, got some votes, but didn't get in when evaluated by their peers.

The problem with this logic is that the HoF didn't exist until 1936 and the first 4-5 years they mainly were electing only the absolute best players and few 19th century guys. I have no problem with modern players having a time limit as suggested but someone like Harry Stovey had been retired and out of baseball for 40-50 years (adams nearly 80 years) before he realistically had a shot at the HOF so no way to compare Stovey, Dahlen, Doc Adams to someone like Alan Trammell.

[rhettyeakley]

I have often wondered if the HoF had been started in 1895 or so who would have been elected to the HOF? I think there would be some really surprising inductions.

I remember reading an ancient article asking several 19th Century & early 20th Century players who they thought were the best players of all time and while most of the names were pretty familiar, the name that was on a surprising number of lists was Ned Williamson and he gets absolutely no consideration.

It is an interesting question that is fun to debate with knowledgable baseball historians!

[Topps206]

I'd love an explanation from those who actually voted.