Pre 1901 Members

[PhillyA_man]

Im in the process of reading A Game of Inches: The Stories Behind the Innovations That Shaped Baseball Volume 1: The Game on the Field By Peter Morris. The book can be a slow read but has a fascinating look at early baseball, it's players, the rules and customs of the game, and how players handled those aspects. It has given me a much different (and elightened) view of 19th century and turn-of-the-century baseball.

With this new insight, I pose the question: Should the handling (and induction) of pre-1901 players by the Hall of Fame be different? Since the game was different back then should the criteria used to select these players and the expectations of these players be adjusted?

[PhillyA_man]

I pick 1901 not so much as a point of rules solidification, but more as a cut-off point. I feel tha with rise of the American league in '01 we have the first mark of "modern baseball." This may or may not be correct, but for this discussion we'll leave it at that. I would have to go and look to see how many HOFers this would impact. There are a few HOFers who played in both centuries.

[Biggtone23]

I think they should hold a special committe for 19th century players, the same way they just did for the Negro Leagues. Have them induct about 10 or so and then shelve them for another 20 years or so. It is ridiculous to think that with the current veterans ballot voting procedure that any of them have a chance. No current Hall of Famer is going to go look up stats for a 1880s pitcher and then compare them to his peers to see who's worthy.

[Brian McKenna]

I think they should hold a special committe for 19th century players, the same way they just did for the Negro Leagues. Have them induct about 10 or so and then shelve them for another 20 years or so. It is ridiculous to think that with the current veterans ballot voting procedure that any of them have a chance. No current Hall of Famer is going to go look up stats for a 1880s pitcher and then compare them to his peers to see who's worthy.

Definitely the best thing to do

BTW - A Game of Inches - best book of the year - can't wait for the companion volume

[Ubiquitous]

I almost picked up that book, but couldn't quite bring myself to buy a book about rule changes in baseball 100 years ago. Perhaps I'll see if my local library has it.

[Freakshow]

I think they should hold a special committe for 19th century players, the same way they just did for the Negro Leagues. Have them induct about 10 or so and then shelve them for another 20 years or so. It is ridiculous to think that with the current veterans ballot voting procedure that any of them have a chance.

I mostly agree with this. But please, don't use the same setup as the Black ball committee. It was a colossal blunder to have a once-and-for-all, everybody-in-now setup.

Instead, establish a standing committee that would vote in the off years for the regular VC balloting. IOW, the 19th century committee would vote in even-numbered years. And give them a specific mandate. For instance, hold five elections (or more) to elect two players each time.

The Hall of Merit at Baseballthinkfactory.com has elected 15 overlooked stars from the 19th century, so far:

White D
Hines P
Gore G
Barnes R
Glasscock J
Richardson H
Sutton E
Start J
McVey C
Dahlen B
Stovey H
Bennett C
Caruthers B
Pearce D
Pike L

Four others continue to receive strong support in their voting: Cupid Childs, George Van Haltren, Pete Browning and Charley Jones.

[RedSoxVT92]

19th century baseball players have been extremley overlooked. Now the Veterans Commitee would never elect anyone from the 1800s and probably dont know any players from that peroid. So I agree we need a special commitee to elect 19th century players. Its sad that so many players of that time have been lost in time. So if a knowledgeable commitee can elect the deserving it would give more respect to the early days and teach more people about a time of baseball that has been primarly forgotten. I hope the HoF does take action about this obvious black whole in Cooperstown.

[PhillyA_man]

I like the idea of a separate committee. But what are the criteria? There are a lot of players pre-1900 who have both a statistical reason for entering the HOF and some who have more of a "Pioneer" aspect, in terms of helping to define and create the game. Im not sure that a group of Veteran baseball players can actually select for this group. Now a bunch of Baseball history fans......! :) :)

[Freakshow]

I like the idea of a separate committee. But what are the criteria? There are a lot of players pre-1900 who have both a statistical reason for entering the HOF and some who have more of a "Pioneer" aspect, in terms of helping to define and create the game. Im not sure that a group of Veteran baseball players can actually select for this group. Now a bunch of Baseball history fans......! :) :)
Amen! The current VC is what I term a "celebrity electorate". They comprise the VC electorate not for any demonstrated expertise or knowledge of the game's history, but simply because they're famous.

We seek to have a 19th century committee with an elite electorate, voters who are recognized as expert in historical and statistical knowledge and analytical abilities.

As for the criteria, rule 6 (C) of the VC rules reads:

"(C) Those whose careers entailed involvement as both players and managers/executives/umpires will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball; however, the specific category in which such individuals shall be considered will be determined by the role in which they were most prominent. In those instances when a candidate is prominent as both a player and as a manager, executive or umpire, the BBWAA Screening Committee shall determine that individual's candidacy as either a player (Players Ballot), or as a manager, executive or umpire (Composite Ballot). Candidates may only appear on one ballot per election."

So, all the 19th century player candidates "will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball".