BBF VC Progressive HoF Contributors Election: 1920 (Test)

[Brad Harris]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Nominating Stage: There will be a 48-hour nominating stage where anyone may nominate for inclusion on the ballot any eligible contributor. Anyone may participate in this stage of the election. Anyone who is nominated will be added to the final ballot. It is suggested that those who nominate candidates give a brief reason for doing so in order to attract the attention of the voters to the candidate in advance of the actual vote.

Voting Rules: Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion and/or vote, however, only the votes of VC members will count towards the final result. Voters are instructed to vote for up to 15 candidates based on the non-playing contributions of the individual. Voting will commence upon publication of the final ballot (in this thread), which will follow shortly after the end of the 48-hour nominating period.

Thoughtfulness and Editing Ballots: Please review and thoughtfully consider the candidates before voting, and make sure you have accurately filled out your ballot before submitting. Requests for editing ballots after the fact will generally not be honored. Exceptions might be made if a voter accidentally voted for the wrong player or accidentally went over the voting limit (but I strongly encourage you to do your best to prevent either from happening).

Required Support: Players receiving at least 75% support in an election will be elected.

Contributor Eligibility: Contributors eligible for an election will have retired or turned at least 60 years of age prior to the year in which the election is held. Individuals are considered for their overall (non-playing) contributions to Organized Baseball.

Election Period: Elections will close exactly one week after starting. The next election will occur in 5 years.

1920 Contributors Final Ballot
Doc Adams
Cap Anson
Frank C. Bancroft
John T. Brush
Morgan Bulkeley
Charlie H. Byrne
Alex Cartwright
O.P. Caylor
Henry Chadwick
Charlie Comiskey
William Hulbert
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
Garry Herrmann
A.G. Mills
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Francis Richter
Frank Selee
Ben Shibe
Arthur Soden
Albert Goodwill Spalding
Alfred H. Spink
Harry Stevens
Chris von der Ahe
Harry Wright

[leecemark]

Henry Chadwick
William Hulbert
Ban Johnson
Alexander Cartwright

[jalbright]

What are (or where can I find) the criteria for who's can be considered for nomination?

[jalbright]

Henry Chadwick
William Hulbert
Ban Johnson
Alexander Cartwright

If the standard is age 60 or dead/retired, I don't think Ban Johnson isn't eligible, being born in 1864 and still alive in 1920. I'd second him when it's his time. I second the others. I'll assume it's 60, so Charlie Commiskey (61) and Ned Hanlon (63) are eligible. Others are

Doc Adams
Frank Bancroft
Alex Cartwright
Al Reach
Dickey Pearce
Francis Richter
Frank Selee
Harry Wright

I think I prefer Reach and Harry Wright as contributors rather than players. I can go either way on Dickey Pearce, but he belongs somehow. Most of these guys are in the BBF HOF, BTW.

[philkid3]

I'll have to think on this for a bit.

[leecemark]

If the standard is age 60 or dead/retired, I don't think Ban Johnson isn't eligible, being born in 1864 and still alive in 1920. I'd second him when it's his time. I second the others. I'll assume it's 60, so Charlie Commiskey (61) and Ned Hanlon (63) are eligible. Others are

Doc Adams
Frank Bancroft
Alex Cartwright
Al Reach
Dickey Pearce
Francis Richter
Frank Selee
Harry Wright

I think I prefer Reach and Harry Wright as contributors rather than players. I can go either way on Dickey Pearce, but he belongs somehow. Most of these guys are in the BBF HOF, BTW.

--I like them better as contributors too, but they are up as player/pioneers this time around. I'd vote for them as contributors next time up if they aren't elected this go around.

[DoubleX]

I'll actually suggest Al Spalding. If a person did distinctly enough as both a player and contributor, to the point where they could be elected as one independent of the other, I think it's fair to honor them in both capacities. It would be a rare situation, and it would only apply where we've elected someone as a player in the regular elections. But for instance, if we had someone that had a Hall of Fame playing career, and then goes on to have a Hall of Fame caliber managerial career, most of which plays out after we have already elected him as a player, I see no reason why we wouldn't also honor his managerial feats. Again, there are very few people that will test this issue, but I believe the player/manager example best illustrates why it would be ok to honor a person twice.

[leecemark]

--I would not vote for a person already elected regardless of their post playing accomplishments. Once you're a Hall of Famer, you're a Hall of Famer.

[DoubleX]

--I would not vote for a person already elected regardless of their post playing accomplishments. Once you're a Hall of Famer, you're a Hall of Famer.

I feel that defeats the purpose of designations. We should just elect contributors alongside players if it doesn't matter how a person got there.

In any event, I see no harm in putting someone like Al Spalding on the contributor's ballot. If you feel he's already been properly acknowledged then simply not vote for him. I just don't want to be foreclosed from giving him or someone else my support for their contributions independent of their playing careers.

[jalbright]

--I would not vote for a person already elected regardless of their post playing accomplishments. Once you're a Hall of Famer, you're a Hall of Famer.

I'm with Mark in large measure. I will say this--once a guy is in as a player, his playing career means absolutely nothing in terms of getting my support for him as a contributor. Similarly, if he's in as a contributor, his post-playing career will be meaningless in terms of getting my support for him as a player. I'd prefer to focus on those who haven't been honored rather than deal with the distraction of double dipping, so it's going to take a compelling case to get my vote on both levels. Perhaps a John Montgomery Ward or Rube Foster could, but those types are few and far between. I guess Spalding has a prayer with me, but not this time around.

[AG2004]

Bob Ferguson - When one combines his playing, his presidency of the NA (1872-75), and his being the game's first hitter, he has a case. When the top clubs left the NA and formed the NL after the 1875 season, Ferguson became one of the league's four directors (and the only player to hold that position).

Ben Shibe - Formed the Reach & Shibe Company in 1882. Shibe solved the problem of stitching baseballs together, thus enabling them to have a smooth cover with all of the hide well protected. Provided the capital to Connie Mack to establish the Philadelphia Athletics, and has owned 50% of the club ever since. Responsible for building the first concrete and steel stadium in baseball history; with the exception of the Phillies, all teams now play in concrete and steel stadiums. He invented the new cork-centered baseball, introduced in 1911. Has more baseball-related patents than any other individual.

[A SABR biography of Shibe is available at http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1778&pid=16927 ]

[Brad Harris]

Let the voting commence!

1920 Contributors Ballot
Doc Adams
Cap Anson
Frank C. Bancroft
John T. Brush
Morgan Bulkeley
Charlie H. Byrne
Alex Cartwright
O.P. Caylor
Henry Chadwick
Charlie Comiskey
William Hulbert
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
Garry Herrmann
A.G. Mills
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Francis Richter
Frank Selee
Arthur Soden
Albert Goodwill Spalding
Alfred H. Spink
Harry Stevens
Chris von der Ahe
George Wright
Harry Wright

Voters are instructed to vote for up to 15 candidates based on their non-playing contributions to their teams and/or Organized Baseball at-large.

Ballots are due by 10pm EST on Sunday.

[leecemark]

Alex Cartwright
Henry Chadwick
Charlie Comiskey
William Hulbert
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
Al Reach
Harry Wright

[jjpm74]

Doc Adams
Frank C. Bancroft
Morgan Bulkeley
Alex Cartwright
Henry Chadwick
Charlie Comiskey
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
A.G. Mills
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Frank Selee
Albert Goodwill Spalding
George Wright
Harry Wright

[jalbright]

Adams
Cartwright
Chadwick
Commiskey
Hulbert
Hanlon
Selee
H Wright

[DoubleX]

I'd be open to conducting the contributor elections with greater frequency than 5 years. I wanted that interval with the players as to not make the VC election superfluous to the regular elections, but that's not an issue here.

[leecemark]

--I'd be up for switching to annual after this year - if we also switch to only electing one candidate per election. If we went to every other year then I'd want to cap it at 2 or 3. Otherwise I'd just as soon stick with every 5 years.

[BlueBlood]

John T Brush
Alex Cartwright
Henry Chadwick
Charlie Comiskey
William Hulbert
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
Al Reach
Francis Richter
Frank Selee
George Wright
Harry Wright

Researched anybody I wasn't instantly familiar with it and this is what I came up with.

[jjpm74]

For those not supporting Doc Adams, why :confused:

[leecemark]

--I think the burden is on his supporter to persuade others, not non-supporters to justify themselves. I could probably see my way to voting for him at somepoint, but see no reason to herd a huge gang into the Hall at once.

[jjpm74]

--I think the burden is on his supporter to persuade others, not non-supporters to justify themselves. I could probably see my way to voting for him at somepoint, but see no reason to herd a huge gang into the Hall at once.

On this portion of the project, are there any strong supporters of anyone? What criteria are we all using to judge the merits of a given contributor? Why not get the backlog in all at once so we're not constantly gasping for air?

[leecemark]

--I didn't see a case for Adams in that response. If you want my vote give me reasons. Lets elect every possibly viable candidate so we don't have to consider them next time is not a compelling argument.

[jjpm74]

--I didn't see a case for Adams in that response. If you want my vote give me reasons. Lets elect every possibly viable candidate so we don't have to consider them next time is not a compelling argument.

I'm not presenting an argument. I asked a few questions and they weren't answered. I personally don't care if we elect any contributors. ;)

[DoubleX]

John T. Brush
Alex Cartwright
Henry Chadwick
Charlie Comiskey
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
William Hulbert
Frank Selee
Al Spalding
Harry Wright

[philkid3]

Doc Adams
Alex Cartwright
Henry Chadwick (I don't want to.)
Charlie Comiskey
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
Al Spalding
Harry Wright

[Paul Wendt]

Frank C. Bancroft
Charlie Comiskey
Ned Hanlon
Frank Selee
Harry Wright

Doc Adams
Henry Chadwick
William Hulbert
Al Reach
Francis Richter
Ben Shibe
Albert Goodwill Spalding
Alfred H. Spink

The first group could reasonably be designated field managers, general managers, or simply managers. They contributed primarily as builders and leaders of particular teams.

This is not a final vote against everyone else on the ballot.

[Freakshow]

Doc Adams
Frank C. Bancroft
Alex Cartwright
Henry Chadwick
Charlie Comiskey
William Hulbert
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
Al Reach
Francis Richter
Frank Selee
Albert Goodwill Spalding
Harry Wright

[AG2004]

My ballot:

Doc Adams
Alexander Cartwright
Henry Chadwick
Bob Ferguson
William Hulbert
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Francis Richter
Frank Selee
Ben Shibe
Al Spalding
Harry Wright

Notable omissions:
*Frank C. Bancroft - The Caribbean is not a major source of base ball players. It may become so in the future, though. Even then, Bancroft's role in the growth of the game there has been exaggerated. Nemisio Guillo brought the first ball and bat to Cuba in 1864, and organized the Habana Baseball Club in 1868. Spanish authorities tried to ban the game after the first war for independence in 1869; however, a game between two Cuban clubs took place in 1874. Baseball was seen as a more egalitarian and American alternative to the Spanish bullfights, and Spanish authoritarianism may have done more to promote the game in the Caribbean than Bancroft did.

*John T. Brush - For some reason, he's on two ballots. In late 1902, he owned the Reds and Orioles, and was de facto leader of the Giants. It's easy to build a powerhouse team when you control three different clubs.

*Charlie Comiskey - Let's wait and see how the Black Sox scandal plays out before making a final decision. I don't want to risk anything by honoring him now and subsequently finding out that he shouldn't have anything to do with the game. We can afford to wait until 1925; by then, we will know more about just what happened last year.

*Ned Hanlon - Yes, he did lead Baltimore and Brooklyn to those championships in the 1890s. He did not do too well in the subsequent decade. The Orioles were known for their dirty play. I don't know if Hanlon would have been a great manager without syndicate ownership and/or in an era when his teams had to play clean; the evidence of the oughts fuels my doubts. Selee, on the other hand, was able to build a championship club in Chicago, even if he wasn't able to enjoy the fruits of his labors.

[jalbright]

This is not a final vote against everyone else on the ballot.

I'm definitely with Paul on this. I don't want to put in a flood of contributors in the first chance and then either run out of candidates or elect folks I don't think are worthy due to a dearth of good choices later. I went with the top picks and left some of the closer calls for another day.

[DoubleX]

Is this finished?

[leecemark]

--Classic has been absent from BBF since the 5th, and hasn't been very active for at least a week.

[DoubleX]

I'm putting together the info section for the 1922 regular election, so I guess I'll hold off on including contributors right now. I'm going to list the players elected by the VC with the regular players but note they are VC elections. This makes sense since those players were also considered in the regular elections. I'm a little torn on Dickey Pearce. Since he's the only pioneer player, I don't want to make a separate section for just him, I also don't know if I want to list him with the regular players since he didn't appear in the regular elections. I'm thinking I might throw him in with the contributors when they are done given that in the future the pioneer players will be listed with the contributors.

EDIT: I've changed my mind. I'll list Pearce with the players and make some kind of notation for players for which we took into account their pre-1871 experience (but I'll only formally list their post-1871 careers).

[dgarza]

Oops, I need to do this one too.

[dgarza]

Doc Adams
Cap Anson
Alex Cartwright
Henry Chadwick
Charlie Comiskey
William Hulbert
Ned Hanlon
A.G. Mills
Dickey Pearce
Al Reach
Francis Richter
Frank Selee
Albert Goodwill Spalding
Alfred H. Spink
Harry Wright

[jjpm74]

Is this finished?

It looks like we have 10 ballots cast. There should still be 2 more ballots showing up before this is finalized.

To be completed later

This is the vote tally so far:

Doc Adams--7
Cap Anson--1
Frank C. Bancroft--3
John T. Brush--2
Morgan Bulkeley--1
Charlie H. Byrne--0
Alex Cartwright--9
O.P. Caylor--0
Henry Chadwick--10
Charlie Comiskey--8
Bob Ferguson--6
Ned Hanlon--9
Garry Herrmann--0
William Hulbert--8
A.G. Mills--2
Dickey Pearce--3
Al Reach--7
Francis Richter--5
Frank Selee--8
Ben Shibe--2
Arthur Soden--0
Albert Goodwill Spalding--7
Alfred H. Spink--2
Harry Stevens--0
Chris von der Ahe--0
George Wright--2
Harry Wright--10

We've elected Cartwright, Chadwick and H. Wright. Adams, Comiskey, Hulbert, Reach, Selee, Spalding are all on the bubble.

[Paul Wendt]

> We've elected Cartwright, Chadwick and H. Wright.

and Ned Hanlon, if the table is correct.

--
I don't see any problem with delay here. The results of different VC elections should be incorporated in the thread for the regular Progressive election, insofar as that is the annual report for the project, when each is ready to report. If that is 1923 for one of the "1920" elections, so be it. For some purposes we pretend that a week is a year but people we all understand that that only goes so far.

[Paul Wendt]

Doc Adams
Alex Cartwright
Henry Chadwick (I don't want to.)
Charlie Comiskey
Bob Ferguson
Ned Hanlon
Al Spalding
Harry Wright
It turns out not to matter as Chadwick reaped ten votes on the first ten ballots cast.
But why not vote for Chadwick?

Is it that you believe no "writer" should be recognized?
(I see that you did not vote for any of the writers and publishers Caylor, Reach, Richter, and Spink and I suppose that your vote for Spalding did not depend on his role as a publisher.)

[KCGHOST]

Cartwright
Chadwick
Hanlon
Selee
Harry Wright

Considering the travesty that has become the contributors group I really prefer not to elect anyone.

[jjpm74]

If there's an interest in seeing this part of the project through, I'd be happy to do the tallying for as long as classic isn't around as long as someone could help me generate the list every cycle. This is far from my area of knowledge.

We'd also need someone to step in to round out our 12 in both this and the VC Players portion. Thoughts?

[BlueBlood]

Henrich's researched a lot of baseball history & sounded interested. Given how active he is here...

Where is Classic though? I'm starting to get really scared that he's gone and he was probably my favorite poster here. :noidea

[leecemark]

--Classic has been away from BBF for more than 2 weeks. We definately need to move forward without him. Lets tally what we have here and decide on a replacement for 1925.

[jjpm74]

--Classic has been away from BBF for more than 2 weeks. We definately need to move forward without him. Lets tally what we have here and decide on a replacement for 1925.

Edit: With 10 ballots cast by VC members, a candidate needed a minimum of 8 votes for election. Windy City Fan and Classic never cast ballots for this election. That means that if this stands, we elected Alex Cartwright, Henry Chadwick, Charlie Comiskey, Ned Hanlon, William Hulbert, Frank Selee, and Harry Wright. I defer to Doublex on this one since it's his project, but think it's time to move on with this part of the project since it looks like Classic is not returning in the forseeable future.

[DoubleX]

Classic's disappearance is troubling. I hope he is alright, but he has left us for periods in the past to focus on personal matters.

As for this project, I have to admit, I'm not that keen on the contributors, but if we are to continue with them, someone else will have to take the reigns. We'll also need to find a 12th voter for both here and the VC players election. KCGhost has voted here, while Captain Cold Nose and Henrich submitted non-counting ballots for the VC players election, so they would be first in line for consideration (any of you guys interested?). J W might be interested as well, but the presence of strategic voting has been too much for him.

I'm going to get the 1925 Vc preliminary thread up soon, so we should sort this out in the near future.

[leecemark]

--I think we need to decide what we are going to do here before getting the ball rolling on 1925.

[DoubleX]

Well we need to decide two things:

1) Who replaces Classic for our 12 man committee?

2) Who takes over this project for 1925 and beyond?

As to the first, the easiest thing to do at this point is to count KCGhost's ballot. That would give us 12 right away, but I'd first want to make sure he'd be committed to this going forward (both the players and contributors). I'll send him a PM.

As to the second, someone other than me will need to step up if we are to continue with contributors.

[jjpm74]

Well we need to decide two things:

1) Who replaces Classic for our 12 man committee?

2) Who takes over this project for 1925 and beyond?

As to the first, the easiest thing to do at this point is to count KCGhost's ballot. That would give us 12 right away, but I'd first want to make sure he'd be committed to this going forward (both the players and contributors). I'll send him a PM.

As to the second, someone other than me will need to step up if we are to continue with contributors.


No it wouldn't. Windy City Fan never cast a ballot in this. We'd only have 11 votes cast even with kcghost's ballot. See a few posts above.

The easiest thing to do here is count this as a short ballot count, go with the candidates that showed up on 8 of 10 ballots and move forward with someone else taking over the reigns. We would have a good electorate whether or not you count kcghost's ballot.

[philkid3]

It turns out not to matter as Chadwick reaped ten votes on the first ten ballots cast.
But why not vote for Chadwick?

Is it that you believe no "writer" should be recognized?
(I see that you did not vote for any of the writers and publishers Caylor, Reach, Richter, and Spink and I suppose that your vote for Spalding did not depend on his role as a publisher.)
Inflicting his agenda and moralism on the game fostered a misunderstanding of baseball statistically that still causes problems today. Notably, not rewarding batters for walks.

He was significant, I have to vote for him, but I don't have to like his impact.

[DoubleX]

Ok, so this part seems very much in limbo. First and foremost, with Classic being absent, we'll need a volunteer to step up and guide this part of the project. If there are no volunteers, then we'll just not do contributors for the time being.

Assuming we do continue, I think I have a possible solution in the event we have AWOL members as we do here - Add three more VC members, bringing the total to 15, give a week to vote, and require a quorum of 12 for the vote to count. That way, we can have as many as three members not vote during the week but we'll still be able to have the election.

[jjpm74]

Ok, so this part seems very much in limbo. First and foremost, with Classic being absent, we'll need a volunteer to step up and guide this part of the project. If there are no volunteers, then we'll just not do contributors for the time being.

Assuming we do continue, I think I have a possible solution in the event we have AWOL members as we do here - Add three more VC members, bringing the total to 15, give a week to vote, and require a quorum of 12 for the vote to count. That way, we can have as many as three members not vote during the week but we'll still be able to have the election.

Sounds good to me.

If no one else wants to run the contributors election, I will for now.

[leecemark]

--Okay so JJ will coordinate starting with 1925, the results will be based on the ballots submitted by our 10 Committee members, we will add 3 new members for a total of 15 in 1925, a minimum of 9 votes (75% of a minimum of 12) will be required for election beginning in 1925. Does this sum things up?

[DoubleX]

--Okay so JJ will coordinate starting with 1925, the results will be based on the ballots submitted by our 10 Committee members, we will add 3 new members for a total of 15 in 1925, a minimum of 9 votes (75% of a minimum of 12) will be required for election beginning in 1925. Does this sum things up?

If we expand to 15, we will need a minimum of 9 for election, but as many as 12, depending on how many of the 15 vote. If all 15 of us vote, 12 will be needed to get the 75% to elect a person.

Expanding like this could help in that there are some members who are less enthusiastic about the contributors. This way, they do not have to participate in the contributors part if we get to 12 without them.

[Paul Wendt]

No it wouldn't. Windy City Fan never cast a ballot in this. We'd only have 11 votes cast even with kcghost's ballot. See a few posts above.

The easiest thing to do here is count this as a short ballot count, go with the candidates that showed up on 8 of 10 ballots and move forward with someone else taking over the reigns. We would have a good electorate whether or not you count kcghost's ballot.

I don't see a good reason to define a quorum. Why not require "at least 9 votes and at least 75% of ballots cast"? We do not meet in person and non-voters may participate in the discussion.

Under that suggestion, 8 of 10 would not be enough for election but 9 of 10 would be enough.

Whether to accept someone's ballot as an official one after the fact is a separate matter. I'm inclined to say No. Among other things we are close enough to 1925 that we don't lose much by closing 1920 with a smaller rather than a larger class.

[Paul Wendt]

If we expand to 15, we will need a minimum of 9 for election, but as many as 12, depending on how many of the 15 vote. If all 15 of us vote, 12 will be needed to get the 75% to elect a person.

Expanding like this could help in that there are some members who are less enthusiastic about the contributors. This way, they do not have to participate in the contributors part if we get to 12 without them.
There is no close relation between the two. It is a reasonable alternative to appoint some people to the Contributors committee who are not on the Players committee. Maybe you don't prefer that, Mike, but that is the way to go if you experience that it is difficult to get commitments from good people when you ask for both players and contributors.

In particular if you know someone whom you expect would be a good member of the contributors committee, but that person doesn't want to be on the players committee, by all means Go Ahead.
Depending what you mean by keen, I may not be keen on contributors either, but I know that we/you shouldn't pressure someone and elicit a blank ballot from someone who prefers that the Progressive Hall induct no contributors, or who simply prefers not to participate. If WCF is potentially that person, I think we should make it clear that WCF is welcome to continue as a Players voter only and should look for someone willing to serve as a Contributors voter.

[jjpm74]

Why don't we just stick with a 12 person committee and require a minimum of 9 votes within a 7 day window for election as a contributor and do away with the 75% threshold and worries about quorum? If a contributor appears on 9 ballots, they're in. If less than 9 ballots total are cast or a contributor doesn't reach the 9 vote minimum they are not in and then we have no worries about committee members disappearing unless we see a mass exodus.

I also agree with Paul that we shouldn't be forcing the Contributors ballot on people who's main interest is in the players VC section and vice versa. Before we even continue with this discussion, why don't we see who is interested in participating in this part of the project. If only 4-5 people are interested, there's no point in continuing with the discussion.

Who is interested in being a member of the VC Contributors Committee?

I'm interested enough to cast a ballot, so that's a tally of 1 so far. :)

Who else? Please speak up. Please speak up if you are not interested as well.

[DoubleX]

I would be ok with having two distinct committees, and it does make sense as multiple people have expressed reservation about the contributor part and are really only in it for the players. I have to admit, I'm in that group, but as the overall orchestrator of this project, I feel obligated to be a part of the contributors committee.

Also, I've talked with KCGhost, and he's agreed to join the committee. He would be in the group that cares more about players than contributors, so we could count him as a replacement for Classic in the players election for the timebeing.

[jjpm74]

I would be ok with having two distinct committees, and it does make sense as multiple people have expressed reservation about the contributor part and are really only in it for the players. I have to admit, I'm in that group, but as the overall orchestrator of this project, I feel obligated to be a part of the contributors committee.

Also, I've talked with KCGhost, and he's agreed to join the committee. He would be in the group that cares more about players than contributors, so we could count him as a replacement for Classic in the players election for the timebeing.

It's looking like most people who are on the VC are in it more for the players; count me as one of them. My main interest in the contributor section is in discussion the Jim Creightons of the sport. Maybe we could just shelve this part of the project and revisit it again in 1945?

If we do, I'd prefer that we keep the pioneers eligible via the player ballot, however.