There used to be a weird bias in the Hall of Fame about electing people on the first ballot; it just was NOT done, which is why after the initial class (they were all first ballot because that WAS the first ballot) you see a gap of over 25-years before another first ballot player was elected. Today players that would in the past probably have had to wait a year to get in (like Eddie Murray and Kirby Puckett) get right in.
Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Rogers Hornsby, Lefty Grove, Tris Speaker, and Jimmie Foxx were all among those who got shafted (along with legendary figures like John McGraw and Connie Mack) due to the era they were first on the ballot. There is no question they deserved to be (along with many others) on the first ballot, and would be if it were done over.
It makes the hall notion of "first ballot hall of famer" mean a lot less when players like Murray, Puckett, and Molitor get in without waiting while DiMaggio, Gehrig Hornsby, and Grove are among those not in the club.
Lou Gehrig was in the class of 1939, elected the same year he ended his career....thus a first-ballot electee. A special case, to be sure, just as Roberto Clemente. In both cases, the five-year wait before becoming eligible was waived.
The reason for the gap after the first ballot is because they had a backlog of 50+ years of players to consider and only limited spots per year. By the 80 s and beyond they were "caught up" and have the veterans committee to select old-timers that may have been overlooked.
Exactly! This whole process has always been ridiculous to me. Why would one vote "no" their first year of eligibility, then later vote "yes". It makes no sense. Did the player put up more numbers between the votes? No, of course not, because they are all retired before voting. If a player deserves to be in, they should be voted as such immediately when eligible. This concept of "good enough to be in, but not good enough to be first ballot" is silly. (The only potential caveat is that I think voters may be limited on number of "yes" votes each year, so that could change a vote in future years.)
Agree 100%. There's a d-bag writer in Minnesota who refuses to vote for anyone on their first ballot until Jack Morris gets in. As to anyone else, yes if they deserve to be in there's no point in making them wait other than spite...or stupidity.
It depends though it could be his first year along with five others first year so you have to choose and put one in a year late. That's often not the case but it could be.
Baseball writers can only vote for 10 players on a ballot. They have to pick and choose for whom they will vote. This is a reason why obvious HOF picks never get 100% of the vote. Writers who recognize that the player is a lock to get in may save that slot for players who really need the votes.
When you think about it, though, there was a 40-year backlog of players that had to be put in (at a maximum of a handful per year) once the hall of fame came into existence in 1936. The not-on-the-first-ballot rule was probably there for good reason - to make sure that deserving players from the early part of the century made their way in before being forgotten. Seems as though it took them about 25 years to catch up and begin electing deserving players right away.
I still think DiMaggio, Grove, Speaker, Foxx, Ott, Yogi Berra, Eddie Collins, and a whole host of others not being first ballot is ludicrous. Then again, I believe that it is silly that 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson isn't in the hall yet, nor is Pete Rose, baseball's all-time hits leader. Sure, Rose is a liar, is (at least was) a gambler, and bet on baseball, but maybe it's time to let him in? Because I have a feeling eventually he'll get in, even if it comes after his death. Why not induct him NOW so he can be alive to appreciate it? I was utterly disgusted by the HOF FINALLY inducting Ron Santo now after he died. It was apparent for years that he deserved induction, and it was very important to him. Now he's gone and it happens? Yes, better late than never, but how gross that they refused to do it while the man lived when it would have meant so much to him.
And the addition of Gehrig of course invalidates my inclusion of him on my list for those who didn't get in first ballot. Gehrig got in on a special ballot, l
I could not agree more. Voters keeping someone off of their ballot simply because "they can" is absurd. Not voting for Nolan Ryan or Ted Williams or even Ken Griffey Jr. really doesn't make any sense. The notion that players should not get in on their first attempt is tired.
Other quizzes you accept Yaz for Yastrzemski. When it didn't work I almost didn't try to spell it out. Glad I did. Can you accept Yaz for this quiz as well?
Rose should be in. What Rose did to get banned had no bearing on making his performance better. The other three cannot say the same. There may come a time when they have a Steroid Era Section of the HOF, but until then you wont see them in.
I hope that you mean that you think that those four players should be in the HOF, not that they should be included in this quiz (which they most assuredly should not, since they're not even in the HOF).
There's no bigger Reds fan than me, but Pete Rose knew the 1 cardinal sin that no baseball player/manager should ever commit: betting on baseball. He knew the risk. He knew the consequences. He has no one to blame but himself. Everyone who has ever played the game knows that if you bet on baseball, you're out for life. There has to be an ultimate deterrent. You don't just sit in the "Naughty Chair" for a few years.
Based on recent voting trends, Bonds and Clemens will very likely get in eventually. McGwire is already off the ballot. Rose's case has only gotten worse in recent years due to more information coming out about the extent of his gambling. If he ever gets in, it will probably be a loooong time from now.
I sometimes miss Aaron because I don't recognize him as a right fielder. He spent most of his career in right field, but when he was breaking Babe Ruth's home run record he was playing first base.
It's sad that in just the last few months, Al Kaline, Tom Seaver, Lou Brock and Bob Gibson have all passed away. I had baseball cards of each of them when I was a kid. The years melt away so quickly.
David Ortiz seems questionable to me. His career WAR was only 55 and he was primarily a DH. For comparison, Ian Kinsler had a career WAR of 54 in fewer seasons.
I think Big Papi deserves to be in the hall because of his popularity with fans and World Series wins, but not on the first ballot.
He's very fortunate to have gotten in at all. He juiced, just like Bonds and Clemens, but unlike those 2, Ortiz was a likable human being. I think that got him cut a ton of slack from the voters.
I agree with both of you on this. David Ortiz is just very likable, because otherwise he’s got too many issues that would have kept him from making it on the first ballot otherwise. For instance, I’d understand the difference between Ortiz (who failed a PED test) and Bonds and Clemens (who never did but are suspected of having juiced) being that he was first ballot while they were a later ballot entry, but to have it be Ortiz is first ballot and the others don’t get in at all is nuts in my opinion.
Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Rogers Hornsby, Lefty Grove, Tris Speaker, and Jimmie Foxx were all among those who got shafted (along with legendary figures like John McGraw and Connie Mack) due to the era they were first on the ballot. There is no question they deserved to be (along with many others) on the first ballot, and would be if it were done over.
It makes the hall notion of "first ballot hall of famer" mean a lot less when players like Murray, Puckett, and Molitor get in without waiting while DiMaggio, Gehrig Hornsby, and Grove are among those not in the club.
And the addition of Gehrig of course invalidates my inclusion of him on my list for those who didn't get in first ballot. Gehrig got in on a special ballot, l
I think Big Papi deserves to be in the hall because of his popularity with fans and World Series wins, but not on the first ballot.