Talk:2022 Hall of Fame Election

Kaat, Minoso and Oliva all make plenty of sense to me and I know Hodges has had backers for years. Fowler is certainly notable; it would have been interesting to see how he would have done had he been given a shot at the majors. I don't get O'Neil's selection - 97 OPS+, managed one season in the Negro Leagues, a little black ink. Other than being around long enough to tell the story of the Negro Leagues, what's the reasoning here???? Also, why not Danny Murtaugh? - Mischa (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I never, ever, ever understood the push for O'Neil. The arguments I always read and heard for him could always be distilled to, "he was a really great guy." Alexsautographs (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember hearing anything bad about Jim Rooker or Al Oliver, but you don't see them in the Hall of Fame. OTOH, you do have some people who will vote against a Hall of Fame candidate because they're a clubhouse cancer, like Dick Allen (kept out again this time, but close) or they're a cheat (Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc.) - Mischa (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

When I was growing up the go-to person to explain what the Negro Leagues had been and to keep them from being forgotten was Satchel Paige, and he was great at it. After Satchel died, O'Neil took that mantle, and according to everyone who met him, did a tremendous job in this self-appointed role. As a player, he doesn't belong, but as a pioneer, builder or whatever you may call it since most of his efforts were to keep a chapter of baseball history alive rather than to create it in the first place, there is certainly a case to be made for his inclusion. And Allen will get in, probably next time he's up for consideration. There were 16 committee members, each with 4 votes. Mathematically, getting 4 persons elected from the Golden Era list was quite an achievement, given the risk of votes being split every which way. Getting into the Hall is hard and has always been. At this time, the focus should be on those who got in, not on some perceived "snubs". Everyone cannot get in at the same time. Philippe (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame has rarely had entries for builders or pioneers. And it's not like O'Neil built the Negro Leagues, that was Rube Foster. A much more worthy Negro Leaguer (as a player and as a manger) would have been Vic Harris. If being an interesting speaker/writer about baseball is now the criteria, how about Ron Luciano? It seems like a major stretch to me. - Mischa (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Vic Harris belongs, and I think he will be voted in some day. That doesn't detract from O'Neil's role. As I tried to explain, perhaps not very well, he was the keeper of the flame, for maybe three decades, when a lot of folks would have been happy to see any traces of the Negro Leagues swept under the rug rather than celebrated. Their recognition as major leagues earlier this year is largely due to his work. I can't think of anyone else in baseball history who played a similar role. Someone once explained, I think in relation to Omar Vizquel's candidacy, that every one in the Hall of Fame had his own unique story that got him there (his point being that Ozzie Smith being elected largely due to his defensive skill did not mean you have to do the same thing for Omar). I don't think there's anyone else in baseball history who could ever build a Hall of Fame case on having been a "living memorial treasure", but that was O'Neil's unique case, and I'm fine with his election. It doesn't mean that we now have to elect every first baseman who ever hit .280 or anyone who ever spoke eloquently in a documentary; it just means that in O'Neil's particular case, these qualities taken together resulted in a compelling Hall of Fame case. Philippe (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)