OK, when last we left our Hall of Fame study, we saw that the players that retired in the Thirties had a ridiculously better chance of making it to the Hall than any other decade. Also, a general decline in the numbers since then has been the trend. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that we are dealing with a moving target: The Thirties classes have the advantage of being a decade more of voting than the ones from the Forties, etc. However, that doesn't explain why there are so few players from the Twenties retirement classes in the Hall.

I think clearly the bloated offensive numbers in the late Twenties and early Thirties unfairly helped the players that were at their peak during this period and unfairly hurt the players that had the best years before this period. This doesn’t bode well for veterans whose careers cam before the offensive surge of the last decade like Rice, Dawson, and Murphy.

Another phenomenon is the trend for voters to latch onto a candidate early in their eligibility and get him elected. This seemed to start with the retirement classes from the Seventies and has become the norm. It seems to be much more difficult to get in if one doesn't get elected in the first couple of elections.

What I would like to do next is segregate the Hall of Famers by the body that elected them. I will include all of the baseball writers' election in one group and the various veterans' committees in the other. And I am still basing this on retirement class. One could look at the elections over time, but I prefer grouping by retirement class. I want to know what happens to a player who retires at a certain time. If Rollie Fingers had had the longevity of Goose Gossage would he be in the Hall? I think not. If Goose Gossage had retired a few years earlier, would he have gone into the Hall? I believe so. Gary Carter gets in after a bit of a wait but Gil Hodges doesn't.

Next, I will use the writers' eligibility rules over the years to determine how many first-year inducted there were, how many were elected in their first ten years, how many were elected in their last five years, and how many were elected after their first 10 years of eligibility but prior to their last five. Eligibility for those retiring prior to 1936 starts in 1936. I want to determine how the different eras' voters reacted to first-ballot candidates, relatively new candidates, candidates in that middle period, and candidates running out of time (last five years).

I will also look at how the veterans selected players over the years. Did they select players still eligible to the writers? Did the select a lot from one era as opposed to another?

Here are the baseball writers' Hall of Famers:

Notice that the first-year candidates have taken hold since the Seventies, but that aside from the disdain for Fifties retirees, the writers had selected between 13 and 17 players from the Forties to the Eighties retirees. Some Nineties retirees are still not eligible, so the jury's still out for them. I also found it interesting that only one player in recent memory (Duke Snider in 1980) has been elected in his last five years of eligibility.

It seems that the expectation is that Hall-worthy players go in quickly or not at all. That doesn't bode well for Bert Blyleven.

Now here are the veterans' selections (eligible players only):

(Note: Remember Addie Joss, who never played 10 seasons, is not part of this study. However, he would fall in the 1910s decade in the greater than cutoff column.)

So not only do the vets love the Thirties retirees, they haven't been too supportive of the players since.

To be continued…