Why was Buck O'Neil denied entrance in the Hall of Fame?

[Skidmore]

What was the thinking that went into that?

[villager]

1. Good damn question.

Was wondering the same thing watching the obits on him last night...

[JeffR]

2. THANK YOU!

I was thinking about this today, and find it baffling.

[MadMaddie]

3. They rejected him by 1 vote....wouldn't it have been nice to give

it to him while he was alive....they had plenty of opportunities....

I hate to say it....but I think whoever voted against him had problems with the fact that he played in the Negro League....truely a sad day....

RIP....

[Suich]

4. Keith Olbermann will probably have

a lot to say about it on Monday!

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

5. Racial discrimination?

If not was it because he was:

1. a bad player?

2. a pedophile?

3. a bank robber?

4. a Communist?

5. had sex with a white woman?

6. was "too uppity for a negro?"

7. or, just another example of blatant racial discrimination that occurs non-stop, 24/7 in this country?

I vote for #7.

[MikeNearMcChord]

8. The process of electing players, is so subjective

But there are members of the Negro Leagues that are in the Hall of Fame.
Names like Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Rube Foster and Satchell Paige are among the inductees
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/lists/negro_leaguers.htm

[Captain Hilts]

6. I don't 'get' it either. Touch 'em all, Buck. nt

[Blue_Tires]

7. easy answer

there are a lot of back-biting, arbitrary political nuances that go into the HOF selections for a lot of sports---Buck needs more people in high places outside of Kansas City to stump for him

[TheZoo]

9. Why single out one player?

Why hasn't Gil Hodges made it to the Hall of Fame? Because he smoked and was a member of the Brooklyn Dodgers?

Or "Shoeless" Joe Jackson?

Or any other player not in the HOF?

I don't recall Buck O'Neil being "denied" entrance into the HOF - he did not receive enough votes.

[Berry Cool]

10. Keith Olbermann is your friend; he can't explain why, but he explains how

in this blog: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12254330/

Scroll down to the March 1 entry and he provides an explanation of how the voting was done, but also explains that while he tried to find out why the voters didn't go for Buck, no one would tell him.

This blog is also actually enlightening. I don't agree with what the blogger says about Keith being sour-grapey--I think questioning why some people got into a HOF when others you feel were more deserving did not is not at all sour grapes, it's just being analytical--but the blogger does ask some interesting questions about the issue:

http://weblogthatderekbuilt.blogspot.com/2006/03/passing-buck.html

Anyway, knowing something of the politics of a sport, even if it's not baseball, I have a feeling that the big issue is that the voters tried to hard to be anal in interpreting the rules, and what Buck did for the sport somehow didn't fit any single one of the "criteria" under which they thought they could vote him in. Most of all, they seem to have tarred him with the kiss-of-death brush for an athlete: "He was a wonderful guy, and he did all kinds of great groundbreaking things for the sport--but his stats weren't all that spectacular."

Hmph.