1 Comment

Mark,

Good article. If taking away limits for total boxes that a voter can check each year on the ballot meant that each voter puts the players they truly believe deserve to be in the Hall right away, then I'm all for it.

However, the idea of voting for someone just to keep him on the ballot when, in actuality, that voter doesn't truly believe he's a bonafide HOFer but deserves to be strung along for a few more years just because he was good is where it gets iffy. Any player getting the minimum five percent of votes in the first year just to stay eligible is likely not a legit Hall of Famer.

There's a reason 95% said no. In 10 years, if that same 5% player ends up with 75%, I think that makes the voters look bad. What changed? The stats didn't. The idea of needing 10 years to decide is absurd, no matter what new information and statistics might be created by sites like Fangraphs to justify a player's enshrinement suddenly.

Final thought. Let the world see who voted for who. It's sad to think only one player, a reliever of all positions, is the only unanimous inductee in history. There's something wrong with that.

Expand full comment