2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

Bobcat is talking about his own change of mind.

 

That's a fucking load of shit. The guy is a Hall of Famer or he's not. "How an era shakes out" is just another excuse to hide the fact the pricks at the BBWAA love to play God.

 

You realize that the BBWAA isn't just, like, one dude, right?

 

Really? I had no idea. I thought you were the BBWAA...

 

NO OUTING!

 

For one thing, I hate to tell you but I have other things to do in my life besides evaluate whether a guy is a HOFer. I think about it, sure, but I don't really give it a full "evaluation" until he's on the ballot.

The guys who get in on the first ballot are the one who require the least study. They are no-brainers. Why is Rickey Henderson a no-brainer and Craig Biggio is not? Because Rickey Henderson is better than Craig Biggio!

You can say I'm withholding a vote from Biggio because he's not as good as Rickey. I think I just need more time to decide on Biggio, because he's not as good as Rickey.

Isn't it common sense that the closer a guy is to the theoretical line, the more difficult it will be to decide which side he's on, and the more people in any given group will put him on each side?

 

I can see how someone might change their minds on a borderline player. Maybe they start embracing new statistical ways of evaluting players or someone makes a compelling argument as to why they should be in. The guys intentionally leaving guys off for some personal bullshit or they never vote for a guy in his first year are the guys I would have issues with.

 

The bottom line is I'm sure there are some people who say "I think Player A is a HOFer, but I won't vote for him till the 2nd year," but I think that's dramatically overstated, and most people are like me.

 

That is more common and that's why reducing the time each player is on the ballot to about five years would let everyone get down to business and stop jacking around.

I'm sorry, but at the absolute max there really shouldn't be a question after say the third time a candidacy is "re-evaluated."

 

One more thing...

It's natural that voters would be more inclined to switch from year 1 to year 2 because that's when they've got the least amount of research into it and their opinion is the softest, so to speak.

The guys I've changed on have been after 2-3 years max. I doubt people switch after voting one way for 10 years. Changes in vote totals then probably reflect new voters.

 

When Rice got in, Jayson Stark wrote about it -- said he changed his mind after 10 years of not voting for him. Also noted that Rice went from below 30 percent to the required 75 percent in the 15-year span. I doubt half the electorate or anything close to it were new voters in that time. And considering that Rice was very much a non-favorite of "new" voters who rely more on advanced statistics, I don't think that's where he made up his ground anyway.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof09/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3818624

I think it's a lot more common than you say. For someone's vote totals to increase that much in a short span, it can't just be the old voters dying off.

 

It wasn't a short time with Rice. It took 15 years.

Ill grant you that the process doesn't need to be that long. I just object to the one-and -done theory that you ought to be able to make your final decision in one shot.