2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

And if that's the reasoning for it, I can't argue with it. That's different than what I still think a serious cross-section of voters do, which is say first-year inductees must be at X level, and Y level can make it after that.

 

Of course, there were a few jackasses who refused to vote for Rickey Henderson, mostly the ones who won't vote for anybody the first year just to be sure no one ever goes in unanimously. Every single person who failed to vote for Henderson should have been made to publicly say why in their opinion Henderson does not warrant a spot in the Hall of Fame. Then they would have had a choice of lying or admitting that they were making a statement rather than voting based on whether or not he deserved to be in.

 

Not sure if I've told this here. I worked with a longtime voter at the last shop, who voted against Rickey but not for anything you've ever heard before. Ready?

In the 2000 playoffs, Rickey started a game but was pulled in the 6th or 7th. Instead of hanging in the dugout he went into the clubhouse to play cards. So this voter voted no because instead of offering camaraderie with his teammates during a tense playoff game, he was acting selfish and playing cards.

That's why he voted against Rickey Henderson, career stats bedamned.

I tried to discuss this egregious error with the voter time and again but he said he'd do it again, said he'd vote the same way every time. Blows my mind that these are the kids of fellows who get a vote still.

 

The ones I would most severely question would be those who didn't vote for Mays, Aaron or DiMaggio on the first ballot.

 

I remember hearing about Henderson doing that and it doesn't surprise me that some voter left him off for that reason. Mostly it doesn't surprise me because I know there are people with Hall of Fame votes who shouldn't have them.

 

No argument there. Henderson is just the relatively recent example that comes to mind.

 

Yes, there are people who have hall of game votes who shouldn't have them.

There are also people who do Xxxxx who shouldn't be doing xxxxxxx.

The issue is how many. And until you show me some evidence that there are any significant number of people who don't put the appropriate thought into their HOF ballots (not who disagree with you), I won't accept your premise that BBWAA is doing a bad job as a whole.

 

You don't think this year is evidence that too many voters are trying to make statements rather than simply choosing who they think belongs in the Hall of Fame? If that's the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I believe there are voters who don't believe guys who used steroids should be in the Hall of Fame, which is their right.

I also believe there is a smaller group that believes they can be in HOF, but not this year. That's not how I'd vote but its ok with me if they want to. I still think that's less than 10 percent.

 

Honestly, it's understandable how someone who is conflicted on the issue could say "I can't vote for them yet, but I may change my mind" or "I can vote for them, but I will make them twist for a year because I think what they did is wrong."

I can't say either of those thoughts are "wrong."

 

I don't how many people this would affect, but what if they kept the 10-year rule to get a ballot and you can vote for as long as someone you covered is on the ballot.

So for next year, anyone who stopping covering baseball in the mid 70s can't vote anymore, since the earliest guys on the ballot are Trammell and Morris in 1977.

 

That's where we disagree. I think it is wrong to use the vote, or lack of a vote, to punish a guy by letting him twist when the voter believes the player belongs in the Hall of Fame. Either the player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't. That's how the vote should be used. If you want to figure in steroid use, that's fine, but at least be sure the guy did it before you penalize him. That's my other issue. In some of these cases, the evidence just isn't there.