Changes to baseball Hall of Fame voting

It isn't 10 years as a beat writer. It's 10 years in the BBWAA and covering baseball, whether as a columnist or whatever. I know several people on that list who have never spent one day as a baseball beat writer.

 

Just running down the list and the people whose (approximate) ages I do know, I would be stunned if the average age is not over 60 (I'd lay even money on 65).

Get off our lawn!!

 

I know that list is at least 6 years old because I'm identified at a paper I haven't worked at for 6 years.

Try this...

http://bbwaa.com/14-hof-ballots/

 

We've been over this. It is likely that no one like that exists in the electorate. If they do, there are less than five. Probably one or two.

 

There has never been just one voter that left a player off.

In terms of raw votes, Ty Cobb came the closest to a unanimous vote with four no-votes in the inaugural class of 1936. Tom Seaver holds the record for highest percentage, followed by Nolan Ryan. Seaver had five no-votes and Ryan six, including the infamous Bill Conlin no-vote.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofmem4.shtml

 

Understood.

But that doesn't mean that the people not voting for a player are doing it to provide the sanctity of non-unanimity. It's more likely they are gaming the votes - choosing not to vote for someone who is a shoo-in in order to try to keep someone else on the ballot, or push a borderline guy over the top.

Even the Conlin vote you refer to wasn't an attempt to preserve non-unanimity, right? He actually thought Ryan wasn't worthy.

 

And just like last time, you are trying to pass your opinion off as fact.

The point still stands. Whatever the number is, they are at the top of the list of those who should lose their votes.

 

That's your opinion. You're trying to pass it off as fact.

 

Nope. I'm passing it off as my opinion. Somebody asked who should go, which indicates an opinion. The number of people who vote that way would be a fact. Dick is trying to claim that he knows how many (or few) people vote that way.

I really shouldn't have to try to explain that to you.

 

Then maybe the rule should be vote for whom on the list of eligible players the voter feels is deserving. If you vote and feel 17 guys are HOFers, then vote for all 17. And give everyone eligible 5 years after they obtain a 30 % minimum on their first year. No gaming the system. Everyone stands for election as an individual and if you can't get in on 6 tries. You're done with the the regular voting. Either Palmeiro and Sosa are HOFers or they're not. Let them in or don't, but don't punish them for 9 or 14 years and then back door them on the last year.

 

Neither fact nor opinion. It's speculation based on voting data and published ballots, etc.

 

Let's just settle on calling it what it is. You are pushing your guesswork as if it is fact.