On not voting for players on the first ballot, but voting for them later. people view voting differently. Observers want it to be an exercise in objectivity. Who should be in, who shouldn't be, mark your ballot accordingly. But when voters themselves, when they get behind the ballot, so to speak (and we know this from Federal level elections), approach it in a variety of ways. In this particular situation where voting changes from year to year, depending in part on the length of time a player is on the ballot, I think some voters don't view a non-yes vote as a no vote. They aren't ready to vote yes, but that doesn't mean they think they don't belong. They either aren't sure yet, or just aren't ready to be sure.
On steroid era PED cheating. Some say, so many cheated, you can't sort em out, accept those things as context and vote as if it doesn't matter. Sure, but why not say, so many cheated, you can't sort em out, accept those things as context and vote against the whole era? It is just as valid an argument. Or sort em out as best you can. Or sort em out as lazily and inconsistently as you can. It is voting, not a logarithmic computer program.
A constant line of arguing about these matters is an appeal to consistency (or inconsistency). If players in other eras did x and got in, shouldn't players in this era that did y get in? Or, player A did bad thing X and got in, player B who did bad thing Y ought to get in. Or player A got away with it, so it isn't fair that player B is left in the cold. It is fun to argue about these things, but the HOF isn't a board of consistency management. Players enter based on votes from voters. Voters today didn't vote on amphetamine users in the 60s. They aren't responsible for being consistent with voter results from 40 years ago. They aren't even responsible for being consistent with votes they may have cast 5 or 10 years ago themselves. People change their minds. They aren't and shouldn't be beholden to consistency to a previous vote. What the collective group of voters did in past years has very little bearing on what an individual voter is voting on in the present. And we shouldn't want that. Do we want the veterans committee electing everyone as good as Harold Baines because we demand consistency? I am happy for Harold. He is legit a HOFer now. But I also think it would be a mistake for Harold Baines' career stats to become the measure of HOFness. Because a steroid user is in is irrelevant to if another steroid user should get in. Because a bad guy is in is irrelevant to if another bad guy should get in. Because 60s stars used PEDs is irrelevant to if 2000s PED using stars should get in. It is fun to argue about and make comparisons and conjectures but should is not part of it.
That being said, Lou Whitaker should be a HOFer.
|
01-25-2022, 01:04 PM
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
