HOF Future Eligibles

[ALR-bishop]

According to the WSJ, the following have received a vote for the HOF

2014--Jacques Jones
2013--Aaron Sele
2012--Eric Young
2011-- Benito Santiago
2010-- David Segui
2009--Jesse Orosco
2008--Shawon Dunston
2007--Jay Buhner
2006--Walt Weiss
2005-- Terry Steinbach
1980-- Sonny Jackson

[Runscott]

Al, I'm wondering if these weren't cases of a buddy voting for them just so they could say they received a vote. If they only gave each voter 5 votes, that might change.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Al, I'm wondering if these weren't cases of a buddy voting for them just so they could say they received a vote. If they only gave each voter 5 votes, that might change.

Agreed. Anyone who legitimately thinks Jay Buhner belongs in the Hall should not be allowed to vote, period. It still irks me that guys like Jermaine Dye even make it on the ballot to begin with.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by conor912

It still irks me that guys like Jermaine Dye even make it on the ballot to begin with.

That's a great point. I thought the ballot was given a sanity check before being made final and some names were removed from consideration. Maybe that doesn't happen though, because every year there is outrage that someone voted for a guy who is on the ballot that had no business getting a vote. Well, if he doesn't deserve even 1 vote what the heck is he doing on the ballot in the first place? I agree that those guys named above are in no way HOFers and it's a joke to think otherwise. So just pull them off the ballot altogether. To me if their name is on the ballot then it doesn't stand to reason that someone shouldn't have the right to vote for them, regardless of how much sense it might make.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by dgo71

That's a great point. I thought the ballot was given a sanity check before being made final and some names were removed from consideration.

It IS given a sanity check.

From the HOF site:

A. BBWAA Screening Committee -- A Screening Committee consisting of baseball writers will be appointed by the BBWAA. This Screening Committee shall consist of six members, with two members to be elected at each Annual Meeting for a three-year term. The duty of the Screening Committee shall be to prepare a ballot listing in alphabetical order eligible candidates who (1) received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in the preceding election or (2) are eligible for the first time and are nominated by any two of the six members of the BBWAA Screening Committee.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Al, I'm wondering if these weren't cases of a buddy voting for them just so they could say they received a vote. If they only gave each voter 5 votes, that might change.

Scott, they tried that in 1946. It made the problem worse, not better. In times when there is a logjam and a number of candidates that are arguably qualified, lessening the number of candidates that can be voted for dilutes the vote for each of them and helps ensure that no one gets enough votes. I'm sure the problem was more acute in 1946, but I really don't see that as a fix that is workable. Most of the voters argue, and I think that I tend to agree, is that the fix is not to arbitrarily limit the number of votes that can be cast to 10. That way, if you want to vote for your buddy or hometown hero just because, it doesn't hurt the ones who are actually qualified and might deserve a vote.