Comments on: Hall of Shame: Why BBWAA’s Secret Ballots Matter

By: B N

B N — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:41:00 +0000

re: “Because spitballs don’t … kill you.”

Tell that to Ray Chapman, Brian. I’m sure he’ll be relieved.

By: John

John — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:03:36 +0000

How are steriod users different fom other cheaters?
Surely the reason some want them keep out is because cheating is wrong, level of enhancement cannot be measured and differs from player to player.
Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, Mays, Schimdt, Perry, Ford, McGraw, Sutton etc. are all cheaters in the HOF, and they won’t be kicked out.

By: bcp33bosox

bcp33bosox — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:12:45 +0000

@philosofool, I could make the same argument that not voting for players, who took non-illegal PEDs (not all of them are/were illegal substances and some of them were yet to be banned by MLB at the time of players taking them) is a wrong and that 2 wrongs don’t make a right. A wrong by the same writers who basically looked the other way in 1998 when Wilstein broke the andro story (which was not against McGwrire because as he stated Andro *was* over the counter and *not* yet banned in the MLB), but more questioning MLBs policies (why is Andro not allowed in the Olympics, but is okay in MLB? Why is there no testing policy?). It took baseball 5 or 6 years after ’98 to even start testing…

By: philosofool

philosofool — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:01:34 +0000

“First of all, there already are cheaters in the Hall of Fame—Gaylord Perry is an obvious example. Why are spitballers any less reprehensible reprehensible than dopers?”

Can everyone please stop with the compounding evils arguments for cheaters? Where the hell were you people when they told you that two wrongs don’t make a right in grade school?

By: entrinzikyl

entrinzikyl — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:05:32 +0000

@KS

Saying that no one needs to defend the no-PED stand is as high-horsed a position as saying that votes ought to be public. Probably more so, since your argument is most likely at least somewhat ethically based.

That said, I agree with you that private voting is an important way to avoid being subjected to public pressure. It prevents undeserved scrutiny. Unfortunately, it doesn’t prevent deserved scrutiny, but since it’s hard to really say when scrutiny is deserved, I think it’s best as is.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:12:34 +0000

@Lewipollis: Because spitballs don’t a) alter your muscle mass and turn you into the Incredible Hulk and b) don’t kill you.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:54:30 +0000

I don’t see why a person’s ballot needs to be well reasoned at all. The Hall of Fame is just a way for a group of people to honor their baseball heroes. Why does it need to be based on anything more than emotion and feeling?

By: Lewie Pollis

Lewie Pollis — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:47:01 +0000

@Kris

First of all, there already are cheaters in the Hall of Fame—Gaylord Perry is an obvious example. Why are spitballers any less reprehensible reprehensible than dopers?

Likening the Hall of Fame vote to citizens going to the polls doesn’t work. Voting for a Congressman is a right, but voting for Cooperstown is a privilege. In addition, you don’t have to prove any knowledge or expertise to vote, but the BBWAA balloters are supposed to be the best baseball minds in the country. The better comparison is to Congressional voting records—which, of course, are public.

By: KS

KS — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:38:47 +0000

PED cheaters shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame, and no-one needs to defend that stand. Far too many in the sabermetric community support having cheaters in the Hall of Fame, and that’s a disgrace to the game of baseball.

The writers have no obligation to reveal their ballots, or to explain them. You obviously don’t like that, but that’s why we have secret ballots… so one can vote their conscience, without having to justify it in public and be subjected to public pressure. It’s the same reason why you have a secret ballot when you vote in an election.

Lots of people will disagree with votes for the Hall of Fame, just as lots of people will disagree with your vote for Congress, President or City Council. That’s the way voting works. I don’t agree with every decision made by the Hall of Fame voters, but I certainly don’t think they need to be held up to ridicule for exercising their right to vote.

Get off your high horse.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:37:47 +0000

I’d like to see historical trends. Not that I don’t doubt that the writers are voting poorly and those more likely to vote poorly are the ones voting in secret, but, we’re looking at 122/581, then you further reduce it to 12 players receiving votes.

A historical trend could shed more light and further your argument.