When you add arrogance to ignorance, apparently you get... the BBWAA. I completely understand this is not true in every case. I would even say the majority of the members are able to display reason and logic among some other fine traits. The problem is if you need 75% to garner a Hall pass and 40% of the voting contingency are unable or unwilling to make competent or even justifiable selections, you will have a difficult time getting the consensus you need to get some very qualified individuals into Cooperstown.
I believe you can figure out which voters are the ones who need their status revoked. They are likely the same ones who refuse to acknowledge the existence of Twitter or the internet in general as a reasonable format in which to get breaking news or information directly from the source. They are likely the same ones who read four different newspapers every morning but refuse to turn on their computer. In many cases, they have worked in the newspaper industry their whole career without ever having to adjust to any other media or even attempting to expand their horizons. They don't care about the possible validity of recent statistics (meaning VORP, win shares, runs created, etc.) or the relative importance of OPS and WHIP over BA and wins. To me, this is proof of arrogance. When you refuse to admit that there are alternatives to your way of thinking, that is pure arrogance. When you feel you should never vote for anyone in their first year of eligibility - you are arrogant beyond reason, and we'll get to you a bit later.
This is not to say that every person up for a vote should be 100% or 0%. There are very few things as a "sure-fire" Hall-of-Famer. However, an intelligent argument should be required from every voter regarding every "aye" or "nay". Let's take this year's lone electee, Andre "The Hawk" Dawson. Also known as Lionel Richie's secret twin.
If you want to vote "no" on Andre Dawson, you would make the following arguments: His career OBP was .323 - a number that in today's world would have bloggers and writers screaming that you are killing your team. His career SLG of .482 does not even finish in the top 100 of all-time and is considerably lower than such luminaries as Tim Salmon (.498) and Will Clark (.497). If you want an older example due to the higher hitting percentages in general in recent years - Dolph Camilli, a 1B for the Phillies and BROOKLYN Dodgers in the 30s and 40s has a career slash-line of .277/.387/.492. You don't really hear ol' Dolph mentioned among the all-time greats. You will claim that Andre Dawson's cumulative stats are due more to his 9,927 career AB (26th all-time) than his greatness as a hitter.
If you feel Dawson is a HOFer, you can very easily point to the 1591 career RBI, 503 2B, being one of only three players in history with 400 HR/300 SB, the eight Gold Gloves and eight All-Star appearances. You will say his 9,927 career AB are due to his greatness and ability to play at a high level longer than most other players.
It's not difficult to make a reasonable argument either way. If I asked you the reason for your voting and you gave me these arguments, I would walk away satisfied that you have done your homework even if you never saw him play. I would even be okay with you telling me you saw him play and he was one of the most feared sluggers of his generation and for a ten-year span was one of the greatest OF to roam the grass. I would give you credit for voting as a scout would vote, and although I'm a numbers guy, I think it is important when someone can pass the "eye-test" or I guess you could call this the "Sheffield theory". If I had a vote I can guarantee I would vote for Gary Sheffield every year of his eligibility regardless of what the numbers are - I won't even look them up. I will just tell you that for 12-15 years, he was one of the last people on the face of the Earth you would want to see hitting against your team in a big situation. I've never seen anyone with such bat speed and plate discipline in one combination and I would stop whatever I was doing when he was hitting just to watch. I know he has been linked to performance-enhancing drugs in his career, but I don't care. That bat speed was there when he was a 190 lb. SS for the Brewers. If I were to look, I know I could find numbers to back up my argument but I don't need to. If you were to make that argument with me regarding Dawson being a Hall-of-Famer, I wouldn't necessarily be satisfied, but I would understand.
What I don't understand is how you can vote "no" on someone for two or five or 10 years, then start voting for them because they are so close or whatever reason it is that causes some writers to hold out then change their mind. If a statistic comes along that allows you to analyze a player's career differently and change your vote (one way or another - this isn't always a positive thing as displayed by the recent backlash against Dawson's OBP) based on the new information, I applaud your open-mindedness and your willingness to admit error. If new information comes to light that changes your view of the player during his era - for instance, I didn't view Fred McGriff as a Hall of Famer when he retired for multiple reasons which added up to him not being one of the premier sluggers of his era. Now, if you look back at the time when he was in his prime, and you take away every hitter who has been linked by more than rumor to have taken PED, McGriff stands with a much more select group. This changed my view on McGriff as a HOFer.
My feeling is if you are not voting for McGwire because you feel he cheated, shouldn't that change your view of The Crime Dog? His numbers, by all accounts, are legitimate. If he played in an era where he was say, the 6th best slugging-type hitter, and four of the top five were dirty, how can that not improve his standing relative to the era? On the other hand, if you vote for McGwire and don't vote for McGriff, I can see it justified as you are voting on the pure numbers and not based at all on any substances or methods used to acquire those numbers.
If you vote for both or if you vote for neither, I am okay with it IF you back up your vote with a reasonable argument. That's all we're asking for here, people. Some reason and some logic.
Now, I mentioned earlier the writers who NEVER vote for anyone in their first year of eligibility OR the writers who feel certain players are not worthy of being selected in their first year of eligibility but will then vote for that player every year after. The writers who never vote a first-year eligbile player in, I will just say this: Just because Babe Ruth or whomever did not get 100% of the votes their first year does not make it right. The people who voted no for: Babe Ruth, Christy Mathewson, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, etc. are morons. This isn't a new problem for HOF voters. It does not make it right for you to follow in their footsteps. Take a minute and apply that logic to anything else in life and you will realize that is some of the worst reasoning you could ever possibly do. As for those who pick and choose which players are "worthy" of their vote in the first-year... Until we divide the Hall of Fame into Bill Simmons' Pyramid* - which is not a bad idea, but a WHOLE different blog - your job is to vote Hall of Famer vs. not a Hall of Famer. At no point in any of the voting instructions does it ever say, "If you feel this player is a HOFer, but not really one of the best of all-time, please wait one year to give this person the greatest achievement of his life and begin voting for him next year."
Since I am running long already, I will take on one more debate and, in my mind, end it swiftly. There are many who feel no DH should be voted into the HOF. These writers feel they are only playing half the game so there is no way they should be considered one of the greatest players. Have I made that side of the argument fairly? That is the reason, correct? OK, then - guess what? You are NEVER allowed to vote for an AL pitcher again. Good day, Sir.
See? Reason & logic. See you in a few years, Edgar.
* Bill Simmons' Pyramid is taken from his "The Book of Basketball" as well as his Sports Guy columns. In the book, he takes the top 96 basketball players of all time and divides them into five groups. The lower level up to the "Pantheon", which consists of the top handful of players ever to grace the court. Where this may not work as well for football, it is the perfect way to tear down and rebuild the basketball and baseball Halls of Fame. Explaining The Pyramid in a footnote of sorts is also a nod to Simmons as he used more footnotes in his book than a pianist with no hands.
