BBTF links to a 6-4-2 post about transparency in the Hall of Fame vote:
It is probably not too strong to suggest that Darren Viola’s Hall of Fame Ballot Collecting Gizmo — an annual event for a number of years now — has sparked a dialogue about transparency in BBWAA voting that is vastly overdue.
The question the BBWAA faces is should all ballots be public. In politics, ballots tend to be secret when everyone is involved, and the secret ballot is used to prevent retribution from voting a certain way. Public ballots are used when representatives of groups are voting. That way the citizens represented know if their desires are being met. In the latter case, secret ballots are sometimes used to take retribution on public ballots.
So are BBWAA members like the voting public, who should be able to cast a ballot secretly so that they cannot be coerced to change their position or punished fro the one they take, or like representatives who must faith the wrath of their constituents because of their public votes?
While not elected, sports writers do work at the pleasure of the public. A writer who brings in a large number of readers will last longer in the business than one who doesn’t. Since the BBWAA requires a long tenure before one can vote, a member is someone with public approval.
On the other hand, if a writer wants to make a principled stand on the Hall of Fame, why should they be subjected to ridicule for that vote? It a large voting body, and in general one vote here or there does not make a difference. Fans (and writers, it seems) think there is something beyond the 75% threshold for election. Is Greg Maddux less of a Hall of Famer because he wasn’t voted in unanimously? Are Jim Rice and Bert Blyleven lesser Hall of Famers because they weren’t elected on the first ballot. As much as people complain about the level of talent in the Hall, all that matters is that you pass the 75% threshold at some point. The player gets the same ceremony, gets to make the same speech, gets forever to be known as a Hall of Famer. Who really cares if someone is left off the ballot?
The clear answer from years of reading about these controversies and being bothered by them my self is that the fans do see the writers as their representatives. They want to know how their local and national writers think. If someone leaves Greg Maddux off a Hall of Fame ballot, there’s good reason to believe that writer has a screw loose. If you can’t recognize that kind of once in a lifetime talent, why do you have a ballot? If fans want to go after writers over candidates like Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris, more power to them. We’ll wind up with a better group of players in the Hall.
So I come down on the side of Repoz:
Or as I told Rob…“I think the MLB Network should have a 3-hr show of all HOF ballots being opened…with a Sammy Petrillo-type host using a magic wall.”
Go for it. I would add having Brian Kenny and Harold Reynolds take what they consider the most egregious ballots and grill those voters on their choices. That would be great television, and we all might learn something.
I’d love them to make it a rule that all ballots go public. I’d even be ok with it if they published the ballots anonymously. That wouldn’t be ideal, but it would show how different voters voted while allowing the voters some measure of anonymity. On the other hand, if they were to go ahead and say “from now on, no voter shall publish their ballot”, I’d only accept that if they force the voters to take some form of baseball exam every 2 or 4 years. If we can’t see how anyone voted in any way, I think the voters should then be subject to a sort of license to vote. Actually, I’d prefer the BBWAA to make it that way no matter what, but, if they ever secretize the ballots without any control over whether the voters are going to do any good at it, then it’s just making the current problem worse.
Count me in as favoring this. I might even go further and insist that each voter write a short paragraph explaining each candidate he voted for–and if he leaves any blank spots, at least a couple of paragraphs explaining why none of the others deserved a vote.
Baseball writers don’t represent the public; they represent the newspapers they work for. I would think that the newspaper that pays a writer’s salary would want to know who that writer voted for. It’s their dime, after all. There’s also an amazing irony here. Newspaper reporters and editors bray all the time about how it’s their job to put news in the newspaper, not keep it out. And yet with the HoF ballot, they’ve all basically conspired to keep news out of the paper.
Of course one newspaper (at least) as a matter of policy doesn’t let its writers vote for awards, under the theory that it’s a reporter’s job to report the news, not make it, and that if you’re participating in the news you are by definition biased. I have a hard time seeing how all newspapers don’t follow the lead of the New York Times on this.
Harold Reynolds? Not exactly the kind of “journalist” I’d want asking questions. I don’t think ex-players should be involved in the quizzing, for fear they might have personal axes to grind.
This is a good way of putting it, and I agree with Tom Anderson.
An electorate composed of sports writers is definitely more of a “representative” electorate than a “public” electorate. Something like a public electorate would be more like a group of fans chosen by lottery. A writer voting for the Hall of Fame only gets the vote by being employed or selected by a media publication. Supposedly they are employed only because fans like to read their columns and opinions, so you can kind of sort of say that fans vote for them.
Plus, with political legislative assemblies, votes are usually public even cases like the Canadian Senate where the legislators are not elected. Its still considered in the public interest that people can find out how individual members of appointed bodies vote even if they are not up for re-election.
I also agree with the first comment that it would be nice if a writer would normally write a column explaining why he or she voted the way he or she did. This alone would justify handing the initial HOF vote to the sports writers, which is a questionable practice otherwise.