Thanks for your comments. I agree that individual voters in the BBWAA are ridiculous in their behavior, and the whole handling of the first ballot – the notion of candidates being worthy but not “first ballot,” and their refusal to allow any candidate to get a unanimous vote – is absurd. Collectively, though, I think they do a very good job, and their single voice is pretty representative of how fans feel about their candidates.

I’m not opposed to a restructuring of the process. I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary, but I wouldn’t have a problem if it came about. I wonder if living Hall of Famers are a good ingredient in the process, though. They seem to embrace the exclusivity of their standing, and I think they’re likely to set a standard that’s higher than would be healthy for the institution. Their behavior in the Veterans Committee process – when they constituted the vast majority of voters – may not be a fair indicator of this, since they were voting exclusively on candidates on the bubble, but it’s hard to walk away from that experiment without wondering where their bar may be set.

I agree with your assessment of stats, too. I don’t like a Sabrmetric wave being responsible for any election, HOWEVER if it’s needed to educate the voters, it can be helpful.

You and I (perhaps) differ on the qualifications of the BBWAA as a whole. Whereas some of the individual members are thoughtful voters, far too many are careless with the privilege, and/or ignorant of what makes a good ballplayer, let alone a great one. I once talked with one of the OFFICERS of the BBWAA and he didn’t know that Dale Murphy had won two MVP Awards nor that he was a Gold Glove winner. Other writers routinely pen articles explaining how they don’t vote for candidates the “first time” but may down the road. That’s ridiculous.

Sabrmetrics weren’t needed to see that Ron Santo was the best third baseman in his league for more than a decade, and arguably as valuable as Brooks Robinson during the same stretch. The awards (many many Gold Gloves) and numbers (top ten in HR, RBI, OPS for a 10+ year stretch) were there the day he retired.

The use of the BBWAA as a blanket organization to vote for the players, is what I see is the problem. Who is their membership? How much baseball do they watch? when was the last time the covered the game? What qualifies the BBWAA to make the decision? It may have made sense in 1936 to use that organization, before every game was being broadcast on television, before the Internet and cable TV like ESPN, etc. But today there are 200 people I can think of (including you) who I’d rather have select the HOFers than the BBWAA.

The Hall has been aggressive in changing the veterans committee rules when needed to ensure fairness and that someone is elected. They continue to stubbornly cling to their attachment to the BBWAA, but risk their credibility in doing so. I would surmise that some of that has to do with their relationship with MLB and the Hall’s desire to get good press from the BBWAA. We can imagine 500 columns being published simultaneously if the HOF ever eliminated or reduced the BBWAA’s role as the electorate for recently retired players.

So as not to be one of those who complains about the system but doesn’t offer anything to replace it, here’s my idea. A tri-part electorate consisting of a leaner BBWAA, the living Hall of Famers, and a committee of historians. The “leaner” BBWAA would be a collection of those writers who have demonstrated that baseball is their main sport of coverage, who cover it now, or did for many years. They also should have been active members no less than 10 years ago. The historians (as was suggested by author Bill James back some time ago) could be culled from universities, authors, researchers, the teams, and the Hall itself.

Dan