With Jeff Pearlman and Paul Hoynes discussing their personal displeasure with a couple of Hall of Fame candidates, Craig Calcaterra asks, “Why should we care if a ballplayer is mean or if he’s ‘a punk?’” What these opinions show, however, is why the press wants to keep the vote for the Hall of Fame.

Players and press are in a symbiotic relationship. The press can help build a fan base for a player, or they can knock him down. In turn, the press needs players to speak with them so they can write more interesting accounts of the games and teams they cover. That isn’t always good enough, however, to keep the relationship civil. For the greats, like Barry Bonds and Pedro Martinez, their heroics build the fan base. So the press holds the Hall of Fame vote over them. It doesn’t really matter to the greats, but to a player on the edge it can made all the difference.

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.

Craig Calcaterra and Rob Neyer inspired Murray Chass:

Finally, an announcement that will disappoint Neyer, Calcaterra and the reader who, like those two bloggers, said they were delighted that this was the last time I would be voting for the Hall of Fame. Sorry, guys I never made it definite.

I said “barring a change in my thinking,” this could be my last vote. My thinking has changed, and all of you critics can blame yourselves. How could I relinquish my vote knowing how much it annoys you? I plan to vote a year from now even if I just send in a blank ballot. You would love that.

Hat tip, BBTF. From a comment there:

DL from MN Posted: January 02, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4628078)
We told you not to feed the troll. You fed him anyway.

I sometimes hear adult children of elderly parents refer taking care of their parents as taking care of children. It’s amazing how childish the elderly Chass acts. Mr. Chass, as a long-time journalist, should realize what he writes is out there for criticism. He has no problem firing back at Neyer and Calcaterra in his column, but the “take his ball and go home” attitude is uncalled for.

Whatever respect Chass had left is certainly going down the toilet quickly.