In defense of the blank Hall of Fame ballot
I am here to defend nothing. Though I would argue nothing, in this case, is something.
The role of the Baseball Hall of Fame voter is to study the ballot and determine who should be enshrined. If you decide no one on the ballot merits a check mark, you should sign your name and send the ballot in. You have voted for who you think deserves to be immortalized from the list supplied — no one. It is as legitimate a vote as checking one name or 10 on the ballot.
Next Tuesday when results are announced, I suspect that blank ballots will be a substantial issue. A record 14 were cast last year. In the tracking done by Ryan Thibodaux, there were four blanks in the 161 publicly revealed ballots through Tuesday.
A candidate needs to be named on 75 percent of ballots for election. David Ortiz is likely the only candidate with a chance to reach that level. If he does, it is not going to be by much. And, if he doesn’t, he is going to miss narrowly.
If it is the latter, history suggests that will set off the pitchfork and torches set to blame those who sent in empty ballots. The argument will mainly be if you are voting for no one, just don’t vote at all because a ballot not submitted, obviously, does not count. But that would be negligence. A vote for no one is a vote — against the ballot. You believe no one from the ballot belongs in the Hall, and that vote does count. Not sending in the ballot would be abstaining from a responsibility.
Among the public ballots, nearly two dozen have voted for candidates, but not Ortiz. That has the same impact as a blank ballot on Ortiz’s chances. Not being named on a ballot is not being named on a ballot. It means three other voters have to tab you to get to 75 percent and negate the impact of your absence on any ballot.
This is probably a good time to mention that I have voted for nearly a quarter of a century and did again this year. I have never sent in a blank ballot. As I do annually, I will reveal my ballot the day of the election, because transparency in this process is important — the candidates and the fans should know who is voting and why they voted that way. I appreciate all the tracking work done, and I think it adds interest and intrigue, but if everyone revealed their ballot early, there would be zero juice on election day.
Understand that this is not a binary vote, like Democrat vs. Republican, where one is going to be mayor or governor or president. Each voter can choose anywhere from 0 to 10 candidates, which means there are all kinds of ranges of outcomes. But the biggest issue is the 75 percent threshold.
It is hard to get three out of four friends to agree where to go to dinner. Now try to get a few hundred people to determine what they think of whether to vote for candidates with steroid clouds, especially when those clouds come in different sizes. Factor in those who think the Hall of Fame should be small — the best 1 percent of players ever, roughly — and those who think it should be larger and spread to the top 2 or 3 or perhaps even 4 percent. Do you favor old stats or modern analytics or a cocktail?
Last year no candidate amassed the requisite 75 percent, but four bettered 50 percent — a total with which most mayoral, gubernatorial and presidential candidates would be thrilled. Curt Schilling received 71.1 percent of the vote, then blasted the electors. So he was painting broadly a group that by more than 7 out of 10 thought he should be in the Hall. This year’s tracking had six candidates at 56 percent or more and two others close to 50 percent. If election was about a majority, there would be multiple Hall of Famers this year.
But, again, it is hard to get 75 percent of folks to agree who is a Hall of Famer, which would be true if you threw out the writers (which will be screamed loudly next Tuesday) and brought in ex-players or fans or announcers or people whose last name ends in a “T.” If the Hall wants more players elected, it can lower the standard to 50 percent. Or it can adopt a system like the Football Hall of Fame, which in its “current ground rules [does] stipulate that between four and eight new members will be selected each year.”
But in the current rules you are asked to vote for who on the ballot you think is a Hall of Famer. That’s what each voter should do. There is no perfect ballot, except to yourself. Understand that checking or not checking, say, Alex Rodriguez will cause a large furor. I don’t look at that as the bad news. I think it is great that people care so much.
In return, the fans deserve our best efforts to study the subject matter and vote our true beliefs. If that is no one, then vote for no one.
