There are two sites that I routinely check every day.  One, of course, is Bill James Online.  I like to see if there are new articles, new "Hey Bills", new entries in the Reader Posts, etc. 

The second one is Joe Posnanski’s blog.  Bill is my favorite writer, but Posnanski’s right up there too.  I enjoy reading his entries and the logical and thoughtful approach that he takes with the various subject matters, and he’s obviously very skilled at his craft. 

He writes a lot about the Baseball Hall of Fame, which is certainly one of my favorite subjects as well.  The other day, he posted some thoughts and background on a topic that tends to come up around this time every year – the fact that you never see anyone unanimously elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.  He’s written about this before, and it’s a popular topic. 

Actually, as he points out….it may not be technically true, because the special election of Lou Gehrig was reportedly unanimous, but there’s speculation that may not have been the case.  I don’t know if we’ll ever know for sure.  And, as I like to point out, there have been at least 3 unanimous selections to the Hall of Fame, and you know them well.  Their names are Joe Torre, Tony La Russa, and Bobby Cox.   They were named on all 16 ballots from the 2014 Expansion Era Committee. 

Of course, that’s not what everyone means.  When they refer to unanimous election, they’re talking about the BBWAA vote.  Every year, we get to hear the same complaints from people who post comments after articles like this   Paraphrasing a few sentiments from the public:

"How could Maddux not have been unanimous?  It’s an outrage"

"I guess if Mays wasn’t unanimous, no one should be"

"Someone refusing to vote for Aaron should have his voting privilege revoked".

"Maybe Jeter will be the first one to be unanimously elected!"

And on and on.  People complain about the process, about the voters, about the "keepers of the sanctity of the non-unanimous membership". 

These reactions puzzle me.  Why should we care if someone’s unanimously elected to anything?  Does that really matter?  The Hall of Fame is an honor, the highest honor in baseball.  That’s not good enough?  Do you really have to have zero dissenters to adequately honor someone?

This appears to be specific to baseball.  You don’t hear about this in any other sport.  And I think the reasons are clear:

1)      The voting in the other sports’ Halls of Fame is anonymous.  You may know who the voters are, but they tend to be committees, and the actual votes are not made public.

2)      There are many, many more people voting in Baseball's Hall of Fame election.

A while back, I wrote an article ("Rules of Enshriment") reviewing and comparing the 4 major sports Halls of Fame in terms of their election process.  Baseball stands apart from the others in many key features.  The contrast in the number of voters is striking:

549 voters vs. 18, 24, and 46.  That’s a big part of it, right there.  Do we really expect 549 voters to agree 100% on anything?

·         If you gathered 549 movie buffs in one place and forced them to watch Robert De Niro and Pauly Shore and vote on who was the better actor, I suspect a few would opine that "You know, ‘Encino Man’ is an underrated flick."

·         If you had 549 music experts listen to Ray Charles singing "America the Beautiful" and then listen to Roseanne Barr’s rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" and vote on which one is more moving, I suspect a few would say "You know, when Roseanne grabbed her crotch and spit on the ground, it brought a tear to my eye".

·         If you had 549 food critics and asked them whether they preferred to eat a nice filet mignon or Spam, I suspect a handful might opt for the one in the pull-top can.

The point is, with that many voters, unanimity becomes exceptionally tough, regardless of how strong someone’s case is.  The other sports, with much smaller voting bodies, have a much greater chance of having unanimous results.  But, again….they don’t care about that.  The votes are not disclosed….only the results are known.  When Tom Brady eventually comes up for election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, we won’t know if all 46 voters agree.  It won’t matter.  The only thing we’ll know for sure is that, when his time comes, he’ll be joined by somewhere between 3 and 7 other individuals that year, and he’ll become a member in good standing of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  That’s all.  And no one will know or care about unanimity.

So, Baseball’s inability to provide unanimous results is embedded in the structure itself.  They could reduce the number of voters significantly.  They could make the votes anonymous, and they don’t have to announce the vote totals. 

But, you know what?  It’s not a bad thing at all.  I think this comes under the heading of "there is no such thing as bad press".  I suspect more is written about the Baseball Hall of Fame than the other 3 major sports’ Halls of Fame combined.  Maybe baseball fans are more passionate about their Hall than the others are.  Or, maybe the "controversies" feed that passion and shine more attention on the Baseball Hall of Fame vs. the others.  I’m not sure.

But, I am sure of one thing.  It will matter to me not one whit that, in a short while from now, Ken Griffey Jr. will end up not receiving everyone’s vote.  It’s not a standard that means anything.  It won’t matter to me whether he gets 85% or 90% or 95% or 99.9%.  The only things that matter to me is that he will be elected, and I’ll get the chance to re-live his exploits and cheer him once again.   The actual vote results…..I’ll leave that for the accountants to worry about.  I’ll be too busy celebrating his career, his successes, and his inclusion in a club that only about 1% of all of the players in Major League history have achieved. 

Congratulations in advance, Junior.  And here’s hoping that (at least) Mike Piazza joins you on the stage.