Heal thyselves, Hall voters

Someone named Steve Aschburner who used to cover baseball doesn’t get a Hall of Fame ballot any more, which is (understandably enough) frustrating for him. So he’s written a column that’s filled with frustration and various other unattractive qualities.

I wrote a column just yesterday about another longtime baseball writer/voter’s complaints, and don’t really have the stomach for doing that again (plus Craig’s already handled things quite well).

All that said, there is something really interesting in Aschburner’s column, because he did some actual research I hadn’t seen before, the relevance of which I will suggest in a moment.

As you probably know, it’s mostly “honorary” BBWAA members like Aschburner -- people who haven’t actually covered baseball in quite some time -- who were excised from the electorate.

Well, last time around they voted differently:

Aschburner’s point is that the process will necessarily suffer, because now the sports-drug guys should fare at least somewhat better. He considers that a bug. You might think it’s a feature. Either way, that’s not my point.

My point is that various pundits have been arguing that the Hall’s recent changes are designed to hurt the sports-drugs guys. That they’re obviously designed to do that. Maybe that alone.

But there have been only two real changes: excising old writers from the electorate, the great majority of whom have not and would never vote for those guys; and lowering the eligibility period from 15 years to 10.

Well, the first of those apparently helps the sports-drug guys, and the second probably hurts them.

Even Steven.

But here’s the thing: lowering the eligibility period really hurts the sports-drugs guys ONLY IF THE REMAINING VOTERS STILL DON’T VOTE FOR THEM.

So, yes. I will repeat something I wrote just yesterday: Voters, heal thyselves. Especially now that the Hall of Fame has done some of the work for you.