A excuse I read that some writers are saying is okay is if they gave up the Griffey vote to keep Jim Edmonds above the 5% threshold because you know Griffey was a automatic. How stupid is that?
It's beyond dumb. Same way it's dumb to keep guys on the ballot for 15 years. To me, if a player isn't selected in on the first year of eligibility he shouldn't be voted in after that. It waters it down.
Griffey was an amazing player. I wonder how much more amazing and much longer he could have retained it had he took better cared of himself (weight) My Mets loving heart is giving Piazza the benefit of the doubt when it comes to steroids.
The only thing I've been able to come up with is that those 3 voters were trying to save someone else they believe should be in the HoF but were at risk of falling off the ballot due to a low %. So if I were 1 of the 3, I know Griffey is getting into the HoF beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why use a vote on someone who is basically a lock? I am essentially getting 11 votes because I can then use 1 of my votes (meant for Griffey Jr.) to save another player. Edit: OK I read some other posts which do say above was offered a reason. It's reasonable, I wouldn't have done it that way. But remember, the voting process was changed. The voters can't do down the line and vote 'Yes' or 'No' anymore. They only get 10 'Yes' votes now.
Ok but let's take it to the extreme. What if all 475 voters decided to use that strategy? Griffey doesn't get in and is off the ballot forever. Besides, why does Jim Edmonds or a guy like Eckstein need to stay on the ballot? They're never going to be close to getting in. Seems like a silly reason. _