I think you make a mistake when you assume that a ballot with more votes means the voter is a Big Hall person.

Let's say person A votes for 6 people and all are over the threshold for a median HoF player. Person B votes for 4 people, but the quality is scattered so that a couple happen to be over (eg Biggio and Piazza) and a couple are below (eg Morris and Smith).

I think in that scenario, which seems to likely have happened a fair amount based on the data that you presented, the A voter with more selections actually has a more stringent requirement for election than the B voter.

The way that I think about the idea of a Big Hall or a Small Hall, I would say voter B was much more of a Big Hall person because despite voting for fewer players he is lowering the overall standard for admission. And while he wants fewer people in the Hall this year, over time the lowering of standards will lead to more and more players of lower quality entering a Bigger Hall. Tony Perez begets Jime Rice begets whomever.

I disagree that the baseball community needs to discuss rule changes in the voting process. It's the Baseball Hall of Fame that needs to take a look what it wants to be. If it wants to be a static time capsule that takes only the "good" (while of course ignoring the past bad), then it is well on its way. If it wants to be a living museum of the history of the game, then it will look at ways to change...to make sure that the past 25+ years are not ignored.

BBWAA can be a part of the conversation, but only after the BHoF makes up its mind on what it wants to be. The public at large will be a bigger factor as the BHoF economic situation becomes more acute.

For my part, I dislike the lack of leadership from the BHoF on the character/steroid issue and so they will not be receiving money from me until they decide on something.

I agree the 10 player limit had no effect this year. Jack Morris's qualifications generated polarizing view points. I can't imagine some voters were so on the fence about him, that he would have been their 11th pick.

With another big cache of players coming on the ballot next year, however, some big names are going to be blown away. That is players who were better than a large percentage of the players already in the Hall, will not get enough support to stay on the ballot another year. There are, at least, 10 of those guys on the ballot already.

On a side point, as a Tigers fan, I'm actually hoping Trammell and Morris don't make it as BBWAA inductees unless Whitaker gets in the same year by the Veterans committee.

We could only hope that every media person in the country (including a few writers at BP) who are campaigning for increasing the 10 player limit read your well-researced article.

Nice article.

I think that having all ballots made public would be beneficial for the process. It might make those casting the ballots more accountable and hopefully would eliminate a lot of the frivolous votes.

For Clemens and Bonds, when you are discussing big hall/small hall, isn't the difference between those who voted for them and against entirely in Clemens and Bonds?

Didn't Clemens and Bonds voters vote for 4.6 non-Clemens/Bonds people (about) and non-C/B voters vote for 5.5?

We know the people who didn't vote for C/B are doing mostly for PED reasons (and the first ballot people) -- so aren't most C/B voters actually voting for less people on merit once we ignore PED users?

I enjoyed this study and the points it makes, but as for the point of writers running out of room and hitting the limit before being able to check off Jack Morris, that assumes they're ranking them in order and won't deviate from that. I'd think that writers might make more of an effort to include someone if the player was close to making it, and if the player was running out of time. Both apply to Morris this year (and next).

Make the voting rules changes as follows:

A BBWAA change from a ten years minimum to a five years minimum.

A requirement for all voters to include at LEAST five names no matter what.

Voters who do not turn in a ballot or turn one in with less than five names are not only forbidden from voting again, but their names are publicly disclosed so we know the curmudgeons and naysayers are exposed and removed.

Look, I wouldn't have voted for the PED-linked guys either, but you cannot tell me that a voter with any sense couldn't find five guys to vote for, heck, TEN guys to vote for.

Finally, in a year where not one player hits the minimum percentage, the player with the highest percentage gets in.

Three modest proposals to help fix the Hall of Fame.
1. Nobody may vote for the Hall of Fame that no longer actively covers or demonstrably associates with the game of baseball.
2. Writers may vote for as many candidates in a given year as they feel are worthy.
3. All ballots must be made public. All writers must explain their selection in a column that will run on the Baseball Writer's Association website and on their own paper/website/magazine.