January 25th, 2025 at 8:15 am 
by Jesse Pearce As you all know by now, Ichiro Suzuki was one vote short of a unanimous, first-ballot selection to the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame class of 2025.
There couldn’t be hanging chad, the ballots were old fashioned paper and pen/pencil. Were all of the mail ballots thoroughly checked; double and triple checked? There must have been a mistake!
Baseball journalists, commentators, and millions of fans are aghast and clamoring for the lone writer to step forward and explain how he/she committed the horrific error in judgment. We baseball fans are owed an explanation!
What then? Kick ’em out of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA)? Send ’em hate mail, messages and emails?
Even Ichiro wants a face-to-face explanation:
“This is a very special moment. I was able to receive many votes from the writers, and grateful for them, but there’s one writer that I wasn’t able to get a vote from. I would like to invite him over to my house, and we’ll have a drink together, and we’ll have a good chat.”
(Otto Greule)
Good grief people (and Ichiro), get a grip. The HOF ballot is a subjective vote by a bunch of baseball writers who may have never seen the players compete in the prime of their careers. These are not voters of one’s peers, they are writers who may have never played the game. Do Ichiro, the journalists, writers, and fans really think that he is more deserving of a unanimous vote than Willie Mays (94.7% of the vote – 23 did not vote for him), Ted Williams (93.4%), Ken Griffey Jr. (99.3%), Nolan Ryan (98.8%), Tony Gwynn (97.6%), or Sandy Koufax (only 86.9%)?
(Ron Cervenka)
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to demand an explanation from the writers who thought Carlos González (2 votes shy), Curtis Granderson (3 votes shy), and Troy Tulowitzki (4 votes shy) aren’t HOF worthy!
Give me a break – and stop whining! Ichiro is in the Hall of Fame – deservedly so, whether unanimously or not. Whining about it is sophomoric, and for Ichiro to invite the writer “to his house for a drink and good chat” is disrespectful of the great players before him who were not unanimous selections.
* * * * * *
Posted in 
Interesting piece, Jesse.
As you noted, many are wondering why the Babe Ruth of our generation wasn’t unanimously voted in. I, too, would like to know the logic of the lone descending voter.
To be brutally honest, in my opinion (for which I will probably receive some harsh criticism from my BBWAA friends) the BBWAA is archaic and obsolete. Players (et al.) should be enshrined into the sacred Halls of Cooperstown on a vote ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people,’ and not by a select group who are financially (or politically) motivated. Sadly, this will not happen in our lifetimes, or probably ever.
I completely disagree with the idea of having fans votes for the Hall of Fame. Many/most fans have not seen players from all teams play so it would likely end up being a popularity contest only.
Having the writers vote IS a lousy system but like Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Many of the votes already taken are disrespectful to the greats of the game. Mariano Rivera – who was brilliant, no argument – but was deserving of more votes than Ruth? Mays? C’mon, dumb voters. Maybe a partial fix is better vetting of the members of the BBWAA
You are right, of course. I was just venting (again).
Perusing the list of writers eligible to vote for HOF membership doesn’t give me a great deal of confidence in the current process — I have read articles from a few of these writers to question their thought process. If the HOF was confident in the process there would be no need to veterans committees to recommend and vote on players who were never elected by the baseball writers. IMO, they should return to an old process where there were run-off ballots that eliminated players who did not receive enough votes to qualify for final voting — e.g., a player like Curtis Granderson or Troy Tulowitzki would not even make it to the final voting. Although it would be cumbersome, MLB players who were peers of those being considered for 5 or more years would be polled for the original list of players. The baseball writers could only consider those players who were named by more than 30% of those votes.
I am blessed to have strolled the sacred Halls of Cooperstown. Although there are far more inductees that I never saw play than those that I did, it seemed that there were more questionable inductees from the last two or three decades than from prior to that. Obviously, just my opinion, but something I think about whenever the topic of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum comes up.
Spot on Ron! Both from regular voting and the veterans committee.
Apologies for typo that I just caught — after Gonzalez, Granderson, and Tulowitzki I included the word “shy” by mistake — leaving a confusing comment. They only received that number of votes (Gonzales – 2; Granderson – 3; Tulo – 4). My point, those writers who voted for them to be in the HOF should have to defend their votes more than the lone writer who failed to vote for Ichiro.