This is a very important election, as one of our backlogged candidates will finally get the keys to the exectutive washroom.
So let’s try to be very observant of our ‘best practices’ this week, including explaining votes that deviate wildly from the consensus, especially when you don’t vote for a returning top 10 guy. That would be: Joe Start, Pud Galvin, Bid McPhee, Cal McVey, Charlie Bennett, Harry Stovey, Jimmy Ryan, Frank Grant, Hugh Duffy and Sam Thompson. I know it sounds like a formality, but more than once I’ve been in the middle of explaining my ballot when I’ve realized I really don’t have a great justification for putting a guy in this particular spot, and I’ve adjusted. Kind of like the practice of forcing sports franchises to interview minority coaches. Sometimes, once you get the guy in there, you realize he’s a damn good candidate and you might not have otherwise even bothered to interview him.
Big vote this week, if you are in the middle of any relevant research, or haven’t reviewed your ballot in awhile, this is the week to take a second look. In 1906 a similar ballot was decided by 8.5 points. The following year, one of the two people that left the runner-up off moved him to #6 after reconsidering the evidence. Let’s avoid having that happen again, this time let’s all take an extra minute to review the arguments for an against the top candidates.
Posted: September 22, 2003 at 02:26 PM | 122 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark