By Paul Semendinger
January 22, 2025
***
I said, years ago, that Ichiro should be a unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame. Ichiro's Hall of Fame case is solid. There were not ten more worthy candidates on the ballot. How can a baseball writer, who covers the game for a living, not see that Ichiro Suzuki was a Hall of Fame player?
After the announcement was made last night, it turns out that one voter didn't vote for him. One.
I disagree with the writer who left Ichiro off his or her ballot, but if the writer had a legitimate reason, I'd love to know it. I believe the writer has a responsibility for explaining this non-vote.
I know some will say that the writer wants to stear clear of controversy, but by not selecting Ibchiro, that writer actually created controversy.
I know some will say that a voter has the right to a private vote - and in most instance I agree, but not in this. The writer who did not vote for Ichiro is a public figure and has been for long enough to get into the BBWAA and long enough to gain the very special honor of having a Hall of Fame vote. As a writer, that person had to take a stand on any number of situations throughout his or her career. One doesn't get to this point without being a person with opinions who also shares those opinions and earns praise and faces criticism for those opinions. This is no different. That person had made a living writing about the sport. Now that person wants to be in the shadows? It shouldn't work that way. It cannot.
As fans, we have the right to know the logic behind the non-vote. This will allow us to better assess that writer's perspectives on other issues that writer will pontificate on.
By not voting for Ichiro, as the one non-vote, that writer created a story that Ichiro have to answer to forever. Through no fault of his own, people will always ask Ichiro Suzuki how it feels to fall one vote short of a perfect ballot. This is unfair to him just as it is unfair to Derek Jeter Those players have to answer about a writer who took a stand and then hid and ran from the stand he or she took.
To be very clear, and very fair, there is the possibility that the reason the writer didn't vote for Ichiro is a good one. "I only had ten votes and I felt these other players were more deserving because..." or "I wanted to do my best to help Player X or Player Y stay on the ballot for another year," or whatever. There had to be some logic behind the vote - that writer should share the logic with us so we can understand - and then move on. The story only lives when the writer remains in the shadows and doesn't answer for this.
The story isn't necessarily the non-vote, it's the fact that the person didn't explain the non-vote. That's the problem. That writer created a story. That story took focus away from the honors ther Ichiro, CC Sabathia, and Billy Wagner deserve. Hiding from that non-vote is selfish. And because it's annonymous, it is also cowardly. If the person would stand behind the vote, the issue would actually go away. Fans would either agree with the rationale or not, but there would, at least be a reason. With no reason, the story will always be a part of Ichiro's Hall of Fame legacy - and that isn't fair.
Along those same lines, if the writer doesn't have a clear reason for not voting for Ichiro Suzuki, the BBWAA should consider whether that person truly deserves the honor of voting for the Hall of Fame (or other awards). Part of this process is the very real assumption and belief that the people tasks with voting for awards and honors actually follow and understand the game.
Again, a baseball writer makes his or her living sharing opinions. In one of the biggest opinions that person has now made, that person has (as of the writing of this article) remained quiet. It shouldn't be that way. At all.
I write almost daily here. I don't hide behind a pen name. I share my thoughts. I reply to the comments from our readers. We engage in honest, open, and fair debates and discussions. Sometimes, as we talk, the people in the comments help me see things more clearly. Sometimes they help me change my mind. But I don't hide form what I write. I don't delete old columns. We all make mistakes, but when we write for a living (or as a hobby, I certainly don't make a living from this), we need to stand behidn what we write, explain our thinking, face the criticism, as well as the praise. This article wouldn't carry as much weight if I hid behind a fake name or didn't stand by my words.
That writer tarnished what should have been a celebratory day for three great baseball players. That person has created a new story around Ichiro Suzuki. That writer also took a special honor away from one of baseball's most special players (and ironically, the one who most loves the Hall of Fame as is demonstrated by his frequesnt visits there).
I hope the writer steps up and puts this all to rest. That would be the noble and right thing to do.
NOTE - If you have issues with the comments, I am having them too. It is very frustrating. The issue is on Wix's end. Complain to them if you'd like. They've been doing a poor job lately.
***
I figured I'd select some (clean) tweets that are as disappointed as I am that Ichiro lost a great honor by one vote. Those tweets can be found below:
My point driven home very clearly -
Days later, Ichiro still talking about the one vote. (See link below) This will follow him forever, not because of something he did, but because one writer decided to not vote for him, and remain silent. It's the remaining in the shadows point that is the problem.
A sportswriter expects others to back-up decisions, but this person refuses to. That writer has zero credibility, but still expects others to read his or her work and get paid to write.
https://nypost.com/2025/01/23/sports/ichiro-wants-to-have-a-drink-with-hall-of-fame-voter-who-didnt-pick-him/
The HOF is hard for me to take seriously until they put their pettiness aside and elect Albert Belle.
First, the HoF should require that voters not be anonymous. If you want to be anonymous, don't be an HoF voter. However, for now, anonymity is the rule, and thus no voter is obliged to make his or her vote public.
Second, it used to be that making the HoF at any point was the greatest honor. Then it became making it on the first ballot. Being a first-ballot HoF'er, that was now the greatest honor. That was stupid -- making the HoF is the greatest honor -- but as we well know, the public is colossally stupid. Then Rivera was elected unanimously. Now the greatest honor is unanimous election in your first year on the ballot, which …
I suspect this is the same writer who didn't vote for Jeter!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... 😫
Maybe the writer doesn't like Japanese folks (maybe he lost relatives in WW2), or foreigners in general.