The whole focus on a unanimous vote is about the writers making this about the writers. Used to be making it on the first ballot was the biggest thing. Someone was "a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer." Now it must be unanimous, or the player is slighted. As long as you are above 75 percent, it doesn't matter. It's not like there is a difference between Ralph Kiner's 75 percent and Ichiro's 99.7. They're both Hall of Famers. Should everyone vote for the obvious players? Of course they should. Does it really matter? Not as long as they reach 75 percent. Buster Olney's podcast this week was all about the voting and there was much venting about seeking out the one holdout and doing Lord knows what to him or her. When we start demanding unanimous collective thought, that's a problem. "We need to all think the exact same way and outliers will be ostracized" is a bad way to go. Celebrate the 99.7 percent who got it right. Olney also went off on a rant about making all the ballots public and how sports journalists should demand transparancy. Sure. Sports journalists are by far the largest group that won't name sources - "a person familiar with the Mets' thinking..." -- so there's no way they'll want transparency. I did notice that ARod, Manny and the other juicers are going nowhere in the voting.Wonder if at some point the Hall will convene a committee and look at that era and figure out what to do with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, Arod and the like.