why do sportswriters vote for someone for the HOF on their second, third and so on but not first ballot?

Question

their numbers don't change

it shouldn't matter if they are voted first or last ballot, they are either a hall of famer or not?

Answer 1

It's their petty little way of showing who they believe is among the "true elite." Personally, I think it's silly and agree that if a player is good enough to be voted in at any point, then why not his first year on the ballot?

This is the same type of thinking that has kept anyone from ever getting 100% of the vote. Consider all the great players in the Hall, and then consider that at least idiotic voter didn't bother voting for each of them.

Answer 2

One possibility is that they've simply changed their mind about him. I can see that happening for someone who's a "borderline" case. I used to think that Tim Raines and Bert Blyleven shouldn't be in the hall, but upon further study I changed my mind.

Another is that they think there is a distinction to being a "first ballot hall of famer".

Answer 3

I agree. And you know what? Once you're in the Hall no one cares if it was by 75% or 95% of the vote. Some folks put way too much emphasis on the percentages.

Answer 4

I agree completely. It is the writers arrogant and ineffective way to "punish" the players who they don't think are as good by making them wait an extra year or two.