So the HOF wants voters to consider integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
How in the f*** do voters take that into consideration? I mean if you were the beat writer for a team, you might be around the team enough to get a decent take on someone's integrity, sportsmanship and character - but that limits you to players from that one team. Otherwise, you're going to go off 3rd party opinions, written articles - or simply your random gut opinion/perspective. That process seems to be extremely flawed, especially in today's age of s***** reporting and fake news (f***, we can't even get it straight on whether Schilling wore the shirt, or re-tweeted someone else wearing a shirt).
Even 'contributions to the team(s) on which the player played' is super vague. I mean if someone's a great player, he obviously contributed a lot to the teams he played on....or are they looking for the leadership quality? or mentorship? Many look at Russell Martin as this great leader and teammate - but was he? How the f*** would a voter know? Funny enough Jansen said Luke Maile helped him more than Martin ever did.
IMO, voters need to consider the quality of the information they have when deciding how to weigh a player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. It's probably different for every player - but for most, I have to think playing ability would be 90% of the consideration, with all those other factors making up about 10% - given most of the information you have on those matters is completely flawed.