But sometimes I have to be talked into a player and when there are more candidates on the ballot, I am less willing to listen.
I guess IMO if you have to be "talked into a player" then they aren't HOF worthy.
I am just playing the other side of the argument as I understand that sometimes you don't know how good a guy was until you get presented the argument of why they deserve it. There are quite a few guys that have a lot better numbers than the impression of just watching a guy play provides so you do kind of need to be "talked" into it.
I just think with the way society has moved over the years (participation trophy mentality) it has a tendency to dilute what a HOF'er should be. It is a tough decision for sure but I think there is a lot of inconsistency in the voters (and I mean to themselves not across all voters) and that is what irks me a bit.
ETA: I think that is why the original statement I quoted is so irksome. If I had a vote, I would vote a guy in his first year and if I didn't I wouldn't ever vote him in. Nothing should change between year 1 and year 10 (or however many years they are eligible). If I am a voter my job is to do my due diligence on a guy the first time he is eligible. So if he didn't make the cut he would never make the cut.