One more opinion on the Baseball Hall of Fame

By Taylor on January 11, 2013

If you pay attention to baseball, (which I assume you do, otherwise you may be here to purchase some USDA Choice) you’ve seen hundreds of articles and/or thousands of tweets about everyone’s opinion on the balloting for the Hall of Fame. Well the results finally came out and no one was selected to the Hall this year – the first time since 1996. Considering the all-time home runs leader and the arguably the best pitcher from 1985 to 2005 were eligible, this would normally be somewhat unusual. But since the early-mid 90s (and most likely earlier) some baseball players (maybe all of them) started taking the juice, beef ‘roids, “enhancers”, clear and the cream, and whatever else someone could speculate on. This allegedly enabled them to unfairly perform at levels they wouldn’t have otherwise attained. You know this story, as the refrain has been sung for the past five years or so.

Last year, I wrote my opinion on this and it hasn’t really changed. Baseball writers have seemingly chosen to die on the hill of speculated steroid use. Was Barry Bonds ever suspended by MLB for steroids? Was Roger Clemens? Hell, even if they were once, does that mean that nothing they accomplished means anything? My answer to all those questions is no. Baseball has been through many eras and each had their own dark sides. Black players couldn’t play in the 1920’s and 30’s. Does that mean that Lou Gehrig wouldn’t have accomplished what he did? I have no idea. And neither do any of the writers voting for the Hall. If I had a vote for the Hall, (which I never will so it doesn’t really matter) I would vote for anybody who passed the test of “Was he one the best players at his position during the time he played?” That’s who belongs in the Hall of Fame. No more, no less. To do otherwise is to change what it means to be inducted.

That’s my opinion – it’s worth what you paid for it.