The 2022 Major League Baseball Hall of fame class was announced this week and the only player that will be inducted this summer is Boston Red Sock legend, David Ortiz. But once again the headlines from the recent HOF voting are about the rejection of Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez. The one thing that keeps these stars out of the HOF is the topic of Steroids.
Before I dive into that I do want to acknowledge Ortiz for being inducted into the Hall of Fame and as a diehard Yankees fan, I must admit that he is one of the clutches hitters I have ever seen and I would also like to think that 2004 never happened….. But every time he came to the plate in a big situation my heart would skip a few times with the fear that he was going to come through once again and often times he did.
Ortiz was linked to steroids in 2003 because of allegedly failing a test the league, however, did not start suspending players for steroids until the 2004 season and the test that Ortiz took was not supposed to be released to the public. So why did the writers ignore the Mitchell report, well I think it’s because after 2003 Ortiz was tested every year and multiple times a year and never failed a test. At the end of the day in my eyes, the voters got it right putting Ortiz in the HOF.
But with the question of steroids many looks at this as hypocritical as Ortiz was linked to it but from an unofficial test that could have been a false positive but since there are reports that he did test positive it angers fans that the voters ignored the reports and put Ortiz in any way while shunning guys like Bonds, Clemens, and other stars that were linked to using steroids.
My personal opinion of guys that are linked to steroids or tested positive for steroids should they be in the HOF, well, I honestly see both sides of the argument. I do see the argument that it’s not fair to induct players that have been linked to cheating when they are guys that played the game right and never broken the rules.
But at the same time players like Bonds, Sosa, and Mark McGuire saved the game of baseball. After the lockout in 1994 baseball was a dying sport and what those players did was put the butts back into the seats and the eyes glued to the television. They might have put in steroids on the banned substance list back in the early ’90s but didn’t even start testing until 2003, which means MLB didn’t care.
As I’ve been saying for years baseball all of sudden creates a narrative that if you used steroids you are basically outlawed but in other sports, nobody cares. For all the people that scream and shout at the players who are linked or tested positive for steroids and want them outlawed and refuse to put them in the HOF do they feel the same about players in other sports that have used because I never hear anybody complain about a Football player that test positives for PED’s.
Nobody cares when that happens but in Baseball as soon as a player test positive people are outraged I just don’t get it. Part of this could be because of the narrative that MLB itself has created when it comes to steroids since they made it into a big deal I mean they got congress involved in it….. You don’t hear about steroids users in the NFL and NBA and that’s not because it doesn’t happen because it does, it’s just when it happens nobody talks about it like they would if it was in Major League Baseball.
I really do see both sides of the argument and I do see why voters chose not to elect those that are linked to steroids but if I did have a vote guys like Bonds would be getting my vote.
Now, a player that should be in the HOF that has nothing to do with steroids is Curt Schillings and to see that he went from 70 percent of the vote down to 57 percent is flat out ridiculous. Again I am a Yankees fans I have had my heart ripped out by Schilling so I have no biased when I say this but that man should be in the Hall of Fame.
The reason he isn’t has nothing to do with his performance as a player he is being cast out from his outspoken political beliefs and viewpoints. Listen I am not saying what he says you have to agree with because quite frankly I don’t care what his opinions are and you don’t have to like him to see that his numbers are worthy of being in the HOF. The HOF is about what the player did during his career not what he said that made some people mad.
Writers are supposed to be objective, but the sad truth is they are not, and if you want to argue against that you are kidding yourself if you think that the writers who are the voters are objective just look at the idiot writer who said he wouldn’t vote for Aaron Rodgers to be MVP because he says he is a “Jerk”. What does that have to do with performance on the field? That’s right nothing but that proves that these writers that have a vote and too much power do not think objectively, and by the way, I am not the biggest Rodgers supporter anymore either but again it proves my point that the voters allow personal feelings into their decision making.
The voters keeping Schilling out and his voting percentage aren’t because of his playing career its because they don’t like what he has said. Look at the reason Terrell Owens was not a first ballad HOF it’s not because of his playing career its because he rubbed people the wrong way. The voters wanted to be spiteful or difficult because everyone knows TO had first ballad HOF numbers they wanted to show their power and that is what is happening to Schilling, the voters don’t like what he is saying so they are keeping him out.
It’s a flawed system and at the end of the day, the voters need to stop putting their personal feelings into their voting decision and actually do what they are supposed to do and do it objectively, and if they can’t maybe it is time to find a new HOF voting system.
