2016 could be the start of a shift in HOF voters' attitudes

Demetrius Bell, SB Nation

Listen, we know it’s tough to catch up on everything happening in the baseball world each morning. There are all kinds of stories, rumors, game coverage and Vines of dudes getting hit in the beans every day. Trying to find all of it while on your way to work or sitting at your desk just isn’t easy. It’s OK, though, we’re going to do the heavy lifting for you each morning, and find the things you need to see from within the SB Nation baseball network as well as from elsewhere. Please hold your applause until the end, or at least until after you subscribe to the newsletter.

The Baseball Hall of Fame will announce the results of its 2016 election on this coming Wednesday, and while the focus should be (and probably will be) on guys like Ken Griffey Jr. and Trevor Hoffman possibly earning their way into the Hall of Fame, right now the focus is once again on the voters and the people who they are choosing to keep out of the Cooperstown institution. However, when it comes to this seemingly tireless debate, there appears to be a shift in the attitudes of voters and baseball writers, in general.

In December, we saw Ken Rosenthal pen a column in which he explained why he had finally decided to give Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens his Hall of Fame vote. Jerry Crasnick also felt compelled to do the same when he voted for the two faces most strongly connected with the Steroid Era. Then on Saturday, in response to a somewhat inflammatory article concerning the morals of certain players on the ballot, Buster Olney -- who doesn't participate in Hall of Fame voting anymore -- declared that now was the time for HOF voters to stop acting as "moral gatekeepers" and just vote for the best players on the ballot, regardless of their connections to PED usage.

Keep reading...


submit to reddit


What do you think?
Scroll down to comment below: