Dec 26, 2013, 8:29 AM EST
I think my least favorite type of baseball columns are the ones in which the writer talks about the heavy, heavy burden of his Hall of Fame vote. We’re baseball writers for Pete’s sake. We’re not making life or death decisions. Not that you’d know it from some of these pieces, though. Check out Steve Simmons’ heavy, heavy burden:
Every year seems to get more difficult, more complicated, more conflicted and less certain about voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame and every year I make a list and scratch names off it, then make another list and do the same again. All the while, wrestling with what you perceive to be right and wrong, what your own beliefs happens to be, angry that baseball has left the writers to play the part of jury and all the while trying to find balance between what you believe, what you witnessed, what you think you know, what prejudices you may have, real or imagined, what you have determined statistically — with new stats and old stats.
What follows are several paragraphs of PED/Hall of Fame/Oh-my-this-is-so-morally-vexing wankery. After which Simmons decides that he can’t vote for PED guys for the Hall of Fame. Which is fine if that’s how you roll with the PED issue. I disagree with it, but as long as someone is consistent with their approach and doesn’t make baseless assumptions and crap, all I’ll do is disagree. It won’t get me too bent out of shape.
But what I really don’t get is, if you are an anti-PED voter, what’s so hard about this? If anything, it should be pretty easy. You’ve made a moral judgment, apply it. All of the self-flagellation about it seems like silly drama designed to fill column inches.
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (101)
- The politics of “The Cardinal Way” (67)
- Robinson Cano wants the Mariners to bring in Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana (64)
- Reporter calls Ian Kinsler as self-absorbed as A-Rod (60)