Snyder's Soapbox: The Baseball Hall of Fame works exactly like it's supposed to

Welcome to Snyder's Soapbox! Here, I pontificate about matters related to Major League Baseball on a weekly basis. Some of the topics will be pressing matters, some might seem insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and most will be somewhere in between. The good thing about this website is that it's free, and you are allowed to click away. If you stay, you'll get smarter, though. That's a money-back guarantee. Let's get to it.

Among other things, December in the baseball world is the time to discuss the Baseball Hall of Fame. There's an Era Committee vote and BBWAA Hall of Fame ballots are due by Dec. 31. And discussing the Hall of Fame these days means fights on social media platforms. Everything is so dramatic and needlessly dialed all the way up to 100. 

First off, no, the Hall of Fame most certainly isn't a "joke" just because it doesn't have everything perfectly how you want it.

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens aren't in, which means it's a joke!

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens don't deserve to be in and it's a joke that they're even being discussed!

Jeff Kent made the Hall of Fame. What a joke. 

It's a joke that Kent wasn't already in since he's the all-time leader in home runs by a second baseman. 

Yeah, but it was already a joke when Scott Rolen got in, so whatever.

You clown, Rolen definitely deserved to make it!

It's embarrassing that Fred McGriff got in but Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly can't make it! 

Murphy and Mattingly are Hall of the Very Good types, they don't belong! 

Oh, and of course, "writers shouldn't vote for this." 

Yeah, we should. 

No, we didn't play in the majors, but we're the ones who study the statistics and also talk to players about their peers. If you don't think we're qualified, you're entitled to your opinion, but who is? The players? You throw fits every year about the All-Star Game selections that the players make. 

Another thing that needs to go is when people say, "this doesn't make any sense" just because they disagree. For example, my line drawn on any PED-related player is that I won't vote for him if he was suspended by the league once there was a Joint Drug Agreement in place. If not, fair game. So I would've been a yes on Bonds and Clemens and I'm a no on A-Rod. Even if you don't like the argument, which is totally fair and fine, you don't get to tell me that "it doesn't make sense." Yes, it does. You just disagree with my stance. There's a difference. 

It's a microcosm of the larger issue at hand here. So many people have decided that their opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees is ignorant or nefarious or doesn't deserve a vote or whatever. 

How about a little respectful disagreement? 

I think Kent is a perfectly defensible Hall of Fame selection. He was one of the greatest sluggers ever among second basemen. His WAR is a bit less than average for a Hall of Famer at the position, but there's room for all types of Hall of Famers. Yes, I believe Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker should be in, but they weren't on this ballot. That doesn't make the system broken. It makes it imperfect. 

While we're here, let's also discuss a subsection of people who will make a point to tell you how much they definitely don't even care about the Hall of Fame. It's perfectly fine if you don't care about it, but a word to the wise: If you don't care about something, you don't spend hours arguing about it. For example, I don't care about, say, soap operas. So I never discuss them. See? It's easy. If you don't care, get outta here and stop talking about it.

Anyway ... 

I saw a bunch of people pointing out that Bonds was getting walked so many times -- many intentionally -- because teams in the early 2000s would rather face Kent than Bonds. That's a fair point in favor of Bonds. I don't think it detracts from Kent at all because Bonds in those years was the greatest hitter in the history of the sport. No team would have rather faced Bonds than any other player.

And if you disagree with me and think Kent is not a defensible selection, that's fine. I respect your stance. 

I don't respect the nonstop negativity about the Hall of Fame process, again, just because it isn't perfectly tailored to what you think it is supposed to be. 

People lecture me on social media about this all the time. "The Hall of Fame isn't supposed to be ... " or "the Hall of Fame is supposed to be ... "

No, you don't get to decide that. Neither do I. 

What I do get to decide is to tell everyone to stop whining so much about a museum. You don't need to see plaques for Bonds and Clemens to know how great they were and you sure aren't harmed by plaques for McGriff and Rolen and Kent and Harold Baines. 

The Baseball Hall of Fame is positive in nature. I like it. I like discussing it. Please join me in positivity.