Recently, baseball has had some big names retiring from the game. After dealing with a combination of old age, injuries, and their inability to find a job they’ve decided to close out their successful careers. After seeing all this in the news, it got me to wondering what are the qualifications for getting into the Hall of Fame?

It used to be a very standard process. If you achieved certain milestones, it meant automatic admission into the hall, but it seems as though things have changed. With the evolution of steroids affecting player’s performances, it’s left the history books full of tarnished numbers.

I think this current voting process needs to be blown up and re-created. You have young writers voting on whether or not Bert Blyleven should be voted into the Hall of Fame? Does this make sense? Some may not have been around when he played Major League Baseball. In addition, I don’t believe the writers should be involved in the voting process. Their too close to the players at times and some have shown to harbor ill will toward them later on when their up for election into the Hall of Fame. I would like to see a collective group make up of Managers, Announcers, and certain established Writers. A group that would included Vin Scully, Earl Weaver, Bob Costas, Peter Gammons and Sparky Anderson.

In regards to the voting on players from the steroids era, there needs to be some clear cut definition on how to go about this. In recent years, any player who has been suspected of taking steroids during their playing days doesn’t get close to enough votes. Should this be happening? How can Major League Baseball still recognize the accomplishments of Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and others when the Baseball Writers fail to vote them into the Hall of Fame?

As long as the baseball record books are filled with all their accomplishments, I do believe they should be allowed into the Hall of Fame just not in the normal set up. I would separate these ballplayers connected to steroids from the clean players and make mention of the steroids part in the description on their plaque. This would allow their achievements to get celebrated while also acknowledging the era in which they played.

What’s the alternative to this option? Major League Baseball deletes these players from the record books. Meaning Hank Aaron would still be the All-Time Home Run King and Roger Maris would still hold the individual season record. You can’t have it both ways in paying attention to their numbers one minute and ignoring them the next.

Unfortunately, this has given truly clean players a bad name now. There gets to be questions about certain players who are really clean. Over the last year, I have actually heard some people question whether or not Frank Thomas and Jim Thome should be in the Hall of Fame which is ridiculous. They have both put up statistics which that are worthy of Hall of Fame recognition and have done it the right way.

So what are numbers worthy of the Hall of Fame? I am truly amazed when I hear about some of the players that are talked about as far as getting into the hall. One of them is Barry Larkin of the Cincinnati Reds. Over the course of his career he’s been a very good player, but he’s not even close to being a Hall of Fame player. He’s got one ring and one MVP along with some very nice stats, but he belongs in the same grouping with Dale Murphy, Fred McGriff, Jose Canseco and others. These are very good players, but just not Hall of Famers. If it was up to me, I wouldn’t have Ozzie Smith in the Hall of Fame either. I’m sorry; you have to accomplish more than he did from an offensive standpoint. I understand he’s one of the greatest defensive players in the history of the game, but he had no offensive achievement that was at all significant. At that rate, you might as well put Otis Nixon in the Hall of Fame.

For admittance into the hall, I believe many of the same milestones should be kept in place while keeping in mind certain circumstances that either enhances or hinders their chances. For example, I recently had a conversation with my dad about Ron Santo’s chances for getting into the Hall of Fame. He’s of the belief that he should be in there because of the statistics he put up. His numbers actually compare or surpass those of Brooks Robinson’s career numbers, but Robinson was in the postseason a number of times while Santo never did. On this topic my mind gets made up on this thought. The Chicago Cubs teams from 1967-1974 currently have three Hall of Famers off those teams. By adding Ron Santo to the Hall of Fame you’d be adding a fourth. How can you justify having four Hall of Famers of a team that never made the postseason?

I cannot go into this topic without mentioning Pete Rose. By now, everyone knows that he’s been banned from baseball for betting on games while he was managing. His ban from baseball also includes his omission from the ballot for Hall of Fame voting. This is a decision that baseball has gotten wrong. The Hall of Fame is supposed to celebrate the history of the game while appreciating individual accomplishments. Pete Rose ended his career with many great statistics highlighted by becoming the All-Time Hits Leader. When looking at his numbers and the way he played the game, he should be in the Hall of Fame. Now I don’t want to ignore his faults. While I would put him into the hall, I’d keep him banned from the game of baseball.

The Hall of Fame should include the truly great players.