I was talking about this just this last weekend with the fantastic @pinetarkeyboard but at this point I think the HOF (more specifically the way we talk about it) feels toxic and harmful to baseball's popularity and growth. A perhaps dumb thread but I want to vent. 1/7

Like is it me, or has it the HOF discourse become so much less about building up or remembering a player + more about tearing a player down. I love seeing articles that make stirring arguments for our favorite players like Bobby Abreu or Scott Rolen. It's awesome + I love it. 2/7

I'm even okay with making an argument against a player, that's totally fair but I feel like we pick a player every year who becomes the, if this player gets elected then the HOF is joke, or if this guy get voted in, since he sucks then my guy should too. It's toxic. 3/7

Imagine last year if you were a Harold Baines fan growing up, or an Omar Visquel fan this year. I feel like I can't read an HOF argument on any subject that doesn't first seek out to make you feel dumb for ever loving one of those two players in the first place. 4/7

Debates are good and definitely fun, but is there a point where they become counter-productive? As a Clevelander I grew up watching Visquel + don't disagree he's a borderline case but the discourse around his HOF case makes me like baseball less not more. Is that the goal? 5/7

And like I just can't help but think what kind of message does it send to African-Americans when we dump on Baines, or Venezuelan-Americans/Venezuelans when we hate on Visquel? I can't speak for them but it likely tells them they're not that welcome in baseball which sucks. 6/7

I guess I would just love to see the HOF debates become a healthy, non-toxic process that considers people outside themselves and gets it's purpose, which is to remind fans why they came to love the game in the first place, instead of a reason to love baseball less. 7/7