Times have changed, that’s for sure. It used to be people could have a good debate about things, particularly sports and walk away friends.

It’s still possible, but in today’s times, usually the argument ends with one person calling the other stupid and criticizing them for having that opinion.

The voting for baseball’s Hall of Fame is one of those discussions. Some voters have their selections made public and then are ridiculed for not putting an “X” by a certain player.

Hey, the writer earned a right to vote by covering baseball for many years, and that’s who he thinks should get in. Most of the voters take the job very seriously.

We don’t have a vote (obviously), but if we did, here would be our criteria. And a few months ago, we posted on social media who we would vote for and several people took the time to tell us we were wrong.

Again, we aren’t saying we are right, it’s just who we think should get in.

First of all, we would not vote for anyone connected with PEDs. We understand there are players already in the Hall who used them, but we would not have voted for them, but if the electorate decided they were worthy, we aren’t going to go crazy.

And we understand Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, the poster boys for illegal enhancers, were great players before it appears they started to use, but they knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

As someone once said, if those players thought it was no big deal, they would have used them out in the open, not someplace out of view.

The world is filled with people who did many good things, committed a crime, and still were punished.

And by the way, we would not have voted for David Ortiz.

We are also a “small hall” baseball fan. We see many of the ballots that are published with votes for 10 players. Sorry, there are very few times, if any, where there are 10 Hall of Fame players on a single ballot.

Nowhere does it say you have to vote for that many, and in our opinion, writers shouldn’t be voting for the Top Ten candidates.

For the most part, you know a Hall of Famer when you see them play, but that doesn’t mean time and studying doesn’t make a person change their mind. Look at Tim Raines, for instance. He’s definitely worthy of the honor, but it took a lot of people time to realize it.

As for a Cleveland connection, we hope the veterans group does the right thing and put both Kenny Lofton and yes, Albert Belle in Cooperstown soon.

Lofton was a tremendous player and did it for a very long time, accumulating 2428 hits, with a lifetime batting average of .299 and an on base percentage of .372. In terms of players similar to Lofton are three players already enshrined (Raines, Harry Hooper, and Fred Clarke) and a fourth, Ichiro Sukuki, who will be soon.

Belle was a dominant offensive player for a decade (1991-2000), averaging 40 HR and 130 RBI per 162 games. Had he not retired due to a hip injury at age 33, he likely would have hit 500 home runs (he had 381) and had nine straight 100 RBI seasons when he left the game.

Let’s say he would have knocked in 500 more had he been able to play until 40. That would put him in the top 25 all time.

He had three top 3 MVP finishes (he was robbed of it in 1995) and is still the only player to hit 50 home runs and 50 doubles in the same season.

Instead of saying the Baseball Hall of Fame is irrelevant because of who is not in it, it should be and is a great source of discussion if you are a fan of the game. It’s also not the reason the sport has lost popularity. There are many more reasons for that.

As for the Bonds/Clemens debate? We’ll see how the former players who now hold their fate feel about putting them in. It might even be tougher for them to get in.