Should Ripken have been unaimous?

[ahuff]

"Remember, Banks did not play his entire career at SS. Only Honus Wagner is ranked ahead of him definitevly."

Perhaps you forgot that Cal also didn't play his entire career at SS nor has A-Rod?!?!? I was going to include A-Rod in that list as well, but didn't simply because he is still playing and achieving things. Albeit at third base.

[Nathan]

I think Bill James has Ripken 3rd behind Wagner and Arky Vaughan, but don't hold me to that.

I don't buy Joe Sewell as one of the all-time greats; his biggest claim to fame is striking out very rarely. Honestly, that's hardly notable.

[mr.miracle]

I think Bill James has Ripken 3rd behind Wagner and Arky Vaughan, but don't hold me to that.

I don't buy Joe Sewell as one of the all-time greats; his biggest claim to fame is striking out very rarely. Honestly, that's hardly notable.

Nathan:

I think you are right on Bill James having Ripken 3rd. I have honestly never seen anybody inside baseball with a really solid working knowledge of baseball history have him listed as less than either 2nd or 3rd all time. After all, no other ss in baseball history has compiled 3000 hits and 400 homers. I know that this alone is not the final determining factor but once one gets beyond Honus Wagner it is really easy to make an argument that Ripken is the 2nd greatest of all time at SS.

[ahuff]

I think Bill James has Ripken 3rd behind Wagner and Arky Vaughan, but don't hold me to that.

I don't buy Joe Sewell as one of the all-time greats; his biggest claim to fame is striking out very rarely. Honestly, that's hardly notable.

I think that statement is sort of odd, considering that Sewell only struck out 114 times during a 14 year career. In addition, he had a .312 career batting average. The strikeout total is a much lower rate than even Gwynn did during his 20 year career.

My earlier post has been misunderstood. I listed the players to simply show that there is definately talent at the SS position competative with Cal. I'll admit, I have not seen all of those guys play. Let's face it, I'm not over 100 years old. However, I have lived long enough to see that each era values and devalues certain attributes of the game. For instance, the long ball (hitters), save, and strikeout (pitchers) have certainly been glorified in this era of the game. While the number of times a guy strikes out at the plate has certainly been devalued. Adam Dunn and Richie Sexson are viewed as solid players. Parks have gotten smaller, questions abound about performance enhancers and juiced baseballs go on. Earlier generations of players talk about seeing greenies in the clubhouse. The point is, no one, save God himself could tell us who the best is, because we are only human, and numbers certainly don't tell us the whole story. I have no idea how many homers Cal could hit if he played in the Polo Grounds. I know I grew up watching Cal and Ozzie. Though completely different in how they played the game, both were exciting to watch.

Voters are human as well. I'm sure during the course of their career covering players, they develop relationships with these players - some good some bad. I would assume that is why we see players never unanimously elected. No one can please everyone all of the time. Why did the Babe not receive 5% of the vote or 17% not vote for Walter Johnson in that first ballot? Then again, why did Walt Weiss, Doug Jones, and Greg Jefferies all get votes in this past ballot?