Should Ripken have been unaimous?

[cjclong]

In the HOF vote Ripken received 537 of the 545 votes cast. Ripken had over 400 homeruns and over 3,000 hits, one of the few players to have those totals. He won 2 gold gloves and was in 19 all star games and won an MVP award. He was one of the first big power hitting shortstops. In addition his breaking Gehrig's consecutive games record was a major event which helped baseball after the strike and he has been a great ambassador for baseball. About the only "negative" would be a batting average under .300. We can argue over the merits of a lot of players but why shouldn't Ripken have gotten every vote both on performance and character.(I know that no one has been unaimous, even Ruth, but shouldn't he and other players have been) A second issue, at least one of the voters turned in a blank ballot because he said some players used steriods while Ripken was playing and he didn't know who might have. Is it fair for a voter to hold steriod use against all players, even one who has never been accused of it like Ripken?

[jake33]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

Many sports writers never even played high school sports, and many are also are a crumudgeoned people as well. This suits sports in general, think about it... how many times has YOUR team won a super bowl/world series/ steley cup/ grey cup, etc.... For example my Bucs won 1 super bowl in 31 seasons. That is 30 seasons of failure. What that means is that there is BY FAR more negative/criticized stories to write on why your team didn't get it done that year or game.

Look at a guy like skip bayless, usually STRONG one sided negative talk comes out of him, to have him make a point and stick out and casue contraversy. Jim Rome takes a different approach but he will just pound into the ground when an athlete screws up on and off the field witha very negative insulting undertone. That is fine.

But the sports writers and broadcasters alwasy seem to want to make their point heard and louder than most peoples. The few that didn't vote Cal in simply want to make some stupid stand to make their useless voice heard.

I recall a few years back some guy did not vote Nolan ryan in, just because tom seaver didn't get in the way HE wanted. Why does Ryan's HOF get affected by Tom Seaver?

[CansecoPower33]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

I didn't read the Paul Ladewski column, but I understand the point he's trying to make in not voting for anyone who played in the "steroid era".

It's much worse when writers assume they know who used what and who played their career clean. I've heard it all over the last few years, the constant talk about a player who had one huge season among a number of mediocre ones. It's always used as evidence of performance enhancement. Since the thread focuses on Ripken, why not use him as an example.

In 1991, Ripken hit .323, slugged .566 with 34 HR and a career high 114 RBIs. This followed around five seasons when he was closer to the .250 mark, and routinely slugged under .450.

You're talking about a career .276 hitter who holds a career .447 slugging percentage, who, quite frankly, was not one of the greatest players to play the game. I simply don't buy the "in comparison to other shortstops" argument either.

[TNTtoys]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

I'll throw in a little twist to this whole unanimous debate. Is Ripken worthy? Yes, of course. Is Gwynn worthy? Yes.

Does Ripken deserve the 3rd highest induction percentage in history (98.5)? Does Gwynn deserve the 7th (97.6)? Ummm No.

If Seaver and Ryan didn't receive unanimous votes, as dumb as that may seem (in fact, nobody has in the history of the Hall), why should Ripken?

Take a look at some of the other "non unanimous" inductees that have come in at lower percentages than Ripken, Gwynn, or both, in the last 30 years...

Hank Aaron - 97.8%
Mike Schmidt - 96.5%
Johnny Bench - 96.4%
Steve Carlton - 95.6%
Carl Yastrzemski - 94.6%
Willie Mays - 94.6%
Reggie Jackson - 93.6%
Jim Palmer - 92.6%

And to put some real perspective on this, here are the results from the very first HOF induction in 1936...

Name

Votes
PCT

Ty Cobb BIO 222 98.23 Babe Ruth BIO 215 95.13 Honus Wagner BIO 215 95.13 Christy Mathewson BIO 205 90.71 Walter Johnson BIO 189 83.63

And in that same year, the following guys failed to make the hall...

Tris Speaker
Nap Lajoie
Cy Young
Rogers Hornsby
Lou Gehrig
and the list goes on & on...

[cjclong]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

There are some players who simply and obvioulsy deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Obviously Babe Ruth did. The fact that some didn't vote for him was ridiculous. I'm not putting Ripken in Ruth's class of course, but I think there are some players who clearly belong in the Hall and not to vote for them indicates a motive of something other than electing a qualified candidate to the Hall. Also the idea of a palyer having "one biig year" in some category indicating sterioid use is silly. First we can find a lot of examples of the one big year from players in the 1920's, 30's 40's and 50's before anyone was using steriods as far as we know. Second, if a player was using steriods and it helped him why would he stop. One of the top examples of a big year is Maris who hit 61 homeruns in '61 and never hit as many as 40 before or after that. Are we going to accuse him of taking steroids that one year? The idea of not voting for a player who has never been accused of taking steriods is like saying we are going to imprison the entire population of the country because a few people commit murders. If you used that stupid logic you could say we couldn't vote Ruth or Aaron into the Hall because they could have used corked bats most of their careers and baseball didn't saw their bats in half every few days to check. Somebody who wants attention can always find a reason to protest something. The guy ought to have his voing rights revoked if he's going to use his vote as a protest rather than doing his job.

[flaco1801]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

believe me, first ballot hall of fame induction is an honor. the players arent concerned about how many ballots they get, they just want in and the sooner the better. they are in the club, they dont gather each year and compare the ballots they recieved. heres a clue, Nobody is ever gonna be 100 percent. glad to see mcguire get what he deserves. Jeff

[CansecoPower33]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

It amazes me how little support Joey Belle received.

[mr.miracle]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

I'll throw in a little twist to this whole unanimous debate. Is Ripken worthy? Yes, of course. Is Gwynn worthy? Yes.

Does Ripken deserve the 3rd highest induction percentage in history (98.5)? Does Gwynn deserve the 7th (97.6)? Ummm No.

If Seaver and Ryan didn't receive unanimous votes, as dumb as that may seem (in fact, nobody has in the history of the Hall), why should Ripken?

Take a look at some of the other "non unanimous" inductees that have come in at lower percentages than Ripken, Gwynn, or both, in the last 30 years...

Hank Aaron - 97.8%
Mike Schmidt - 96.5%
Johnny Bench - 96.4%
Steve Carlton - 95.6%
Carl Yastrzemski - 94.6%
Willie Mays - 94.6%
Reggie Jackson - 93.6%
Jim Palmer - 92.6%

And to put some real perspective on this, here are the results from the very first HOF induction in 1936...

Name

Votes
PCT

Ty Cobb BIO 222 98.23 Babe Ruth BIO 215 95.13 Honus Wagner BIO 215 95.13 Christy Mathewson BIO 205 90.71 Walter Johnson BIO 189 83.63

And in that same year, the following guys failed to make the hall...

Tris Speaker
Nap Lajoie
Cy Young
Rogers Hornsby
Lou Gehrig
and the list goes on & on...

I believe that most of the people who have posted on this matter are correct, we will never see a unanimous selection for several reasons. However, in regard to Seaver and Ryan not being unaninimous vs. Ripken, Nobody is ever going to argue that either Tom Seaver or Nolan Ryan are one of the top five pitchers of all time. In fact, neither one might be top ten. However one can easily make the arguement that Cal Ripken is either the second or third greatest shortstop of all time. Not saying that this should make him unaninimous especially since guys like Ruth, Aaron, Mays, DiMaggio, Mantle, Gerhig were not. It is just kind of funny how the two highest vote totals belong to guys who will never be considered to be among the five greatest at their respective positions.

[ahuff]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

However one can easily make the arguement that Cal Ripken is either the second or third greatest shortstop of all time.

Since you said "All Time", I would beg to differ. Here are a few of the reasons why:

Honus Wagner
Ernie Banks
Luke Appling (great hitter and excellent fielder)
Robin Yount
Arky Vaughn
Pop Lloyd
Joe Sewell

I do think that Ripken deserved his in, but there shouldn't be an argument about unanimous election, because his numbers compared to other shortstops or other stars of his era say it shouldn't be.

I also can't help but wonder, if he doesn't have his dad managing him during 1987 and 1988 (when he was around the .250 - .260 range) would he have been "rested" for at least one game. After that point, the streak had become such a deal, that I don't think any manager sits him unless Cal was real torn up and refused to play. If he rests, then what is his legacy? I really wonder what others think, because I don't know. All I do know, is that he was a clutch hitter, and real fun to watch!

[mr.miracle]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

Since you said "All Time", I would beg to differ. Here are a few of the reasons why:

Honus Wagner
Ernie Banks
Luke Appling (great hitter and excellent fielder)
Robin Yount
Arky Vaughn
Pop Lloyd
Joe Sewell

I do think that Ripken deserved his in, but there shouldn't be an argument about unanimous election, because his numbers compared to other shortstops or other stars of his era say it shouldn't be.

I also can't help but wonder, if he doesn't have his dad managing him during 1987 and 1988 (when he was around the .250 - .260 range) would he have been "rested" for at least one game. After that point, the streak had become such a deal, that I don't think any manager sits him unless Cal was real torn up and refused to play. If he rests, then what is his legacy? I really wonder what others think, because I don't know. All I do know, is that he was a clutch hitter, and real fun to watch!

It is a generally accepted principle by all great baseball minds that Ripken ranks second or third all-time at the Shortstop position. Remember, Banks did not play his entire career at SS. Only Honus Wagner is ranked ahead of him definitevly. A case might also be made for ARod as well but ask anybody, Bill James, Rob Neyer, all the ESPN baseball analyst, on the list of great shortstops Ripken is either 2nd or third, end of story.

[ahuff]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

"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]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

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]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

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]

Re: Should Ripken have been unaimous?

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?