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?