Ripken will not be a unanimous selection for the Hall

ripkenintheminors · January 8, 2007 1:45AM

I saw this on another message board and thought it was worth discussing here.

Link

<< Cal Ripken Jr. won't be the first unanimous selection to baseball's Hall of Fame when the results are announced at 2 p.m. Tuesday. That's a certainty because Paul Ladewski of a suburban Chicago newspaper has revealed that he submitted a blank ballot because he doesn't have enough information to consider the merits of any players from the steroids era (1993-2004). He told the Baltimore Sun that he doesn't suspect Ripken or Tony Gwynn of using performance-enhancing drugs, but that he can't be sure they didn't. I don't think Ladewski is being fair and I believe that refusing to vote would've been a more appropriate protest. By submitting a blank ballot, he hurt the percentage of votes to worthy "clean" players as well as the unworthy probable cheaters. >>

digicat · January 8, 2007 1:57AM

I guess he wasn't going to vote for any of the borderline guys like Jim Rice, Rich Gossage, Andre Dawson, or Bert Blyleven, who retired around the start of the "steroid era."

The guy's being a jerk. Submitting a blank ballot is essentially a vote against everyone.

FavreFan1971 · January 8, 2007 2:05AM

I am not a fan of the voting process for baseball to begin with but this is just plain d*ck headed by this guy.

He should have his voting rights revoked. He should have just not voted. Like most of our Senators and House of Reps do.

ToppsCo1lector · January 8, 2007 2:07AM

Ripken, in my opinion doesn't deserve a unanimous entry. Batting .276 over a career isn't worthy. Gehrig had a career batting average of .340, postseason batting average of .360, 3rd all time for career slugging %, 5th all time on base %, 3rd all time for OPS, 4th all time for RBIs, 7th all time in extra base hits, and had a career .991 fielding percentage(albeit at a much easier position). If Sweet Lou didn't get in unanimously, no reason on gods green earth why Cal should. I grew up in MD, still live in state and I honestly believe Cal doesn't get NEARLY enough credit in helping restore the game in the minds of the american people and baseball fans alike(as he broke the record the year after the strike, and everyone seems to believe that the home run race brought back the real fans). I'm a fan of his, I've met him on several occasions, and a family friend actually made his wifes wedding dress. Still, no way should Cal be unanimous.

tombo · January 8, 2007 2:08AM

For the past 25 years or so, I have sorted/stored players based on HOF eligibility. I always felt that Ripken had the stats, winning record, awards, and most importantly in today's day and age the professionalism both on and off the field that would make it hard for anyone to look at his name and say, "yeah, he was good but ...". The steroid age mentioned from 1993+ really shouldn't have affected his vote. Ripken did more than enough from 1982- 1992 to be elected. The guy is probably just one of those traditionalists who feels that since Babe or Mickey or Willie didn't get in unanimously, then nobody ever deserves to.

Ironmanfan · January 8, 2007 2:14AM

I think the whole "unanimous" thing is a bit overrated. After all the guy who graduates last from his medical school class is still called "doctor." You're either in the HOF (I will agree that being elected the first year eligible is a feather in ones cap) or not.

MantleMarisFordBerra · January 8, 2007 2:16AM

Posted this on the other thread about this in "Sports talk" but it fits in here too:

I think the streak causes people to under estimate Ripken. I think it causes people to over look his Rookie of the Year, 2 MVPs, leading his team to the World Series Championship, the fielding records he set, all the All-Star game apperances( he won one All-Star MVP) also he redefined the position of shortstop...think about it, before him most shortstops were small, poor hitting. Ripken was tall, quick, and brought the bat along with the glove.

Plus there are a lot of other elements that make him a Hall of famer too that relate to the "character" aspect players are voted on. Having the Ripken family, all the work he's done in the Baltimore area, being on one team his whole life, his GREAT personality, how he brought back fans to the game after the '94 strike...if Ripken never sets the streak record he is still a first ballot HOF no question.

digicat · January 8, 2007 2:20AM

I'd be curious to know the "arguments" that could be provided by the the folks who chose not to vote for some of the legends, like Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, etc. These guys got in with just under 95% of the vote, but what were those other guys thinking?

i.e. "Yeah, Stan Musial was pretty good, but..."

brian26 · January 8, 2007 2:42AM

ToppsCo1lector:

Sort of a random question, but I love that Captain America figure in your profile...what figure series is that from?

gregmo32 · January 8, 2007 2:48AM

It is absurd that no one has ever been unanimous. It is testament to the fact that people vote based on factors other than the listed criteria. I am sure racism accounts for many of history's non-votes. Other non-votes can be attributed to voters who want to make a "statement" about something or other, and obviously do not feel that their public forum as a writer is a large enough podium to get their point across. I can't stand this because it may make a point but it negatively affects people who should not be affected by it.

mikeschmidt · January 8, 2007 2:52AM

I don't think the sportswriter is being out of line. There is no way to ever know -- and if you want to send a message to MLB for its despicable handling of the steroid era, that is a good way to do it.

It seems a tad disingenuous that sportswriters would not vote for certain suspected players (McGwire, Sosa, etc.) for the HOF without proof, but would unilaterally endorse those player's contemporaries -- including the one player who seemingly never had an injury -- or, if he did, he recovered surpringly fast enough so that he did not have to sit out a game.

jradke4 · January 8, 2007 2:54AM

I would have to say that both Ripken and Yount changed the SS postion. Not just Ripken.

bobsbbcards · January 8, 2007 4:17AM

<< Plus there are a lot of other elements that make him a Hall of famer too that relate to the "character" aspect players are voted on. >>

I think Cal wrote that naughty word on his brother's bat.

FavreFan1971 · January 8, 2007 4:27AM

<< I would have to say that both Ripken and Yount changed the SS postion. Not just Ripken. >>

Agreed. Yount redefined it also. both playing in their prime at the same time, but Yount moved to the OF in the late 80's

Munson15 · January 8, 2007 4:36AM

<< You're either in the HOF (I will agree that being elected the first year eligible is a feather in ones cap) or not. >>

This has always bothered me, either you are a Hall of Famer or you are not. How are you not a Hall of Famer your first year eligible but then in the 3rd year you fit the standards of the Hall of Fame. How in the hell does that happen, you didn't play in any more games, MLB did not find those hidden 37 hits you needed to get to 3,000. Why are you not a Hall of Famer in say 2004 but are a Hall of Famer in 2007.

Forget the BBWA, they need to lose those losers and Cooperstown needs to form a committee to research and anylize the stats and careers of those eligible and then make a decision. If they want to stagger the Induction so that there is one year with 10 HOF and 2 years of none, then that is fine. But the way it is done now is BS!!!!! You want change in baseball then let us start here!!!

cravetopps · January 8, 2007 5:04AM

cobb - 98%
ruth - 95%
DiMaggio - 89%
Greenberg - 85%
Aaron 98%
Clemente 93%
Foxx - 79%
Hornsby 91%.

if there was a sportswriter hall of shame, Ladewski would not be in the top 10.

markj111 · January 8, 2007 6:01AM

Didn't Seaver receive the highest percentage?

Anyone who cares about the Hall of Fame should read Bill James' book "The Politics of Glory". I believe later editions were called "What is Wrong with the Hall of Fame".

digicat · January 8, 2007 6:41AM

The most extreme example of HoF voting weirdness comes with Bob Lemon, who got 3 votes on his first ballot in 1964, and was eventually elected with 305 votes in 1976. I know the voting process has changed through the years, but these numbers are weird!

1964 = 01.33% !!!
1965 = no HOF election
1966 = 06.95% !!!
1967 = 02.29% !!!
1968 = 16.61%
1969 = 16.47%
1970 = 25.00%
1971 = 25.00%
1972 = 29.55%
1973 = 46.58%
1974 = 52.05%
1975 = 64.36%
1976 = 78.61% = HoF

1989FleerBillRipkencollector · January 8, 2007 7:11AM

Well if Cal's not getting in I guess Bill wont have a chance.

KOBEcollector · January 8, 2007 7:14AM

Didn't Seaver receive the highest percentage?

I always thought it was Brett . .not sure though

Dave

fiveniner · January 8, 2007 7:18AM

Cal is a HOFer irregardless of his streak.Should he be a unanomous choice?Look at the Greats of game that were elected that Cal can not compare to,none of them recieved unanomous selection.

Stone193 · January 8, 2007 7:27AM

Trying to get into the minds of sports writers?

I got a better chance of getting into Britney Spears' shorts - sans the thong.

digicat · January 8, 2007 7:34AM

Here's the top 10 all time HoF vote getters.

98.84% - Tom Seaver - 1992 (425/430)
98.79% - Nolan Ryan - 1999 (491/497)
98.23% - Ty Cobb - 1936 (222/226)
98.19% - George Brett - 1999 (488/497)
97.83% - Hank Aaron - 1982 (406/415)
96.52% - Mike Schmidt - 1995 (444/460)
96.42% - Johnny Bench - 1989 (431/447)
95.61% - Steve Carlton - 1994 (436/456)
95.13% - Babe Ruth - 1936 (215/226)
95.13% - Honus Wagner - 1936 (215/226)

70chip · January 8, 2007 10:32AM

Anyone who doesn't vote for Cal is a moron and has their own agenda. Incredible ballplayer in all aspects of the game. Revolutionized the SS position, arguably the most difficult on the diamond. I am going to stay calm, and leave it at that...Serenity now, Serenity now!!!

neenish · January 8, 2007 12:26PM

<< 

<< You're either in the HOF (I will agree that being elected the first year eligible is a feather in ones cap) or not. >>

This has always bothered me, either you are a Hall of Famer or you are not. How are you not a Hall of Famer your first year eligible but then in the 3rd year you fit the standards of the Hall of Fame. How in the hell does that happen, you didn't play in any more games, MLB did not find those hidden 37 hits you needed to get to 3,000. Why are you not a Hall of Famer in say 2004 but are a Hall of Famer in 2007.

Forget the BBWA, they need to lose those losers and Cooperstown needs to form a committee to research and anylize the stats and careers of those eligible and then make a decision. If they want to stagger the Induction so that there is one year with 10 HOF and 2 years of none, then that is fine. But the way it is done now is BS!!!!! You want change in baseball then let us start here!!! >>

Amen to that!

DeutscherGeist · January 8, 2007 5:01PM

For those of you wondering why the likes of Bob Lemon only get a few votes initially when on the ballot, then a decade later, they get votes close to 75%:

Sometimes it takes a generation to realize that person's impact on the game. Its not all about who compiled the highest numbers.

As an analogy, know that nobel prizes are awarded about a generation after the initial scientific discovery or innovation. It takes awhile to know the true impact of something. That's just the way things play out.

Who would have known that Sutter's new pitch was just an aberration in his own personal arsenal of pitches or the way new closers would do their business. It takes a generation to see what is to become of Sutter's invented pitch. The fact that we can now say for certain that he revolutionized the closer role makes him a deserved HOF now. It was not that clear a decade ago although there were signs of his innovation.

I hope this makes sense to some of you.

Munson15 · January 9, 2007 1:03AM

<< Sometimes it takes a generation to realize that person's impact on the game. Its not all about who compiled the highest numbers. >>

I have to call BS on that. While I agree to some extent that a FEW members of the HofF are there because on thier impact on the game the majority of the players are there because they had EXCELLED beyond that of the common player to be considered into that great Hall. It is not the Hall of Change, of the Hall of Impact, it is the Hall Of Fame and one must play at a certain level to be considered.

They say 3000 hits, 500 HR, 300 wins are all locks. Nobody says developing a pitch or changing a batting stance is the way into the Hall. I can understand a person or two every generation getting the nod as a pioneer but for the general player you either have the right stuff or you do not, period!!

Today when they make the announcement I am convinced that Goose will not be there, but will have increased his votes and will be inducted next year, so that these two fine players can have thier day in the sun, alone. I feel that many voters will hold off Goose to make this year 'special' and that is what is so wrong with this system.......

If Goose gets elected today, I will cheer and come back here and eat crow. If not, and then is elected next year, I will be back with a hardy Told you so

digicat · January 9, 2007 1:27AM

<< << Sometimes it takes a generation to realize that person's impact on the game. Its not all about who compiled the highest numbers. >>

I have to call BS on that. >>

So, what would explain guys like:

Luis Aparicio, Don Drysdale, Bob Lemon, Duke Snider, Bruce Sutter, Billy Williams, Early Wynn

They each recieved less than 30% of the votes in their first years of elegability, but were eventually elected.

Stone193 · January 9, 2007 1:30AM

I don't think Cal's gonna lose sleep over being at 90 or 100%

No where on the plaque does it reference what % voted him in?

We all know some writers can be a bit contrary - why? Cause they can!

mike

sagard · January 9, 2007 1:43AM

I find it funny that some people get so and so deserves to be in the "Hall". Now to find that people actually care how many votes a guy gets? Rediculous.

digicat · January 9, 2007 2:08AM

<< I find it funny that some people get so and so deserves to be in the "Hall". Now to find that people actually care how many votes a guy gets? >>

The numbers game is always fun.

Besides, I'd be curious to hear the reasons why certain voters didn't vote for Willie Mays, Tom Seaver, Hank Aaron, etc. If you assume that the guys who are allowed to vote for Hall of Famers are somewhat intelligent, they should have some interesting arguments, above the level of "Tom Seaver? Naw. Mets sux!"

Munson15 · January 9, 2007 2:56AM

<< I find it funny that some people get so and so deserves to be in the "Hall". Now to find that people actually care how many votes a guy gets? Rediculous. >>

I agree...just because Ty or Babe or Willie were not 100% some voters send in blank ballots to make sure new guys do not get 100%.........

It is impolite to sneeze in public, as such I am cutting off my nose

digicat · January 9, 2007 4:11AM

2007 Baseball Hall of Fame results..

98.53% - Cal Ripken Jr (537/545)
97.61% - Tony Gwynn (532/545)

Ripken will not be a unanimous selection for the Hall

Comments