CONTROVERSY ! Ok....No offense to Ripken, but........
KalineFan
Posts: 868
in Sports Talk
Ok, I would never think that Ripken should NOT be in the HOF.....He was a solid player, with very good stats,
BUT...............I gotta say.......
HOW IN THE (*&#)(%$)#%^#*^)(*Q# do more writers vote for him than GWYNN ????
Please, someone help me here! Like I said, Ripken belongs, but for Gwynn to be second in
voting........It just doesn't sit well with me and makes me wonder, who and why and you
gotta be kidding....not to mention, they both only got like 88 % of the vote. That means
that 12% of the writers felt they should both NOT be in the HOF ???? Are you kidding me?
I would like to know exactly who these MORONS are and what kind of garbage could they
possibly come up with to say these guys were not worthy?!?!?!?!?!
PLEASE! Someone with the wisdom enlighten me PLEASE!
During the 1980's and 90's there was no better pure hitter in Baseball and even Ted Williams said
he was one of the finest hitters he EVER saw! Now, coming from the splendid splinter,
who was not exactly easy with compliments, except for the likes of DiMaggio et al, that
was saying something !
PLEASE SOMEONE HELP ME WITH THE INSANITY!
Tony
KalineFan
0
Comments
I thought Gwynn deserved more since I considered him a more overall dominant player than Ripken. Both had great reputations and both were well respected.
Although the % difference is like splitting hairs, I think Cal partially benefits from playing on the East Coast. Face it, by the time most Padres games start, most of America is in bed. That does not keep Gwynn on the minds of Americans. Also, the teams in the NL West were also not as high profile as the AL East.
Second, Ripken played a more scarce position and was considered revolutionary at SS.
Both were relatively low key guys, but Ripken did do more marketing than Gwynn and that may have helped as well.
I still am amazed at Gwynn's stats. The more you think about them, the more apalled you are.
Please note that I am writing this late at night and did not have a chance to edit grammar or speeling
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
WHOOPS ! LOOKS like the egg is on my face, as I messed up the %
I guess they both were around 98% WOW, that makes me feel
100% better!
As Gilda Radner would say, NEVER MIND!
<< <i>
WHOOPS ! LOOKS like the egg is on my face, as I messed up the %
I guess they both were around 98% WOW, that makes me feel
100% better!
As Gilda Radner would say, NEVER MIND!
No, you actually are right. Ripken got 5 more votes than Gwynn. I have no idea how that is possible either.
My Auctions
Every year the "writers" make themselves look like more of a bunch of idiots, and this year I thought they did an ok job.
JS
<< <i>
Ok, I would never think that Ripken should NOT be in the HOF.....He was a solid player, with very good stats,
BUT...............I gotta say.......
HOW IN THE (*&#)(%$)#%^#*^)(*Q# do more writers vote for him than GWYNN ????
Please, someone help me here! Like I said, Ripken belongs, but for Gwynn to be second in
voting........It just doesn't sit well with me and makes me wonder, who and why and you
gotta be kidding....not to mention, they both only got like 88 % of the vote. That means
that 12% of the writers felt they should both NOT be in the HOF ???? Are you kidding me?
I would like to know exactly who these MORONS are and what kind of garbage could they
possibly come up with to say these guys were not worthy?!?!?!?!?!
PLEASE! Someone with the wisdom enlighten me PLEASE!
During the 1980's and 90's there was no better pure hitter in Baseball and even Ted Williams said
he was one of the finest hitters he EVER saw! Now, coming from the splendid splinter,
who was not exactly easy with compliments, except for the likes of DiMaggio et al, that
was saying something !
PLEASE SOMEONE HELP ME WITH THE INSANITY!
Tony
KalineFan
Those sportswriters are on drugs.
<< <i>Those sportswriters are on drugs. >>
Anyone who did NOT vote for both Ripken and Gwynn is so delusional, so devoid of respectable talent for measuring player performance, that their ballots should be permanently revoked.
There's a lot of talk here about whether one player or another belongs in the Hall, and in many cases there are borderline situations where intelligent arguments can be made either way. No intelligent case can be made *against* Gwynn OR Ripken.
<< <i>
Ok, I would never think that Ripken should NOT be in the HOF.....He was a solid player, with very good stats,
BUT...............I gotta say.......
HOW IN THE (*&#)(%$)#%^#*^)(*Q# do more writers vote for him than GWYNN ????
Please, someone help me here! Like I said, Ripken belongs, but for Gwynn to be second in
voting
Tony
KalineFan
Obviously both are deserving and were locks when they retired, but keep this in mind. Gwynn was just another outfielder. Ripken redefined the role of shortstop. He led the way in terms of the power shortstops we see today, ie. Tejada, Rodriguez, etc.. When you consider the two in terms of position, Ripken is the more deserving.
Tony Gwynn talks hitting with Ted Williams; a continutation of scholastic coach''s interview with Tony Gwynn in last month''s issue.(Talking Hitting)
Publication Date: 01-DEC-03
Publication Title: Coach and Athletic Director
Format: Online - approximately 1963 words
Author: Newell, Kevin
Subscription to Research: $89.95/month (learn more)
Full Article You were probably one of the three or four best hitters in baseball since Ted Williams. You won eight National League batting titles, stroked 3,141 hits, and amassed 19 straight .300 seasons.
You were clearly a contact hitter rather than a power hitter. Were you that kind of hitter from the beginning?
GWYNN: I was a contact hitter my whole career but I learned how to handle the ball inside. And Ted Williams played a big part in that. He gave me the advice on how to handle inside pitches.
Over my first 14 or 15 years in the big leagues, the pitchers knew I was going to get the bat on the ball, but didn't really consider me a threat to hit the ball out of the ballpark. And when they came inside, they didn't expect me to be able to handle that pitch, either.
Towards the end of my career, after I learned how to handle the inside pitch, it changed. When pitchers came inside, I knew I had a chance to hit it out of the park. It made me a completely different type of player. And if you look at my numbers from 1993 on, they were much better than they were for the first 13 years of my career. I hit for a higher average and put some numbers on the board--I hit some homers and drove in some runs.
Good things began happening when, after hitting first and second most of my career, I was moved down to third. I became a better hitter at three because I was still willing to try something different after 13 seasons.
COACH: What hitters did you admire the most over the years and did you ever try to emulate someone?
GWYNN: I never tried to hit like anyone else. But I watched a ton of guys. Growing up, my favorite player was Willie Davis with the Dodgers. Then, as I started watching more and more baseball, hitters like Pete Rose, Rod Carew, Tony Oliva, Paul Molitor, Robin Yount, and George Brett became my favorite kind of guys because they hit for average and did a lot of damage.
As a player, early on; I wasn't much of a damage guy. But I could score runs and steal bases. As I got older I learned that I could hit the ball out of the ball-park. Seventeen is not a monumental number of home runs, but for me it was.
I just wasn't that type of guy. I could hit a ball between short and third and you couldn't throw me out. Later on, I could still hit the ball between short and third, but I could also turn and take you deep. That made me a bigger threat. And in the big league game, that's what you want to be considered--a threat.
COACH: In 1995 you and Ted Williams appeared on a television/radio show, hosted by Bob Costas, in what many consider was the greatest conversation ever on the art of hitting. What do you remember about that day? If we recall correctly, you said it was like being a kid in a candy store? Was it that good?
GWYNN: First of all, I was scared to death. Second of all, it was like being a kid in the candy store. Imagine sitting next to the man who knew more about hitting a baseball than anyone who ever played the game. If you had any questions about hitting, here was the man who had all the answers.
We talked about hit and run. We talked about driving in a run from third with less than two outs. We talked about how pitchers tried to pitch to me and ultimately, the thing I remember most, we talked about the ball inside because that's where he really got testy.
By the time I walked out of there, I started to realize that this guy was the supreme authority, so why shouldn't I go ahead and try out some of the stuff that we had talked about?
It took me a year and a half to figure it out, but he had been absolutely right. It made a huge difference for me in the last five full seasons of my career.
COACH: Your affection for Williams is well-documented. What can you say about him that hasn't already been said?
GWYNN: One, he loved baseball. Absolutely loved it. And he was still on top of the game. He could tell you about guys. Exactly how they were pitched to and exactly how they hit. He dreamed about hitting against some of the guys I had to face.
Secondly, he loved to talk with today's hitters just as much as he did when he was playing. All the details and all the situations. Sometimes when I talked to him he appeared tired or dazed. But as soon as I started talking about hitting, boy, he would perk up! I really cherish the moments I had with him, and I enjoy passing on some of the stuff we talked about.
What a blessing it was to know a guy like Ted Williams, to talk to him, to pick his brain, and to be respected by him. He stood out among the Hall of Famers I have been lucky to talk to, guys like Stan Musial, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Joe DiMaggio. Just an unbelievable list of guys who were willing to share their knowledge with you.
COACH: In 1994 you made a real run at the magical .400 mark, finishing at an incredible .394, the highest batting average in the National League since Bill Terry hit .401 in 1930 and the best mark since Williams hit .406 in 1941. Just how tough is it to eclipse .400 and do you think it can be done? If so, which modern players have the best chance?
GWYNN: I think it can be done. I think I would have done it if we had completed the strike-shortened season (1994). Of course it's easy to say that now, 10 years after the fact. But I honestly believe I would have done it.
It's tough, especially with the style that I had, because you had to get hits. A 0-for-4 kills you. Barry Bonds has brought a new wrinkle to it and that's walking 180 times. If you can walk that much it makes the job a whole lot easier because now you don't have to get as many hits.
When Ted and I talked about it, we figured you needed between 240-260 hits. When you can walk nearly that many times or have pitchers not want to pitch to you as much, the recipe becomes a little easier. You still need to be protective but now a walk, or two walks, is almost as good as a hit. So I would say that Bonds is your best bet right now to hit .400. Until another guy comes along who can get 240-250 hits. The walk recipe seems pretty robust right now.
COACH: Everyone knows about your offensive prowess, but no one talks about your defense (five Gold Glove awards) or the fact that you were a pretty good base stealer, too. In your opinion, what makes a good defensive player? What secrets can you share?
GWYNN: You are either a good defensive player or you are not. And you have to be willing to work at it every day. When I signed to play professional baseball, I knew that I'd really have to work at it because I had played basketball for seven years in high school and college and hadn't really concentrated on baseball.
I'd have to have somebody hit me a ton of grounders and fly balls and work on my throwing. It was brutal. I had to perfect my mechanics and learn to charge the ball hard, and get rid of it quick, and be accurate.
Of all the things I accomplished as a player, I think winning that first Gold Glove is still my highest achievement.
COACH: How do you feel about the designated hitter: For or against?
GWYNN: For a long time I thought that both leagues should either have a DH or not have a DH. But you know what? I like it the way it is because it gives guys an opportunity to continue their baseball career. And I guess when you get older you start to think about that a whole lot more than you do when you are younger. I was a National Leaguer all the way.
I had an opportunity to be a DH at the end of my career, but I didn't want to. I wanted to play everyday. I think National Leaguers generally like the National League style and American Leaguers like the fact that you can get a day off by being a DH.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
COACH: We've heard you call games for ESPN and you are most enjoyable. Jon Miller has even said you're the best rookie analyst he has ever worked with. What kind of approach do you use?
GWYNN: It's really simple. I go into every game with some knowledge of who's pitching and who's hot and who's not. I have all that stuff in my game notes. But my approach is to talk about what's going on between the white lines. I'm not a great storyteller. I try not to talk about my career. I just try to talk about what is happening on the field.
If somebody makes a mistake, I have to be willing to say somebody made a mistake. If somebody could have gone first to third and didn't, then I have to say why they could have and didn't. That's where my focus is.
COACH: Are great hitters born or made? What made Tony Gwynn great?
GWYNN: I think it's a combination of both. I think great hitters are born but you still have to work at it. My dad used to tell me when I was little that I had the God-given ability to put a bat on the ball. But if you don't work at it and turn it into something consistently good, you're not going to make it.
Some guys are just born with a silver spoon in their mouth. But I think there are more guys that didn't work at it. They knew they were good in junior high, high school, and college, but they didn't work at it once they got to the professional level.
The guys who work at it--the best hitters in baseball--stand out like sore thumbs. The reason why is because they can repeat their successes. Barry Bonds can come to the plate and take an inside heater an inch or two off the inside part of the plate, and knock it out of the ballpark. And he can step up the next time and do it again.
Alex Rodriguez can do it again. Edgar Martinez can do it again. A lot of guys, when they are going good, don't want to work at it. When they are going bad, everybody wants to work at it.
You have to be able to suck it up and do your work whether you're hitting .350 or .250.
RELATED ARTICLE: TONY GWYNN'S BIGGEST HITS
* Lifetime Batting Average: .338 (10th all-time)
* Led National League in Batting Average 8 times.
* Led league in hits 7 times.
* Batted over .300 19 consecutive seasons.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>To argue about who is better between Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn is like debating what is better, a hundred dollar bill or five twenty dollar bills. >>
Very true...it gets to be greedy after a while.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
<< <i>
<< <i>
Ok, I would never think that Ripken should NOT be in the HOF.....He was a solid player, with very good stats,
BUT...............I gotta say.......
HOW IN THE (*&#)(%$)#%^#*^)(*Q# do more writers vote for him than GWYNN ????
Please, someone help me here! Like I said, Ripken belongs, but for Gwynn to be second in
voting
Tony
KalineFan
Obviously both are deserving and were locks when they retired, but keep this in mind. Gwynn was just another outfielder. Ripken redefined the role of shortstop. He led the way in terms of the power shortstops we see today, ie. Tejada, Rodriguez, etc.. When you consider the two in terms of position, Ripken is the more deserving. >>
I think I know what you are trying to say, but Gwynn was not just some other outfielder. He won 5 gold gloves, had speed in the outfield, and stole a ton of bases. Not an ordinary outfielder.
Your comment would have made more sense if you just left that comment out. Ripken did redefine his position, while Gwynn did not, but Gwynn was darn good at it.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
<< <i>To argue about who is better between Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn is like debating what is better, a hundred dollar bill or five twenty dollar bills. >>
Amen!
<< <i>
I think I know what you are trying to say, but Gwynn was not just some other outfielder. He won 5 gold gloves, had speed in the outfield, and stole a ton of bases. Not an ordinary outfielder.
Your comment would have made more sense if you just left that comment out. Ripken did redefine his position, while Gwynn did not, but Gwynn was darn good at it. >>
OK, granted I may not have been clear enough. Was Gwynn an everyday utility guy who happened to play the outfield? Of course not. I did preface what I wrote by saying that both were deserving of the hall and that is not something I'd attribute to "just another outfielder". My point is, there are numerous outfielders in the hall that were just as good, if not better. Sure he's a HOF'er, but what did he contribute to the position that any other HOF'er outfielder hasn't already has? Bottomline, his impact to the position and the way baseball is played today was no where near as significant as that of Ripken to shortstop. Your original question was:
<< <i>HOW IN THE (*&#)(%$)#%^#*^)(*Q# do more writers vote for him than GWYNN ???? >>
I submit that this is the reason why.
<< <i>My point is, there are numerous outfielders in the hall that were just as good, if not better. Sure he's a HOF'er, but what did he contribute to the position that any other HOF'er outfielder hasn't already has? >>
I could be mistaken but how many other OFers have been top 5 in BA 13 times while winning it 8 times, 15 All-Star games, 5 gold gloves, and 7 silver sluggers?
But, to not vote for Gwynn at all - there is no reasonable argument for that. My best guess for why someone might not is that Gwynn never won an MVP (nor deserved one). Don't get me wrong, I think that's a pitiful justification, but I also know that many people put a lot of stock in MVP Awards. If not that, then maybe the thought of listening to Gwynn give his speech at his induction was just too much for some voters to bear.
<< <i>I still don't think that a players postition defensively should have anything to do with his offensive production. Gold Gloves yes, BA and HR's no. If a guy is going into the Hall based on his offensive production, his position on the field shouldn't matter at all. >>
Wabbit, no offense but I think that is an ignorant statement.
If you think of baseball, there are a few positions that just about any MLBer can play and just get by in the field. So, there are way more people who can play corner outfield and first base than guys who can play say SS or 3B. That being said, those who do have the agility and skill to play those positions and excell at the bat as well, are truely a rarity. Some, but very few, of the best fielders all time have gotten in solely on their merits in the field. Ozzie Smith for example. He was below average at best at the plate. He is an exception. There are way more hitters that are in solely based on their merit at the plate, and not in the field.
Many would say Ozzie doesn't belong in. Many more would say a guy who was below average in the field but awesome at bat would deserve it. Who is right? Why is offensive production so much more as defensive prowess?
Edited to add: I neglected to metion Ozzie was a terror on the basepaths as well. But nonetheless he was brutal at the plate.
My Auctions
<< <i>dallasactuary - Out of curiousity, Who do you rank ahead of Ripken at shortstop? Who do you rank ahead of Gwynn in rightfield? >>
At short, Wagner, Vaughn and Yount. If you count Banks as a shortstop then I'd bump Ripken to 5th.
In right, Ruth, Aaron, Ott and Robinson for sure and by an enormous margin over everyone else. Gwynn is then in a pack with Crawford, Reggie, Waner and Rose:
Reggie has by far the best single season of that group and he'd be my pick for the intergalactic winner-take-all game
Crawford was the best per at bat, but he was done by 35
Rose was the least great of the group but he stayed great or close to it for a really long time
Waner, like Gwynn, is sort of a combination of Crawford and Rose
In the end, if I had to rank them I'd put Reggie first, Rose second, then Gwynn, then Crawford, then Waner. But if you want to order those five in any possible other arrangement I won't argue with you. In fact, I'm sort of drawn to moving Crawford to the top..........
{Since I'm only one short, I'll fill out my top 10 with Clemente - although Al Kaline and Bobby Bonds are tempting picks , too.}
That way the idiot voters can get canned.
my hotels
<< <i>
<< <i>dallasactuary - Out of curiousity, Who do you rank ahead of Ripken at shortstop? Who do you rank ahead of Gwynn in rightfield? >>
At short, Wagner, Vaughn and Yount. If you count Banks as a shortstop then I'd bump Ripken to 5th.
In right, Ruth, Aaron, Ott and Robinson for sure and by an enormous margin over everyone else. Gwynn is then in a pack with Crawford, Reggie, Waner and Rose:
Reggie has by far the best single season of that group and he'd be my pick for the intergalactic winner-take-all game
Crawford was the best per at bat, but he was done by 35
Rose was the least great of the group but he stayed great or close to it for a really long time
Waner, like Gwynn, is sort of a combination of Crawford and Rose
In the end, if I had to rank them I'd put Reggie first, Rose second, then Gwynn, then Crawford, then Waner. But if you want to order those five in any possible other arrangement I won't argue with you. In fact, I'm sort of drawn to moving Crawford to the top..........
{Since I'm only one short, I'll fill out my top 10 with Clemente - although Al Kaline and Bobby Bonds are tempting picks , too.} >>
Dallasactuary,
I an confused. Please explain to me why Yount counts as a shortstop for your list and Banks does not. Both only played short for part of their careers. Personally I do not think either qaulifies to be on a list of greatest shortstops. Niether one of them played the position for 12 years which is how long you have to play to be HOF eligible. If you could not get to HOF based on the time at one position you should not be on a list of greats at the position. Please do not take this as me disputing the order of your list, simply the criteria with which guys can be considered for it. I am interested to hear what you have to say.
That said, I just use the same positions that Bill James assigns people to, and he assigns them based on the position where they accumulated the most win shares. Yount could reasonably qualify as either a SS or an outielder (or by the 12-year standard, neither) but his years at short were worth a bit more than his years in the outfield.