PDA

View Full Version : How does Cal Ripken not get 100% of the HOF vote?


jAZ
01-09-2007, 05:30 PM
?

OnTheWarpath58
01-09-2007, 05:32 PM
I heard why this afternoon and I may have the particulars mixed up but:

3 guys don't believe in first ballot HOF and left them off.

1 guy protested the exclusion of Pete Rose and turned in a blank ballot.

1 guy didn't vote due to surgery.

Buck
01-09-2007, 05:36 PM
Yeah Cal Ripken didnt get 100%, neither did Tony Gwynn. I want to know how less people thought of Gwynn as a HOF candidate than Ripken Jr. though? And why did 1.1% of voters vote for Jose Canseco?

Delano
01-09-2007, 05:42 PM
I didn't see the game that set the consecutive games played record but I did get to see Cal hit for the 3000th time in 2000 at the Metrodome. I don't remember much else of the game but the respect given by all of us Twins fans probably made Cal feel like he was in Camden Yard. Nice little memory.

ChiefsCountry
01-09-2007, 05:43 PM
Nolan Ryan and George Brett didnt either, alot of guys dont bc how they do the hall thing is all poltics.

KurtCobain
01-09-2007, 05:46 PM
My father was a huge ripken jr fan. If he was still here he'd be outraged that he didn't get 100%.

jAZ
01-09-2007, 05:49 PM
3 guys don't believe in first ballot HOF and left them off.
Ok, this is just completely friggin stupid. I can understand if you don't think a certain player isn't a 1st ballot guy... (IMO, that's silly, but fair enough, I guess)... but to believe that NO ONE is a 1st ballot guy?

That's just being stupid.

Thig Lyfe
01-09-2007, 05:50 PM
I heard why this afternoon and I may have the particulars mixed up but:

3 guys don't believe in first ballot HOF and left them off.

1 guy protested the exclusion of Pete Rose and turned in a blank ballot.

1 guy didn't vote due to surgery.

One was a blank ballot turned in as a statement about the steroid era. Or something.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:03 PM
Ok, this is just completely friggin stupid. I can understand if you don't think a certain player isn't a 1st ballot guy... (IMO, that's silly, but fair enough, I guess)... but to believe that NO ONE is a 1st ballot guy?

That's just being stupid.

There has NEVER been a unanimous first ballot HOF'er, not Babe Ruth nor Cy Young nor Hank Aaron. The precedent was set a long time ago, which is why some voters still don't vote for any 1st ballot guys. I guess I have to agree with them there. If no one has ever been unanimous since 1936 and it includes Joe DiMaggio, Gerhig, Ruth, etc., then there is no way Cal Ripken or any one else should be.

chiefqueen
01-09-2007, 06:03 PM
I think anybody who turns in a blank ballot in protest should have their voting priviledges revoked.

Fairplay
01-09-2007, 06:06 PM
If he was still here he'd be outraged that he didn't get 100%.



Hes busy rolling over in his grave.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:07 PM
I think anybody who turns in a blank ballot in protest should have their voting priviledges revoked.


Why?

I heard an interview with one of the voters on ESPN radio yesterday and it made sense. He was protesting anyone from the "Steriod Era" because how does he know who did them and who didn't? Until more information is gained, he refuses to put someone in the HOF who did steriods OR until MLB as a whole chooses to recognize this era officially and the group as a whole is marked.

jAZ
01-09-2007, 06:12 PM
There has NEVER been a unanimous first ballot HOF'er, not Babe Ruth nor Cy Young nor Hank Aaron. The precedent was set a long time ago, which is why some voters still don't vote for any 1st ballot guys. I guess I have to agree with them there. If no one has ever been unanimous since 1936 and it includes Joe DiMaggio, Gerhig, Ruth, etc., then there is no way Cal Ripken or any one else should be.
Thanks, I didn't know that.

I still think it's stupid.

There are guys who, while not better than Ruth, got more votes than Ruth even if it wasn't 100% of the vote. That is as much a travesty as getting 100% of the vote when Ruth didn't. But it has happened before, and it will happen again.

If you didn't vote for Ripken, then you are a tool. You shouldn't have a right to vote in the future.

jAZ
01-09-2007, 06:15 PM
Why?

I heard an interview with one of the voters on ESPN radio yesterday and it made sense. He was protesting anyone from the "Steriod Era" because how does he know who did them and who didn't? Until more information is gained, he refuses to put someone in the HOF who did steriods OR until MLB as a whole chooses to recognize this era officially and the group as a whole is marked.
Then he's not he's not voting. Step down if you aren't going to vote. Based on his justification, the guy isn't going to vote for 10-15 years.

That's stupid.

I've vote for all the roiders before I'd say turning in a blank ballot for 15 years is ok.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:19 PM
Thanks, I didn't know that.

I still think it's stupid.

There are guys who, while not better than Ruth, got more votes than Ruth even if it wasn't 100% of the vote. That is as much a travesty as getting 100% of the vote when Ruth didn't. But it has happened before, and it will happen again.

If you didn't vote for Ripken, then you are a tool. You shouldn't have a right to vote in the future.

Perhaps, a bit nostalgic... yes! However, if you look at baseball as a whole and as a past time, it is all about tradition, unlike football which is constantly evolving. So does it really surprise you that this one tradition is kept? If you are looking at percentages of votes received, Ripken was third all time behind Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver. I would say that is pretty good company.

I am of the mind, being a baseball purist, that this is a tradition that should be kept around. It has been around for 70 years and is not hurting anyone, keep it that way. Just my opinion.

L.A. Chieffan
01-09-2007, 06:19 PM
The entire voting process is a joke, who cares what writers think? Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good baseball writers that care about the game and the history, but there are just as many that hold pety grudges and stupid beliefs their entire lives and try to make statements like this.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:22 PM
Then he's not he's not voting. Step down if you aren't going to vote. Based on his justification, the guy isn't going to vote for 10-15 years.

That's stupid.

I've vote for all the roiders before I'd say turning in a blank ballot for 15 years is ok.

I don't think it will be that long. It may be 5 years maximum before MLB as a whole says something about the era. That is when this guy will then be willing to vote in one of these cheaters.

Fairplay
01-09-2007, 06:23 PM
The entire voting process is a joke, who cares what writers think? Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good baseball writers that care about the game and the history, but there are just as many that hold pety grudges and stupid beliefs their entire lives and try to make statements like this.



On that note who cares if the person gets 100 percent of the vote or 70 percent.
As long as they get in the HOF is all that matters.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 06:23 PM
Ripken is one of the most overrated baseball players in history..he had some good years in the early to late 80's..and then was just mediocre..it was all about the streak..he was not a great player.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:26 PM
The entire voting process is a joke, who cares what writers think? Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good baseball writers that care about the game and the history, but there are just as many that hold pety grudges and stupid beliefs their entire lives and try to make statements like this.

Who should vote then? Just players? Don't you think they also have agendas and some sort of loyalty to one player or another? (Which by the way is the big controversy in the MLB HOF today because the HOFers can vote in players that meet certain criteria after the writers chose not to).

Regardless, someone is going to have "pety grudges and stupid beliefs". Someone has to vote so why not the guys that cover the sport? Or do you make it purely statistical and have some sort of equation to solve if you are in or not? That is really the only way to not make it subjective.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:28 PM
On that note who cares if the person gets 100 percent of the vote or 70 percent.
As long as they get in the HOF is all that matters.

:clap:

It is because everyone today is out to make HISTORY... be the first to do this or that. No one (correction... no media outlet) is happy about just achieving a lifetime award. Although, Ripken was quoted in saying that basically he could care less how many votes he got as long as he was in.

Cochise
01-09-2007, 06:29 PM
Not all the ballots are turned in, some of them are blank due to protest of one thing or another. He still got the third highest % of the vote ever, that's about as unanimous of an endorsement as you can get. He didn't get disrespected.

Edit:

Name Pct

Tom Seaver 98.84
Nolan Ryan 98.79
Cal Ripken 98.50
Ty Cobb 98.23
George Brett 98.19
Hank Aaron 97.83
Mike Schmidt 96.52
Johnny Bench 96.42
Steve Carlton 95.82
Honus Wagner 95.13
Babe Ruth 95.13

RJ
01-09-2007, 06:32 PM
Why?

I heard an interview with one of the voters on ESPN radio yesterday and it made sense. He was protesting anyone from the "Steriod Era" because how does he know who did them and who didn't? Until more information is gained, he refuses to put someone in the HOF who did steriods OR until MLB as a whole chooses to recognize this era officially and the group as a whole is marked.



I'd be interested to know the range of dates this writer is considering the "steroid era". Did he mention that?

Frazod
01-09-2007, 06:33 PM
The entire voting process is a joke, who cares what writers think? Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good baseball writers that care about the game and the history, but there are just as many that hold pety grudges and stupid beliefs their entire lives and try to make statements like this.

Bingo.

Admission to the HOF should be voted on by members of the HOF. It's not like there aren't enough living members to form a quorum.

The thought of some pandering, vindictive asshole like Jay Mariotti (I don't know if he gets a vote or not, just using him as an example) deciding who does/doesn't get in to an organization of exceptional athletes is and always has been ridiculous.

L.A. Chieffan
01-09-2007, 06:33 PM
Who should vote then? Just players? Don't you think they also have agendas and some sort of loyalty to one player or another? (Which by the way is the big controversy in the MLB HOF today because the HOFers can vote in players that meet certain criteria after the writers chose not to).

Regardless, someone is going to have "pety grudges and stupid beliefs". Someone has to vote so why not the guys that cover the sport? Or do you make it purely statistical and have some sort of equation to solve if you are in or not? That is really the only way to not make it subjective.

I kinda like some of Bill Simmons' suggestions in an article he wrote a few years ago http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020108a

but the bottom line is the HOF is like one big bar argument. There is always gonna be heated discussions about whos right and whos wrong, it's not an exact science.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:34 PM
I think only Cobb and Ruth have ever gotten 100%.

Not all the ballots are turned in, some of them are blank due to protest of one thing or another. He still got the third highest % of the vote ever, that's about as unanimous of an endorsement as you can get. George Brett previously was 3rd highest % ever, so Ripken got more votes than Brett did.

You might want to recheck your sources. I know there has never been a uanimous HOFer.

Coach
01-09-2007, 06:34 PM
I heard why this afternoon and I may have the particulars mixed up but:

3 guys don't believe in first ballot HOF and left them off.

1 guy protested the exclusion of Pete Rose and turned in a blank ballot.

1 guy didn't vote due to surgery.

Then those 4 clowns (3 of them don't believe in first ballot HOF and that other one protesting) should turn in their voters card.

As for the other guy who didn't vote becuase of surgery, do an absentee vote. Duh.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:37 PM
I'd be interested to know the range of dates this writer is considering the "steroid era". Did he mention that?

He never mentioned the dates, but from my recollection over the summer, everyone has been mentioning has a general rule of thumb as around 1992-1995 as the beginning and 2005-present as the end. They just leave it up to the public to decide because it didn't just happen one day in a newsletter where it was announced. It was slowly brought in and is still slowly being disposed of.

Cochise
01-09-2007, 06:41 PM
You might want to recheck your sources. I know there has never been a uanimous HOFer.

I edited it. I thought that sounded weird, but that's what Fox4 said on TV, I thought I clearly heard. :shake:

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:43 PM
Bingo.

Admission to the HOF should be voted on by members of the HOF. It's not like there aren't enough living members to form a quorum.

The thought of some pandering, vindictive asshole like Jay Mariotti (I don't know if he gets a vote or not, just using him as an example) deciding who does/doesn't get in to an organization of exceptional athletes is and always has been ridiculous.

Technically, members of the HOF do vote, they just have to wait longer. See my post above (#20).

I just don't like this argument because I know I can be vindictive too and if I was a player and hated... say Barry Bonds now... in 15 years it is doubtful I would hate him any less, especially enough to vote for him into the HOF.

Besides just because you played the game doesn't mean you know about it. For instance, hypothetically obviously, if T.O. was in the NFL HOF and had a vote, would you really trust what he said about what was good for the NFL?

Cochise
01-09-2007, 06:43 PM
Ripken is one of the most overrated baseball players in history..he had some good years in the early to late 80's..and then was just mediocre..it was all about the streak..he was not a great player.

So... 98%+ of the baseball writers don't have a clue what they are talking about...?

Cochise
01-09-2007, 06:44 PM
Technically, members of the HOF do vote, they just have to wait longer. See my post above (#20).

I just don't like this argument because I know I can be vindictive too and if I was a player and hated... say Barry Bonds now... in 15 years it is doubtful I would hate him any less, especially enough to vote for him into the HOF.

Besides just because you played the game doesn't mean you know about it. For instance, hypothetically obviously, if T.O. was in the NFL HOF and had a vote, would you really trust what he said about what was good for the NFL?

I agree... plus you introduce "I vote for you if you vote for me" or some kind of buddies' voting cliques or whatnot.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 06:45 PM
So... 98%+ of the baseball writers don't have a clue what they are talking about...?

ROFL

Well, technically VOTING baseball writers... and I was just waiting for someone to jump on that comment.

Cochise
01-09-2007, 06:47 PM
ROFL

Well, technically VOTING baseball writers... and I was just waiting for someone to jump on that comment.

I guess if you looked at his offensive stats 20 years later and weren't watching baseball at that time you might be like, huh, that guy sucked.

Halfcan
01-09-2007, 06:48 PM
Same reason DT did not get in. Some Asswhipe Retard that needs to be shot for being such a d#ckhead and not voting.

Deberg_1990
01-09-2007, 06:49 PM
Why would Ripkin or Gwynn not be HoF'ers this year..but next year they would be?? This whole 1st ballot thing is nonsense.

Cochise
01-09-2007, 06:50 PM
Why would Ripkin or Gwynn not be HoF'ers this year..but next year they would be?? This whole 1st ballot thing is nonsense.

It's kind of a way to rank HOFers I guess. To the greatest, you give the honor of a first ballot, but guys who are a step down from the greatest you wait a year or two. Just how it works.

Coach
01-09-2007, 06:50 PM
Ripken is one of the most overrated baseball players in history..he had some good years in the early to late 80's..and then was just mediocre..it was all about the streak..he was not a great player.

You're serious? Most Overrated Baseball Player? Gimmie a break. .276/.340/.447 with a OPS of .787 and OPS+ of 112.

He's the type of player that can give you 15-25 HR's and 80-100 RBI's year in and year out. Throw in his defense in, you got a solid SS.

I think that his consistency is what got him in.

Frazod
01-09-2007, 06:51 PM
Technically, members of the HOF do vote, they just have to wait longer. See my post above (#20).

I just don't like this argument because I know I can be vindictive too and if I was a player and hated... say Barry Bonds now... in 15 years it is doubtful I would hate him any less, especially enough to vote for him into the HOF.

Besides just because you played the game doesn't mean you know about it. For instance, hypothetically obviously, if T.O. was in the NFL HOF and had a vote, would you really trust what he said about what was good for the NFL?

It is human nature to be vindictive. If Bonds wouldn't get voted into the HOF by players because he was a complete dick to everybody when he played, then perhaps he doesn't deserve the HOF for that very reason. I'd rather have players with axes to grind making that decision than a bunch of f#cking sportswriters with axes to grind.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 06:52 PM
So... 98%+ of the baseball writers don't have a clue what they are talking about...?
THE STREAK made him a HOF'er..yep..thats right!!

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 06:54 PM
You're serious? Most Overrated Baseball Player? Gimmie a break. .276/.340/.447 with a OPS of .787 and OPS+ of 112.

He's the type of player that can give you 15-25 HR's and 80-100 RBI's year in and year out. Throw in his defense in, you got a solid SS.

I think that his consistency is what got him in.
He played in a little league park(camden yards) during the latter part of his career to balloon his numbers..he sucked from 90 until he retired..defense???he wasn't all that great

L.A. Chieffan
01-09-2007, 06:59 PM
It's kind of a way to rank HOFers I guess. To the greatest, you give the honor of a first ballot, but guys who are a step down from the greatest you wait a year or two. Just how it works.
That's what is kinda cool about the Simmons article. It basically explains there should be different levels to the Hall.
Level one would be the guys that are kinda borderline, that you kinda have to think about and there's probably people that would argue with you that they don't belong.
Level two would be guys that were studs, great stats and all that. 1st balloters if you will.
and Level three would just be the Pantheon guys, the Ruths, Cobbs, Ryans guys like that. Only players that 100% people would agree on.

Of course not really any of this goes into the character of the players or what they do off the field, just on the field. Again not an exact science but when talking about the HOF its all one big sports bar argument anyways.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 07:01 PM
He played in a little league park(camden yards) during the latter part of his career to balloon his numbers..he sucked from 90 until he retired..defense???he wasn't all that great

I guess Ozzie Smith shouldnt be in either. His career numbers are crap. You have to remember just as Ozzie was in the NL, Ripken was to a slightly lesser extent in the AL. On top of that, this was not the era of SS being able to hit like any other position. They were basically fielders and a huge liability at the plate.

Fruit Ninja
01-09-2007, 07:02 PM
.979


Career Fiedling Percentage at SS, but he wasnt that great a fielder. hahahahah

L.A. Chieffan
01-09-2007, 07:03 PM
Cal would be a Level two guy.

Fruit Ninja
01-09-2007, 07:04 PM
Hell ozzie was 978 at shortstop.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 07:05 PM
I think one thing most people overlook here at CP is that baseball is not football and should not be judged as such. There are vast differences between the history of the sports and how it has evolved. You can't just look at yesterday's players and compare them to todays.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 07:06 PM
I guess Ozzie Smith shouldnt be in either. His career numbers are crap. You have to remember just as Ozzie was in the NL, Ripken was to a slightly lesser extent in the AL. On top of that, this was not the era of SS being able to hit like any other position. They were basically fielders and a huge liability at the plate.
Ozzie Smith was a great player,he deserved to go in.Ripken was good..but he was not great..and should not have gotten 100% of the vote..Ripken got progressively worse after his first 5 years in the league..probably because of the streak..

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 07:06 PM
Hell ozzie was 978 at shortstop.

Yet no one in their right mind could honestly say Ozzie was inferior to any shortstop fielding was, today or any time in the past.

Buck
01-09-2007, 07:08 PM
Not all the ballots are turned in, some of them are blank due to protest of one thing or another. He still got the third highest % of the vote ever, that's about as unanimous of an endorsement as you can get. He didn't get disrespected.

Edit:

Name Pct

Tom Seaver 98.84
Nolan Ryan 98.79
Cal Ripken 98.50
Ty Cobb 98.23
George Brett 98.19
Hank Aaron 97.83
Tony Gwynn 97.6
Mike Schmidt 96.52
Johnny Bench 96.42
Steve Carlton 95.82
Honus Wagner 95.13
Babe Ruth 95.13

You left Gwynn off that list

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 07:09 PM
Watch this bare handed grab by Ozzie Smith when he was with San Diego..one of the greatest plays I have ever seen..

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eEkbcoF6z2o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eEkbcoF6z2o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Buck
01-09-2007, 07:09 PM
But I ask again, why did Tony Gwynn recieve less votes than Ripken??? Gwynn hit above .300 in 19 straight seasons.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 07:09 PM
Ozzie Smith was a great player,he deserved to go in.Ripken was good..but he was not great..and should not have gotten 100% of the vote..Ripken got progressively worse after his first 5 years in the league..probably because of the streak..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Ripken,_Jr.

You might want to learn something about him before you talk. An excerpt:

1982: American League Rookie of the Year
1983: American League MVP
1991: American League MVP
1991: All-Star Game MVP
1991: Gold Glove Award for shortstop
1992: Gold Glove award for shortstop
1995: Sports Illustrated magazine's "Sportsman of the Year"
1999: Ranked Number 78 on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Baseball Players
1999: Elected to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team.
2001: All-Star Game MVP
2001: Ranked third greatest shortstop all-time in the The New Bill James Historical Abstract.
2001: Uniform number (8) retired by the Baltimore Orioles
Most consecutive games played at 2,632
Most grounded into double plays at 350
Most double plays by a shortstop, American League, at 1,682
All-time leader in MLB All-Star fan balloting (36,123,483)[6]
Most MLB All-Star Game appearances at shortstop (15) - 1983-1996, 2001
Most consecutive MLB All-Star Game starts (16)[7]

Weird how 10years after he started, and 5 after he began his decline he won 2 gold gloves.

L.A. Chieffan
01-09-2007, 07:11 PM
"Most grounded into double plays at 350"
:spock:

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-09-2007, 07:12 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Ripken,_Jr.

You might want to learn something about him before you talk. An excerpt:

1982: American League Rookie of the Year
1983: American League MVP
1991: American League MVP
1991: All-Star Game MVP
1991: Gold Glove Award for shortstop
1992: Gold Glove award for shortstop
1995: Sports Illustrated magazine's "Sportsman of the Year"
1999: Ranked Number 78 on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Baseball Players
1999: Elected to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team.
2001: All-Star Game MVP
2001: Ranked third greatest shortstop all-time in the The New Bill James Historical Abstract.
2001: Uniform number (8) retired by the Baltimore Orioles
Most consecutive games played at 2,632
Most grounded into double plays at 350
Most double plays by a shortstop, American League, at 1,682
All-time leader in MLB All-Star fan balloting (36,123,483)[6]
Most MLB All-Star Game appearances at shortstop (15) - 1983-1996, 2001
Most consecutive MLB All-Star Game starts (16)[7]

Weird how 10years after he started, and 5 after he began his decline he won 2 gold gloves.

I suggest you read Bill Simmons' article on Cal Ripken from a few years back that was posted on ESPN in his vault.

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 07:13 PM
But I ask again, why did Tony Gwynn recieve less votes than Ripken??? Gwynn hit above .300 in 19 straight seasons.

Good question... not a clue. I just know Ripken has and always will be regarded as one of the great SS to ever play, except by bill parcells.

I guess Gwynn never got the publicity he deserved and some of that may be because he played on the west coast for a team that was, for the most part, mediocre.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 07:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Ripken,_Jr.

You might want to learn something about him before you talk. An excerpt:

1982: American League Rookie of the Year
1983: American League MVP
1991: American League MVP
1991: All-Star Game MVP
1991: Gold Glove Award for shortstop
1992: Gold Glove award for shortstop
1995: Sports Illustrated magazine's "Sportsman of the Year"
1999: Ranked Number 78 on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Baseball Players
1999: Elected to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team.
2001: All-Star Game MVP
2001: Ranked third greatest shortstop all-time in the The New Bill James Historical Abstract.
2001: Uniform number (8) retired by the Baltimore Orioles
Most consecutive games played at 2,632
Most grounded into double plays at 350
Most double plays by a shortstop, American League, at 1,682
All-time leader in MLB All-Star fan balloting (36,123,483)[6]
Most MLB All-Star Game appearances at shortstop (15) - 1983-1996, 2001
Most consecutive MLB All-Star Game starts (16)[7]

Weird how 10years after he started, and 5 after he began his decline he won 2 gold gloves.

I watched him every year..I'm a Yankee fan..and I can tell you that he was one of the guys I never feared coming up to the plate..after 91-92 what happened??Camden yards??he sucked with ballooned numbers at camden yards..that place is a joke..it's 353 to left center field..my sister could hit a home run there

L.A. Chieffan
01-09-2007, 07:14 PM
I suggest you read Bill Simmons' article on Cal Ripken from a few years back that was posted on ESPN in his vault.
HA, I was reading that right now. I would copy and paste it but its kinda long

Coach
01-09-2007, 07:14 PM
Ozzie Smith was a great player,he deserved to go in.Ripken was good..but he was not great..and should not have gotten 100% of the vote..Ripken got progressively worse after his first 5 years in the league..probably because of the streak..

Ozzie Smith was a good player in my view. Not a great one. Good. Ripken was better, in my view.

Smith - .262/.337/.328 with a OPS of .665 and the OPS+ of 87

Ripken - .276/.340/.447 with a OPS of .787 and OPS+ of 112.

Looks like Cal is the winner in this department.

Defense:

Smith - .978 Fielding Percentage

Ripken - .979 as a SS (He played 3rd base later in his career, so I will not include that)

Looks like Cal is the winner in this department by .001%

Buck
01-09-2007, 07:15 PM
Good question... not a clue. I just know Ripken has and always will be regarded as one of the great SS to ever play, except by bill parcells.

I guess Gwynn never got the publicity he deserved and some of that may be because he played on the west coast for a team that was, for the most part, mediocre.

Good Point. I found this excerpt from wikipedia...

"Gwynn made a name for himself by being one of the most consistent hitters for contact in the game's history. He struck out only 434 times in 9,288 career at-bats, and never hit below .309 in any full season."

I don't know if there has ever been anyone as consistent as Gwynn, maybe Ted Williams, but I'm sure he had more strikeouts than Gwynn.

Frazod
01-09-2007, 07:16 PM
But I ask again, why did Tony Gwynn recieve less votes than Ripken??? Gwynn hit above .300 in 19 straight seasons.

He got a higher percentage of votes than BABE RUTH did.

Somebody explain that one. :spock:

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 07:16 PM
"Most grounded into double plays at 350"
:spock:
He was a godsend with men on!! ROFL

Cochise
01-09-2007, 07:18 PM
He got a higher percentage of votes than BABE RUTH did.

Somebody explain that one. :spock:

alright, point - frazod. :hmmm:

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 07:21 PM
Ozzie Smith was a good player in my view. Not a great one. Good. Ripken was better, in my view.

Smith - .262/.337/.328 with a OPS of .665 and the OPS+ of 87

Ripken - .276/.340/.447 with a OPS of .787 and OPS+ of 112.

Looks like Cal is the winner in this department.

Defense:

Smith - .978 Fielding Percentage

Ripken - .979 as a SS (He played 3rd base later in his career, so I will not include that)

Looks like Cal is the winner in this department by .001%

You can't really be serious about this though. Ozzie is far superior fielding shortstop despite the statistics. If you don't want to believe that then you can look at his 13 gold gloves as opposed to Ripkens 2!

epitome1170
01-09-2007, 07:25 PM
I suggest you read Bill Simmons' article on Cal Ripken from a few years back that was posted on ESPN in his vault.

I never said Ripken was overrated and I definitely don't think he should have been 3rd all time. If I said something to make you think differently, quote it for me.

I do think Ripken was a goof if not great player though so I can agree with most of what Bill Simmons has to say.

jAZ
01-09-2007, 07:30 PM
I just heard a great stat on ESPN Radio. Not sure who the guy is, but he said that...

In all of the history of baseball, only one player other than Tony Gwynn hit .350 or higher AND had fewer than 25 strikeouts.

That was George Brett. He did it once.

Tony Gwynn did it in 5 (straight?) seasons.

Buck
01-09-2007, 07:32 PM
I just heard a great stat on ESPN Radio. Not sure who the guy is, but he said that...

In all of the history of baseball, only one player other than Tony Gwynn hit .350 or higher AND had fewer than 25 strikeouts.

That was George Brett. He did it once.

Tony Gwynn did it in 5 (straight?) seasons.

He did it in 1984, and in 4 straight seasons from 1993-1996.

Edit: He had 19 Strikeouts in 1994, not a full season, not sure if you want to count that. But he was hitting .394 when the season ended that year, the highest BA since 1941 (I think).

milkman
01-09-2007, 07:54 PM
I agree, to a certain extent with Bill Parcells.
Ripken wasn't mediocre, but neither was he one of the all time greats.
He was a good player that just never missed games.

I also agree with Buckin Kaeding.
Tony Gwynn deserved more votes that Ripken.
He is one of the all time great hitters, and was a pretty damn good defnsive player, as well.

WilliamTheIrish
01-09-2007, 08:24 PM
Ripken is one of the most overrated baseball players in history..he had some good years in the early to late 80's..and then was just mediocre..it was all about the streak..he was not a great player.

You need to preface every post in this thread with: "I'm a Yankee fan".

That way everybody understands your point of view.

WilliamTheIrish
01-09-2007, 08:26 PM
Bingo.

Admission to the HOF should be voted on by members of the HOF. It's not like there aren't enough living members to form a quorum.

The thought of some pandering, vindictive asshole like Jay Mariotti (I don't know if he gets a vote or not, just using him as an example) deciding who does/doesn't get in to an organization of exceptional athletes is and always has been ridiculous.

There's already a verterans committee that oversees the enshrinement of players overlooked by the BBWAA.

However, it's worse than the writers. You end with guys like Ted Williams lobbying to get his teamate Bobby Doerr in the Hall.

Doerr has zero business in the HoF.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 08:27 PM
You need to preface every post in this thread with: "I'm a Yankee fan".

That way everybody understands your point of view.
Like the kitty cat in your avatar??

WilliamTheIrish
01-09-2007, 08:27 PM
Like the kitty cat in your avatar??

Explain how that has anything to do with this thread.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 08:29 PM
Explain how that has anything to do with this thread.
Explain how me prefacing ''I'm a Yankee fan'' has anything to do with this thread??

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-09-2007, 08:42 PM
Ozzie Smith was a good player in my view. Not a great one. Good. Ripken was better, in my view.

Smith - .262/.337/.328 with a OPS of .665 and the OPS+ of 87

Ripken - .276/.340/.447 with a OPS of .787 and OPS+ of 112.

Looks like Cal is the winner in this department.

Defense:

Smith - .978 Fielding Percentage

Ripken - .979 as a SS (He played 3rd base later in his career, so I will not include that)

Looks like Cal is the winner in this department by .001%

If you honestly think Cal Ripken is a better defensive shortstop than Ozzie Smith, your mitochondrial DNA should be scanned so that all future scion are immediately wiped from the face of the earth.

mlyonsd
01-09-2007, 08:57 PM
Ozzie Smith would do flips just for the honor of carrying Ripken's jock.

Buck
01-09-2007, 08:59 PM
This is a little whack, as far as stats go, but Ozzie Smith played in the NL while Ripken in the AL. The NL has pitchers that bat, so technically it coulda been easier for Smith...Nevermind that was stupid.

RJ
01-09-2007, 09:05 PM
He never mentioned the dates, but from my recollection over the summer, everyone has been mentioning has a general rule of thumb as around 1992-1995 as the beginning and 2005-present as the end. They just leave it up to the public to decide because it didn't just happen one day in a newsletter where it was announced. It was slowly brought in and is still slowly being disposed of.



Whether it was brought in slowly is a question we don't know the answer to. Pretty arrogant for a writer to cast his votes based on the years the player played. Where is the cutoff? What about the players who overlapped those years? Lee Smith, Tim Raines, Andre Dawson, Joe Carter,.....all players who retired mid to later 90's and are borderline HOF......are they guilty by association? If not, why not?

I'd also be interested to know if he applies the same criteria to pitchers. Clemens will be an interesting case. He started before the "era" and still throws 90 mph at age 45.......is that natural ability or juice?

I just don't see how a writer can base his votes, or lack thereof, on some semi-arbitrary dates.

Buck
01-09-2007, 09:07 PM
I'd also be interested to know if he applies the same criteria to pitchers. Clemens will be an interesting case. He started before the "era" and still throws 90 mph at age 45.......is that natural ability or juice?

Juice, definitely Juice.

RJ
01-09-2007, 09:12 PM
Ripken is one of the most overrated baseball players in history..he had some good years in the early to late 80's..and then was just mediocre..it was all about the streak..he was not a great player.



You are so far off base there I wouldn't even know where to start. Cal Ripken was a great baseball player by virtually any standard, I'd love to know what you base your opinion on.

Frazod
01-09-2007, 09:15 PM
You are so far off base there I wouldn't even know where to start. Cal Ripken was a great baseball player by virtually any standard, I'd love to know what you base your opinion on.

I assume he bases it on being a Yankee fan.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 09:21 PM
You are so far off base there I wouldn't even know where to start. Cal Ripken was a great baseball player by virtually any standard, I'd love to know what you base your opinion on.
It's my opinion that a lot of his stats were ballooned from playing in Camden Yards..have you ever been there??that is a little league ball park..he was a good player..he wasn't great..hell..I don't think Phil Rizzuto should be a HOFer..but he is..Ripken was really good from 82-90..after that it was all about the streak..

RJ
01-09-2007, 09:22 PM
He got a higher percentage of votes than BABE RUTH did.

Somebody explain that one. :spock:



Everybody gets confused on this. Babe Ruth was in the FIRST hof class. He was up against every player who had ever played and retired up to that point. The first class was Ruth, Cobb, Mathewson, Walter Johnson and Honus Wagner. Pretty good company, they were basically deemed the 5 best players to have played the game. I don't think any of them were slighted to not get 100%.

Vaquero Amarillo
01-09-2007, 09:23 PM
Ripken was really good from 82-90..after that it was all about the streak..

Ripken won the 1991 American League MVP on a last place team you dipshit.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 09:24 PM
Ripken won the 1991 American League MVP on a last place team you dipshit.
are you still urinating on urself yellow cowboy??he still sucked dumbass

Buck
01-09-2007, 09:26 PM
Cal Ripken is not overrated, but I am pissed that he got more votes than Gwynn. I am a :homer: but c'mon, 19 consecutive seasons above .309, 8 Batting Titles!!! Are you kidding me???

Vaquero Amarillo
01-09-2007, 09:29 PM
Whether it was brought in slowly is a question we don't know the answer to. Pretty arrogant for a writer to cast his votes based on the years the player played. Where is the cutoff? What about the players who overlapped those years? Lee Smith, Tim Raines, Andre Dawson, Joe Carter,.....all players who retired mid to later 90's and are borderline HOF......are they guilty by association? If not, why not?

I'd also be interested to know if he applies the same criteria to pitchers. Clemens will be an interesting case. He started before the "era" and still throws 90 mph at age 45.......is that natural ability or juice?

I just don't see how a writer can base his votes, or lack thereof, on some semi-arbitrary dates.

Not all of the writer's intentions are being clearly stated here.

He says anybody who played during the "steroid" era had an obligation to the game to come forward and blow the whistle. If you're not guilty of using but knew, you should be held accountable because you didn't rat people out.

Coach
01-09-2007, 09:33 PM
It's my opinion that a lot of his stats were ballooned from playing in Camden Yards..have you ever been there??that is a little league ball park..he was a good player..he wasn't great..hell..I don't think Phil Rizzuto should be a HOFer..but he is..Ripken was really good from 82-90..after that it was all about the streak..

Then that's why there are statistics that are made with a term called "park adjusted." (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/parkadjust.shtml)

Ozzie Smith's park adjusted statistics.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithoz01.shtml

.261/.328/.390 with a park adjusted OPS of .718

Cal Ripken's park adjusted statistics.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ripkeca01.shtml

.264/.332/.409 with a park adjusted OPS of .741

Coach
01-09-2007, 09:34 PM
Cal Ripken is not overrated, but I am pissed that he got more votes than Gwynn. I am a :homer: but c'mon, 19 consecutive seasons above .309, 8 Batting Titles!!! Are you kidding me???

That I do agree. I do feel that Gywnn should had more votes than Ripken.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 09:37 PM
Then that's why there are statistics that are made with a term called "park adjusted." (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/parkadjust.shtml)

Ozzie Smith's park adjusted statistics.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithoz01.shtml

.261/.328/.390 with a park adjusted OPS of .718

Cal Ripken's park adjusted statistics.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ripkeca01.shtml

.264/.332/.409 with a park adjusted OPS of .741
Alright..those are all guesstimations..but..I give up...Cal Ripken was great..great!!! :clap:

Coach
01-09-2007, 09:38 PM
Alright..those are all guesstimations..but..I give up...Cal Ripken was great..great!!! :clap:

LMAO

Well, I suppose we can just agree to disagree. How's that?

RJ
01-09-2007, 09:38 PM
It's my opinion that a lot of his stats were ballooned from playing in Camden Yards..have you ever been there??that is a little league ball park..he was a good player..he wasn't great..hell..I don't think Phil Rizzuto should be a HOFer..but he is..Ripken was really good from 82-90..after that it was all about the streak..



Sorry Bill, but that's not true. Camden Yards is sort of hitter-neutral, though there is a slight increase in home runs to right handed batters vs the league average. Other categories don't change much at all. I'm a fantasy BB junkie so I pay attention to such things, unhealthy though it might be. And yes, I have been there.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 09:41 PM
Sorry Bill, but that's not true. Camden Yards is sort of hitter-neutral, though there is a slight increase in home runs to right handed batters vs the league average. Other categories don't change much at all. I'm a fantasy BB junkie so I pay attention to such things, unhealthy though it might be. And yes, I have been there.
They recently moved the fences back to make it pitcher friendly..but..when Ripken was there it was a ban box..

siberian khatru
01-09-2007, 09:42 PM
Alright..those are all guesstimations..but..I give up...Cal Ripken was great..great!!! :clap:

Ripken was a great shortstop, by historical standards. Top 5 (pre-ARod and Jeter).

There's really no dispute about that. In fact, you're about the only one on Planet Earth who argues that he wasn't.

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 09:42 PM
LMAO

Well, I suppose we can just agree to disagree. How's that?
Sounds good! :)

WilliamTheIrish
01-09-2007, 09:43 PM
Ripken was a great shortstop, by historical standards. Top 5 (pre-ARod and Jeter).

There's really no dispute about that. In fact, you're about the only one on Planet Earth who argues that he wasn't.

But he played in Camden Yards, dammit!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 09:44 PM
Ripken was a great shortstop, by historical standards. Top 5 (pre-ARod and Jeter).

There's really no dispute about that. In fact, you're about the only one on Planet Earth who argues that he wasn't.
I just said he's great..better than sliced bread in fact..Cal Ripken,superstar!! :clap:

I give up!!

siberian khatru
01-09-2007, 09:44 PM
I just said he's great..better than sliced bread in fact..Cal Ripken,superstar!! :clap:

I give up!!

But he wasn't better than Honus Wagner. ;)

Bill Parcells
01-09-2007, 09:46 PM
But he wasn't better than Honus Wagner. ;)
Yes,we absolutely have to draw the line there. :D

RJ
01-09-2007, 10:19 PM
But he wasn't better than Honus Wagner. ;)



Honus Wagner?? Are you kidding me??? He played the first 12 years of his career in Exposition Park! That place was notorious for inflating the stats of right handed hitters in day games and there were NO night games! In fact, Wagner hit 65 of his 101 career HR's during the years the Pirates played there. Need I say more?

Honus Wagner, Hall of Fame fraud.

Coach
01-09-2007, 10:23 PM
Honus Wagner?? Are you kidding me??? He played the first 12 years of his career in Exposition Park! That place was notorious for inflating the stats of right handed hitters in day games and there were NO night games! In fact, Wagner hit 65 of his 101 career HR's during the years the Pirates played there. Need I say more?

Honus Wagner, Hall of Fame fraud.

Tell me you're kidding?

Halfcan
01-09-2007, 10:25 PM
Ripkin was no George Brett-but he was damm good.

Believer
01-09-2007, 10:30 PM
Ripken is one of the most overrated baseball players in history..he had some good years in the early to late 80's..and then was just mediocre..it was all about the streak..he was not a great player.

yeah! and he looked old and was just a lousy third base coach.

siberian khatru
01-09-2007, 10:31 PM
Honus Wagner?? Are you kidding me??? He played the first 12 years of his career in Exposition Park! That place was notorious for inflating the stats of right handed hitters in day games and there were NO night games! In fact, Wagner hit 65 of his 101 career HR's during the years the Pirates played there. Need I say more?

Honus Wagner, Hall of Fame fraud.

Plus, he played only in black and white.

RJ
01-09-2007, 10:34 PM
Tell me you're kidding?



Yeah, I'm kidding.

But it does make me wonder if there were enough HR's hit in those days to determine inflation/deflation ballpark effects. Was Frank "Home Run" Baker merely a product of his environment when he crushed 12 in 1913 playing his home games in Shibe Park? Perhaps we'll never know.


:)

siberian khatru
01-09-2007, 10:36 PM
Yeah, I'm kidding.

But it does make me wonder if there were enough HR's hit in those days to determine inflation/deflation ballpark effects. Was Frank "Home Run" Baker merely a product of his environment when he crushed 12 in 1913 playing his home games in Shibe Park? Perhaps we'll never know.


:)

Dude, everyone knows Baker was juicing.

OK, it was tobacco juice, but still ...

RJ
01-09-2007, 10:37 PM
Plus, he played only in black and white.



True, which really inflated their SB totals. Black and white made them much faster.

Coach
01-09-2007, 10:41 PM
Yeah, I'm kidding.

But it does make me wonder if there were enough HR's hit in those days to determine inflation/deflation ballpark effects. Was Frank "Home Run" Baker merely a product of his environment when he crushed 12 in 1913 playing his home games in Shibe Park? Perhaps we'll never know.


:)

It's possible, but his HR totals has been at least almost consistent with each other. It's not like he's having 1, 2, 1, 13, 14, 2, 13, you know?

What I find really interesting is his RBI, after the 1913, where he drove in 117, he never broke the 100 mark after that. Alot of things can contribute to that, like maybe he probably moved from a 3-6 spot to a 1-2 or a 8-9 spot.

Or it could be that the guys in front of him (the leadoff and 2nd batter) probably had a piss-poor OBP.

RJ
01-09-2007, 10:55 PM
I don't know, Coach. From 1910-1911 he went from 2 to 11 homers. That's a 550% increase and hard to write off as coincidence. Very Brady Anderson-like. Gotta agree with Siberian, there was some kind of juice involved.

Coach
01-09-2007, 11:08 PM
I don't know, Coach. From 1910-1911 he went from 2 to 11 homers. That's a 550% increase and hard to write off as coincidence. Very Brady Anderson-like. Gotta agree with Siberian, there was some kind of juice involved.

Well, apparently that's a little bit late to conduct steroid testing on him. Heh.

Anyways, which one of these is a HOFer?

Player A: 266 BA, 359 OBP, 489 SLG, 132 OPS+, 374 HR, 1159 RBI, 6X AS

Player B: 279 BA, 398 OBP, 548 SLG, 149 OPS+, 369 HR, 1015 RBI, 6X AS

Player C: 318 BA, 360 OBP, 477 SLG, 124 OPS+, 207 HR, 1085 RBI, 10X AS, 6 GG

Player D: 295 BA, 369 OBP, 564 SLG, 143 OPS+, 381 HR, 1239 RBI, 5X AS, 1 POY award

And which ones should be? Position is OF, as Player C is a CF,and the other 3 are corner OF.

Guru
01-09-2007, 11:16 PM
?
Last I heard, he participated in the strikes so his record is slightly tainted. That might have a smidgen to do with it. Not much though.

RJ
01-09-2007, 11:26 PM
Player C is HOF'er Kirby Puckett....yeah, I peeked.

The others were Kiner, Colavito and Belle?

I'm thinking Colavito and Kiner were good players in their day but not the best at their respective positions and maybe didn't play for the best teams. Admittedly, I don't know much about either player.

Belle was an asshole to beat all assholes, still is in his retirement apparently. He was a very goodplayer for a few years but compared to him Bonds is Mr. Congenial.

Puckett was a centerpiece of some good teams playing great defense in a key position......and everyone loved him. He played on 2 WS champs. I'd say he's the most deserving of the group for a place in Cooperstown.

Coach
01-09-2007, 11:37 PM
Player C is HOF'er Kirby Puckett....yeah, I peeked.

The others were Kiner, Colavito and Belle?

I'm thinking Colavito and Kiner were good players in their day but not the best at their respective positions and maybe didn't play for the best teams. Admittedly, I don't know much about either player.

Belle was an asshole to beat all assholes, still is in his retirement apparently. He was a very goodplayer for a few years but compared to him Bonds is Mr. Congenial.

Puckett was a centerpiece of some good teams playing great defense in a key position......and everyone loved him. He played on 2 WS champs. I'd say he's the most deserving of the group for a place in Cooperstown.

A is Rocky Colavito. He didn't really have the longevity required. His peak wasn't really high enough or sustained enough, either.

B is Ralph Kiner, and that's deftinaly a HOF numbers. Yes, he doesn't have the longevity, but his OBP% and his OPS+ was incredibly good.

C is correct, that it is Puckett.

Player D was Belle, and while he was an asshole, he just didn't have the longevity.

ChiefsFanatic
01-10-2007, 12:05 AM
?

The same way George Brett did not get %100. The Voters are dumbasses.

Logical
01-10-2007, 12:41 AM
I really don't think anyone can be a unanimous pick, that would almost indicate no player could be or was ever better. To me getting this close is as it should be.

DJ's left nut
01-10-2007, 01:02 AM
Wow, there are still people that use fielding % to measure defensive prowess...how quaint.

Ozzie Smith got to balls at age 36 that Ripken wasn't getting to at 23. Ripken's range was bad enough at SS that they had to move him to 3b to make room for the immortal Mike Bordick at SS (who was 31 at the time and aging in dog years). In about 200 more games at SS, Ozzie had 600 more putouts and a whopping 1400 more assists. Then there's the speed of the carpet at old Busch stadium. Ripken wouldn't have had a prayer on that turf, balls would've been flying by him left and right. Let's not even think about mentioning Cal Ripken Jr. in the same breath as the greatest defensive player in the history of the game, regardless of position.

As for offense, they were completely different players. Ozzie Smith played on a whiteyball team that emphasized moving runners over and stealing bases (ozzie had nearly 600 SBs for his career). Ozzie always got the runner over and had a fairly respectible OBP for a guy that was asked to move guys over as often as he was. The guy didn't hit HRs so people thought of him as a non-entity on offense, but he was great on the bases and really a solid offensive player, especially when you factor in the type of game he was asked to play. Ripken played on an Earl Weaver, station to station and 3 run HR team. He was asked to be a middle of the order hitter and drive in runs. In the early part of his career, he did that extremely well. However, for a guy to play in Camden Yards his whole career and only drive in 100+ runs 4 times or score 100+ runs 3 times is pretty suspect. The Orioles got a lot of hollow offense out of Ripken. Some flashy HR #s (for a SS) that utlimately didn't add up to much more than an average player. Add in the fact that their park adjusted #s aren't quite as far apart as you'd think at first glance, and Ripken is, at best, a marginally more productive offensive player over the course of his career. Cal gets the edge, to be sure, but it's hardly a knockout blow.

Parcells is right, from 1992 on, Ripken was only an average ballplayer. His range at SS had diminshed to the point that he became a liability. His offensive tools had become only average as well (his OPS+ over that span was below 100, indicating a below average hitter). Combine that with the fact that the Orioles were getting this kind of production from a power position (3b) and paying him premium $ for it (from 93 - 97 he was the 3,5,2,7,6,10th highest paid player in the AL respectively) and you get a guy that was not helping his club.

So, to recap, for 10 of his 21 seasons, Ripken was a very well compensated, average (at best) player. Why again does he deserve 100% of the vote? I'd have put him in on a 2nd ballot, but not on the first. I'd have listened to anyone that would make an argument that he doesn't belong at all, but I do think the streak means something in the grand scheme, so he deserves a spot.

Not a snowball's chance in hell he deserved more votes than Gywnn. That was a travesty.

WilliamTheIrish
01-10-2007, 01:35 AM
As for offense, they were completely different players. Ozzie Smith played on a whiteyball team that emphasized moving runners over and stealing bases (ozzie had nearly 600 SBs for his career). Ozzie always got the runner over and had a fairly respectible OBP for a guy that was asked to move guys over as often as he was. The guy didn't hit HRs so people thought of him as a non-entity on offense, but he was great on the bases and really a solid offensive player, especially when you factor in the type of game he was asked to play.

I chopped your post a little. It's funny how you try to justify Smith's offense by running down Ripken's offensive numbers. There's no need to to do that. Smith is in.
However, Smith's offense was pedestrian. There's just no denying that. Smith was a fan favorite who made some pretty spectacular plays with the glove. That's why he's in. And to say it's because he moved runners across.... is bullshit.
Never thought of Smith as a non entity on offense. (Unless you saw him play in a WS....then he truly was a non-entity)

Give me the power guy every time.

But that's just me.

Amnorix
01-10-2007, 08:49 AM
Ok, this is just completely friggin stupid. I can understand if you don't think a certain player isn't a 1st ballot guy... (IMO, that's silly, but fair enough, I guess)... but to believe that NO ONE is a 1st ballot guy?

That's just being stupid.

It's a historical thing with baseball. First ballot has significance. it goes back to the very first elections to the HOF.

Clemens has a very real shot of being a 100% first ballot HOFer. Nobody else does that I can think of.

Hydrae
01-10-2007, 09:17 AM
I will just chime in that I agree that Ripken deserves to be in the Hall simply due to "the streak." However, Gwynn absolutely should have gotten more votes than Cal. Gwynn was one of the top 5 contact hitters in the entire history of the game, bar none.

Frazod
01-10-2007, 09:33 AM
Clemens has a very real shot of being a 100% first ballot HOFer. Nobody else does that I can think of.

He won't. Some New York asshole won't vote for him because he played in Boston. Some Boston asshole won't vote for him because he played in New York. There may even be some Texas asshole who abstains because he left Texas. I really think that's the way it works with these clowns. :shake:

I despise Clemens and hate every team he played for (except Toronto), but there's no denying he belongs in the HOF. But some idiot who actually has voting rights won't see it that way.

Mile High Mania
01-10-2007, 09:54 AM
I haven't read all the posts, but there was a writer with a vote on the 'Mike & Mike' show (ESPN) yesterday that said he will NEVER EVER give a guy a vote on his first ballot. There was a lot of reason why, can't say I agreed with any of it though...

RJ
01-10-2007, 10:57 AM
Left Nut, gotta disagree with some of that.



"Wow, there are still people that use fielding % to measure defensive prowess...how quaint."

Yes, people like Major League Baseball, who record FP as an official statistic, which are then used to assess a player's performance, especially for honors like the HOF.

"....they had to move him to 3b to make room for the immortal Mike Bordick at SS...."

Uh, Mike Bordick and his .260 career BA didn't last 13 years in the majors because of his bat. He was a whiz with the glove and allowed the Orioles to move Ripken over to third, not an unusual thing for players in the more demanding defensive positions. You make it sound like Bordick was some sort of stiff at SS, he definitely was not.

"Ripken played on an Earl Weaver, station to station and 3 run HR team"

Ripken played three seasons under Weaver.

"However, for a guy to play in Camden Yards his whole career".....

Camden Yards opened in 1992, Cal's rookie season was 1982.


I'm not arguing that he should have received 100% of the vote or that he's better than Ozzie, those things are matters of opinion. Just pointing out some innaccuracies from your post.

Bill Parcells
01-10-2007, 11:52 AM
He won't. Some New York asshole won't vote for him because he played in Boston. Some Boston asshole won't vote for him because he played in New York. There may even be some Texas asshole who abstains because he left Texas. I really think that's the way it works with these clowns. :shake:

I despise Clemens and hate every team he played for (except Toronto), but there's no denying he belongs in the HOF. But some idiot who actually has voting rights won't see it that way.
Right on Fraz..you nailed it!!

Pitt Gorilla
01-10-2007, 11:59 AM
Thanks, I didn't know that.

I still think it's stupid.

There are guys who, while not better than Ruth, got more votes than Ruth even if it wasn't 100% of the vote. That is as much a travesty as getting 100% of the vote when Ruth didn't. But it has happened before, and it will happen again.

If you didn't vote for Ripken, then you are a tool. You shouldn't have a right to vote in the future.It is stupid. Due to prior voters being stupid, current voters continue the trend.