1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ripken, Gwynn won't be unanimous selections

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by lantaur, Jan 7, 2007.

Page 3 of 8
  1. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    Ladewski is an absolute moron. And just because Aaron or Mays weren't unanimous first ballots, it doesn't mean that Ripken and Gwynn shouldn't be. All of them should be. No question.

    And Pallister, if Ripken was an overrated shortstop then the hall of fame is full of guys who have no business being there. That's because he ranks as one of the top five best shortstops ever, and went on to redefine the position in ways that are still reverberating today. If anything he's underrated for his offensive contributions and such because of the streak.

    But all those idiot seamheads who think no one should be unanimous because of the way it was 60 years ago just need to STFU already and put their egos and self-righteousness in check.

    And holding the steroid era against Gwynn is just laughable. Unless ho-hos are considered performance enhancing.
     
    Flying Headbutt, Jan 7, 2007
    #25
  2. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Yes, you can, and it's done every year at this time. If the standard is so high that Aaron, widely viewed as one of the four best players of all time even now, can't get a unanimous vote, then the same standard should be applied to everyone up for HOF consideration.

    On this, we agree. Every HOF vote is journalists making news.

    Thanks for the insult Dye. Coming from you, it means a lot, and certainly adds to the discussion. Nice job.
     
    novelist_wannabe, Jan 7, 2007
    #26
  3. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    I couldn't agree with DP, and the others, more.

    HOF voting has become a very self-serving exercise. And this guy does not deserve the privilege.
     
    shotglass, Jan 7, 2007
    #27
  4. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Take his vote away. Not only is his stance a blanket indictment which doesn't take into account individual players, its flawed because Gwynn and Ripken had the prime of their careers BEFORE his self-appointed Steroid Era.

    Then again, it could be argued that his totally arbitrary definition of the Steroid Era is laughably naive, given that 'roids probably date back in some form to the 70s.

    Hey Casty, can you weigh in on this?
     
    Bubbler, Jan 7, 2007
    #28
  5. pallister

    pallister Guest

    FH,
    I don't know about half, but the hall of fame is littered with players who don't belong.

    Importance is not the same thing as greatness. Ripken was a very important ballplayer on many levels, not a great one, IMO.
     
    pallister, Jan 7, 2007
    #29
  6. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    Where would you rank him among the great shortstops? Behind Wagner? Sure I'll buy that. After that though, where? His offensive output was unprecedented. His instincts and awareness were taken for granted and downplayed by many. He was one of the great fielders and among the most fundamentally sound players ever. All he lacked was flash. Otherwise he was unquestionably great.
     
    Flying Headbutt, Jan 7, 2007
    #30
  7. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    If you can't grasp what an illogical statement you're making about Aaron, there's not much left to say.
     
    DyePack, Jan 7, 2007
    #31
  8. DrRosenpenis

    DrRosenpenis Member

    Ripken behind Wagner? I don't buy it.

    Wagner is ahead of Ripken in hits (by less than 200), RBIs (by 37), and career batting average (.327 to .276).
    Ripken has him in HRs (431 to 101), errors at SS (225 to 676) and fielding percentage (.979 to .940).

    The only category where Wagner dominated Ripken is in batting average. Throw in the streak and that cancels out the batting average argument.

    Ripken dominates Wagner is several categories. And the fact that Ripken is credited with helping save baseball in the 90s gives him the obvious edge, all things considered.

    When choosing between the two, Ripken gets my vote.
     
    DrRosenpenis, Jan 7, 2007
    #32
  9. Human_Paraquat

    Human_Paraquat Well-Known Member

    You're entitled to your opinion, though this one happens to be absurd.

    Ripken 431 homers with 3,184 hits -- obviously Hall of Fame credentials offensively. He also finished with a career .979 fielding perfcentage, which is 10 points higher than the league average over the same period.

    A two-time MVP (eight years apart), Rookie of the Year, a 19-time All-Star, and he ranks in the top 20 all-time in games, hits, RBI, total bases, doubles, triples and sacrifice flies.

    Cal Ripken was a GREAT player.
     
    Human_Paraquat, Jan 7, 2007
    #33
  10. pallister

    pallister Guest

    Yes, without Cal Ripken, major league baseball would have ceased to exist years ago.
     
    pallister, Jan 7, 2007
    #34
  11. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    He probably thinks back to 1993, recalls a lot of runs being scored, and assumes it had to be because of steroids.
     
    DyePack, Jan 7, 2007
    #35
  12. Human_Paraquat

    Human_Paraquat Well-Known Member

    So make your argument that Ripken was not "great." Also, which shortstops (of his time or before) are "greater" than Ripken?
     
    Human_Paraquat, Jan 7, 2007
    #36
Page 3 of 8
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page