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 4 of 8
  1. pallister

    pallister Guest

    He was a talented guy who showed up to work every day and compiled some gaudy numbers. But I never considered him a dominant player over a long period of time. Not saying he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame as it's currently constituted. But he's not the superhero people make him out to be. He's the U2 of MLB.
     
    pallister, Jan 7, 2007
    #37
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It doesn't demand this kind of response, but the response certainly demonstrates how impossible people are finding it to sort out the mess created by players who decided to play by a different set of rules, yet don't have the integrity to be honest about what they did.

    Ultimately this is going to make the Hall of Fame more irrelevant. For sixty plus years, baseball fans could visit it with a sense of awe. Ten years from now, even the purest fan will view it with the cynicism of something that's been corrupted.

    There's no good way of dealing with the issue. I agree that Ladewski's solution is sanctimonious and useless.

    Fans are going to assign mental asterisks to certain plaques anyhow, but maybe anyone inducted from now on should have a disclaimer at the bottom of his plaque saying his accomplishments came after performance-enhancing drugs had entered the game. The HOF won't do that, of course, but it's one way to absolve voters of having to weigh a player's accomplishments relative to the likelihood that he achieved them by artificial means.

    It's also throwing in the towel and taking the fun out of baseball for a lot of people, who believe that for the achievements to be meaningful, they need to be accomplished on a level playing field.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jan 7, 2007
    #38
  3. Overrated

    Overrated Guest

    I'm not getting into the HOF argument, but Cal Ripken did not help "save baseball."

    His All-Star Game home run, along with the one he hit when he set the record were nice memories, but that's about it.
     
    Overrated, Jan 7, 2007
    #39
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    By the way, the closest thing to Ripken weighing in about this that I remember was a Baltimore Sun article last month by Dan Connolly:

     
    The Big Ragu, Jan 7, 2007
    #40
  5. pallister

    pallister Guest

    The "Ripken saved baseball" argument reminds me of the absurd comments made by Chris Mortensen years ago when he wondered if the NFL could survive John Elway and Barry Sanders retiring at the same time.
     
    pallister, Jan 7, 2007
    #41
  6. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    My contention has been with this voter taking a dickwadian stance.

    Now, Ripken as icon ... that's another story.

    I spent enough years watching Orioles baseball to know that Cal was a rock ... but certainly not the greatest shortstop that ever put on cleats. The offensive picture simply doesn't support it.

    431 home runs ... a function of his longevity as much as anything.

    Too many years as a .260-.270 hitter, trying new batting styles every other week. That is not an all-time offensive great.

    Defensively, certainly above average, but no Ozzie Smith, either. He made all the plays he should make, and didn't make many he wouldn't have been expected to.

    If he was playing for a contender in the final 2-3 years of the streak, there would have been a great deal more made about the fact that his insistence on playing was counter-productive to his team's win column.
     
    shotglass, Jan 7, 2007
    #42
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Totally with you on that Shotty. I've always hesitated to call Ripken overrated, because he was a great player. But I always felt as if he was celebrated by a lot of people as something better than the .275, 20 HR, 90 RBI player he was on average. Aside from the streak, he's a notable player in one major respect: he ushered in more tall shortstops who could swing the bat, in addition to playing defense.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jan 7, 2007
    #43
  8. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Unless this guy took a similar stance during the steroids era and didn't choose to look the other way, he's really not in position to take this stance. Because he would have neglected the issue just the same.
     
    Oz, Jan 7, 2007
    #44
  9. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    If 431 homers are produced by longevity, why isn't Tony Fernandez ranked high on that list?

    Likewise Cal played on ALCS teams in '96 and '97, and the '98 team was supposed to be a contender since they had the highest payroll in baseball. That was also the year he sat out and the streak came to an end. So he actually was playing on a contender when the streak came to an end.

    I'd hesitate to call him the greatest. But no other shortstop had ever consistently put up those kinds of numbers before he did. And the numbers he did put up were generally considered great numbers during many of the years he played, especially his best years.
     
    Flying Headbutt, Jan 7, 2007
    #45
  10. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    As you might guess, I'd only run these if they supported my argument. ;) (Although good catch, FH, on the final years as a contender.)

    That's two (2) 200-hit seasons in 21.
     
    shotglass, Jan 7, 2007
    #46
  11. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Totally absurd. I'm not even repeating your "argument" because it's so flawed.

    You're comparing Wagner's home-run numbers to Ripken? Wagner retired in 19-fucking-17 -- that's two years before Ruth even hit 29, let alone 54, let alone 59, and totally changed the way the game is played.
     
    buckweaver, Jan 7, 2007
    #47
  12. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    Wait a minute. If the circumstances under which other Hall of Famers came to be inducted has no relevance in this case, then neither should the circumstances under which the latest ones came to be inducted. QED.

    And, frankly, I think that the fact that some portion of his peers failed to vote for Babe freaking Ruth in the first class kinda sets the bar.
     
    HejiraHenry, Jan 7, 2007
    #48
Page 4 of 8
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page