Ripken, Gwynn won't be unanimous selections

The only thing I don't buy about Ripken's career is the notion that he revolutionized the standard of a power-hitter shortstop. There were power-hitting shortstops long before Ripken -- Robin Yount from his own era was hitting for power from 1980 on. Hell, Rico Petrocelli was a 40 home run hitter in a comparative deadball era.

Other than that, I don't have any major issues with his being a HOFer.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, because it's so much fun sometimes -- Jose Canseco was an iconic player of the era in which he played, so for that reason would he get your vote if you had one?

 

It's not that Ripken revolutionized the idea of a power-hitting shortstop, Bubs -- it's that he was 6'4, 225, while doing it.

Petrocelli was 6-0, 185. Banks was 6-1, 180. Yount was 6-0, 170. They're all standard-size shortstops. Ripken was massive, compared to those guys. That's why he's considered to have paved the way for the A-Rods (6-3, 190), Jeters (6-3, 175), Chipper Jones (who would have been a SS if not for his nasty leg injury in 1994; at 6-3, 185). Before that, you rarely, rarely saw a SS that tall -- especially who could field the position so well.

***

And the other issue with those guys, compared to Ripken, is their longetivity at SS.

While Petrocelli did have his 40-HR season playing 153 games at SS (1969), he moved to third base full time by 1971, and played half his career there (774 games at SS, 727 at 3B).

Ernie Banks had two MVP seasons at SS, but ended up playing more of his career at 1B than he did at short (1,259 at 1B, 1,125 at SS).

Yount had an MVP season at SS in 1982, but then he moved to center and played half his career there, too (1,479 at SS, 1,218 at OF).

Ripken, meanwhile, played 2,302 games at SS (675 at 3B). Big difference there.

 

If he fails to turn in a ballot, the chance at unanimity exists.
If he turns in a blank ballot, it does not.
But what a tool...

 

Hay-soos. Yes, I like him.

But he no help me hit curveball.

Jobu help me hit curveball.

 

Actually, according to the article I originally posted, a blank ballot counts as a "no vote" for everyone (the case of Tom Seaver was presented in the article).

Two good quotes at the end of the article:

"It's not any modern player's fault that Willie Mays fell short of being a unanimous pick," said Denver Post columnist Mark Kiszla. "And I don't give a hoot about any 'tradition' that might have been started by a bunch of dead sportswriters."

(wonder if he really said hoot)

"Every generation of baseball writers," said Sporting News columnist Dave Kindred, "has its mavericks marching to music only they hear."

 

Geez, you are a fucking moron.

 

You make a good point Oz. How about "Ripken is one of the players that even now bring back positive memories of that era while some who appeared larger than liafe have been exposed."

You know how some have said on this board, I remember from the Tiki Barber debate, that if you need to think whether he should be in or not, they probably shouldn't? As soon as I think of Ripken and Gwynn, I think Hall of Famer.

 

I'm not sure you understand what logic is.

Using your logic, there shouldn't even be a Hall of Fame vote because somewhere along the line, someone deserving was rejected or someone undeserving (Gary Carter) was elected. Thus, we should throw out the entire process.

 

But there are other yearly votes that should definitely be eliminated, right dye?

 

Sort of the same issue. The SEC fanboys got confused on the college football vote, and morons like the ftard mentioned at the start of the thread are confused, too.

 

I'm quite certain you don't.

Well, it is a flawed process. But the issue I was dealing with was unanimity, part of the subject of the thread. If Aaron didn't deserve to be a unanimous choice -- and at least one voter felt he didn't -- then no one does. He's in the argument about who the best player of all-time was. That's a more exclusive group than the Hall of Fame Membership, the majority of which cannot not make a claim for deserving a unanimous vote. The fact that you don't like that line of thinking, Dyepack, doesn't make it illogical. Neither does calling names.