Who doesn't vote for Ripken?

[onlydarksets]

Gwynn, Ripken will fall short of perfect - Yahoo! News

Seriously, how can you possibly think that Tony Gwynn and Cal, Jr. were on the juice? Has this guy Paul Ladewski actually seen a picture of either of these guys? What a joker.

[dmek25]

i dont have a witty reply to this

[djnemo65]

Yeah, but there has never been a unanimous pick in history. Every year someone votes no just to preserve that tradition. It's stupid, but not surprising.

[FRPLG]

He's a self important jackass who thinks he knows what's best. I think voters like him should lose their voting privileges.

[MTK]

He's not voting for anyone from the steroid era.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

He's not voting for anyone from the steroid era.

I read the article and understand that, but it's twisted logic. Ripken was a HoF'er by 1993, which is when this guy claims is the start of the "steroid era". Plus, Ripken is not in the hall for his bat, he's there for his glove and for his ironman consistency (which is damn near impossible on the roids because it tends to makes you more injury prone). It's just ludicrous to lump Ripken in with players like Mcgwire, who get Hall-talk because of what they did after 1993.

[pg86]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I read the article and understand that, but it's twisted logic. Ripken was a HoF'er by 1993, which is when this guy claims is the start of the "steroid era". Plus, Ripken is not in the hall for his bat, he's there for his glove and for his ironman consistency (which is damn near impossible on the roids because it tends to makes you more injury prone). It's just ludicrous to lump Ripken in with players like Mcgwire, who get Hall-talk because of what they did after 1993.

I agree Ripken Jr Was not on roids look at the guy! I really hate yahoo sports They ruin stuff all the time this guy is a hater

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by pg86

I agree Ripken Jr Was not on roids look at the guy! I really hate yahoo sports They ruin stuff all the time this guy is a hater

Yahoo! Sports isn't to blame here. There merely reporting what this voter from the Daily Southtown paper planned on doing.

[jsarno]

This disturbs me:

Ty Cobb was left off four ballots, Nolan Ryan wasn't on six, Hank Aaron on nine, Babe Ruth on 11 and Willie Mays on 23. Joe DiMaggio needed to appear on the ballot three times to get in, receiving 44 percent and 69 percent in his first two tries.

Wow...How can it take DiMaggio 3 times, or Aaron 9? Babe Ruth was THE BEST player of his era, hands down, and he was on 11? Mays on 23? Come on! He was arguably the best baseball player of all time!

That being said, I honestly feel that guy, Ledewski, should be stripped of his right to vote. Ripken is a no brainer for the hall. No question. You don't put in a no vote. Vote for Gossage or Rice...both of whom are extremely derserving, and neither played in the steroid era.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by jsarno

This disturbs me:


Wow...How can it take DiMaggio 3 times, or Aaron 9? Babe Ruth was THE BEST player of his era, hands down, and he was on 11? Mays on 23? Come on! He was arguably the best baseball player of all time!

That being said, I honestly feel that guy, Ledewski, should be stripped of his right to vote. Ripken is a no brainer for the hall. No question. You don't put in a no vote. Vote for Gossage or Rice...both of whom are extremely derserving, and neither played in the steroid era.

No, the only one that it took more than one try was DiMaggio, which is ****in ridiculous. He was an amazing hitter.

What they're saying about the others, though, is that they didn't get voted for by 9, 11, or 23 people respectively. They all got in on the first ballot, just saying that they had those jackasses not vote for them. However, with a guy like Ruth, I can see him missing a few votes because they are supposed to vote on character as well, he and Cobb should have been left off of ballots cause they were such dicks. However, they were so good that they have to be first ballot guys, kind of a tough spot.

With all that said, those issues make me think that McGwire should be in the Hall. It's a museum of the history of baseball! You can't act like the steroids era didn't exist! If let an outright racist like Cobb or a pretty sorry human being like Ruth in, I think you need to let a guy like McGwire in. He probably cheated, but baseball sold its soul to bring people back to the game by letting guys like McGwire and Canseco go untested for so long. I don't wanna hear the baseball guys crying foul. They knew what was going on and they didn't want it to stop, not with everyone turning out to see the games. He helped save baseball, and it was more than likely steroids aided, baseball didn't care then, they shouldn't care now.

And, for the record, MLB is a bunch of cowards. They dump all of this on the sports writers and say, "you figure it out." They don't do anything to retroactively punish McGwire or Canseco, they just turn it over to the sports writers who vote for the hall and hope they don't get in. Well, they're taking the same stance as Selig: pretend it's not happening. This is the stance he's taking with Bonds and it makes me sick. Make it a big deal and put an asterisk by the numbers or you could just do like you did with Rose and ban him from the game. I say let McGwire and Pete Rose into the Hall and put this right on their plaque:

McGwire: career home runs and slugging percentage were more than likely strongly aided by the use of performance enhancing drugs

Rose: banned from the game, effectively ending his career because he bet on baseball, comprimising the integrity of the game.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by jdlea

No, the only one that it took more than one try was DiMaggio, which is ****in ridiculous. He was an amazing hitter.

What they're saying about the others, though, is that they didn't get voted for by 9, 11, or 23 people respectively. They all got in on the first ballot, just saying that they had those jackasses not vote for them. However, with a guy like Ruth, I can see him missing a few votes because they are supposed to vote on character as well, he and Cobb should have been left off of ballots cause they were such dicks. However, they were so good that they have to be first ballot guys, kind of a tough spot.

With all that said, those issues make me think that McGwire should be in the Hall. It's a museum of the history of baseball! You can't act like the steroids era didn't exist! If let an outright racist like Cobb or a pretty sorry human being like Ruth in, I think you need to let a guy like McGwire in. He probably cheated, but baseball sold its soul to bring people back to the game by letting guys like McGwire and Canseco go untested for so long. I don't wanna hear the baseball guys crying foul. They knew what was going on and they didn't want it to stop, not with everyone turning out to see the games. He helped save baseball, and it was more than likely steroids aided, baseball didn't care then, they shouldn't care now.

And, for the record, MLB is a bunch of cowards. They dump all of this on the sports writers and say, "you figure it out." They don't do anything to retroactively punish McGwire or Canseco, they just turn it over to the sports writers who vote for the hall and hope they don't get in. Well, they're taking the same stance as Selig: pretend it's not happening. This is the stance he's taking with Bonds and it makes me sick. Make it a big deal and put an asterisk by the numbers or you could just do like you did with Rose and ban him from the game. I say let McGwire and Pete Rose into the Hall and put this right on their plaque:

McGwire: career home runs and slugging percentage were more than likely strongly aided by the use of performance enhancing drugs

Rose: banned from the game, effectively ending his career because he bet on baseball, comprimising the integrity of the game.

Thank you for clarifying. I think I saw the DiMaggio section taking 3 years to get in and I assumed the rest were talking about how many years it took too. I misunderstood.
Fact is, McGwire should be in the hall. He almost single handedly brought baseball back from the grave. He admitted to using performance enhancing drugs when no one was whispering a word, but the key is, it was LEGAL performance enhancing drugs. How is this McGwire's fault? If it's do to the speculation of steroids, well, then Bonds should be stripped of all his stats since I don't think there is a single soul that is more guilty of steroids in baseball than Bonds. The only thing missing is the blood test or his admission, everything else is common knowledge.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Thank you for clarifying. I think I saw the DiMaggio section taking 3 years to get in and I assumed the rest were talking about how many years it took too. I misunderstood.
Fact is, McGwire should be in the hall. He almost single handedly brought baseball back from the grave. He admitted to using performance enhancing drugs when no one was whispering a word, but the key is, it was LEGAL performance enhancing drugs. How is this McGwire's fault? If it's do to the speculation of steroids, well, then Bonds should be stripped of all his stats since I don't think there is a single soul that is more guilty of steroids in baseball than Bonds. The only thing missing is the blood test or his admission, everything else is common knowledge.

I'd have to agree. Early on, I was a defender of Barry Bonds. It has become clear, however, that he probably did use performance enhancing drugs and I don't buy for one second that he did so unknowingly. However, I think if you try to keep him out and McGwire out then that sets a dangerous precedent. I think you then have to take the approach of this guy who won't vote anyone from this era into the hall. However, if that's the case, do you just close the doors and say that no one else will go in, ever? That, IMO, is not the solution either.

Like I said, I think you have to put guys in and put an asterisk by their name and then at the bottom of the plaque clearly state: "Played in the steroids era" or "Performance (probably) aided by steroids." That said, a guy like Rafael Palmeiro should never go in. Having been a fan of his when I was a kid, I thought there was no way he ever used steroids and when he went in front of congress and defiantly waved his finger at that panel claiming he never did, I was proud of him. However, he went on, the next season! to test positive for performance enhancing drugs and was subsequently suspended. He's a guy with 3000 hits and 500 home runs, it would be tough, under my logic, to keep him out, but I would. I can't say I think that's fair, I just don't feel like anyone else ever defraud me (or the American public) quite the way he did.

Now, as I said, I read Jose Canseco's book. While I wouldn't have lent much credence to it before, he definitely said some interesting things. He said he taught McGwire about steroids in Oakland, Pude, Raffy and Juan Gonzalez about them in Texas and when he went back to Oakland he injected Giambi and had conversations about it with Tejada. He also said there was a pitcher in Tampa that I can't remember. Now, that's a list of some big name guys. It's hard for me to believe him, but it's also very hard to completely write him off. I say, let the whole lot of them in and put it on their plaque: "Performance more than likely aided by the use of steroids."

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jdlea

I'd have to agree. Early on, I was a defender of Barry Bonds. It has become clear, however, that he probably did use performance enhancing drugs and I don't buy for one second that he did so unknowingly. However, I think if you try to keep him out and McGwire out then that sets a dangerous precedent. I think you then have to take the approach of this guy who won't vote anyone from this era into the hall. However, if that's the case, do you just close the doors and say that no one else will go in, ever? That, IMO, is not the solution either.

Like I said, I think you have to put guys in and put an asterisk by their name and then at the bottom of the plaque clearly state: "Played in the steroids era" or "Performance (probably) aided by steroids." That said, a guy like Rafael Palmeiro should never go in. Having been a fan of his when I was a kid, I thought there was no way he ever used steroids and when he went in front of congress and defiantly waved his finger at that panel claiming he never did, I was proud of him. However, he went on, the next season! to test positive for performance enhancing drugs and was subsequently suspended. He's a guy with 3000 hits and 500 home runs, it would be tough, under my logic, to keep him out, but I would. I can't say I think that's fair, I just don't feel like anyone else ever defraud me (or the American public) quite the way he did.

Now, as I said, I read Jose Canseco's book. While I wouldn't have lent much credence to it before, he definitely said some interesting things. He said he taught McGwire about steroids in Oakland, Pude, Raffy and Juan Gonzalez about them in Texas and when he went back to Oakland he injected Giambi and had conversations about it with Tejada. He also said there was a pitcher in Tampa that I can't remember. Now, that's a list of some big name guys. It's hard for me to believe him, but it's also very hard to completely write him off. I say, let the whole lot of them in and put it on their plaque: "Performance more than likely aided by the use of steroids."

When did the "steroid era" begin? 1998? Bonds' numbers prior to that seem pretty Hall worthy. Plus, why should he punished for baseball's error in not dealing with this over the past decade?

[BDBohnzie]

He's making a blanket statement about the era of baseball, not the fact that both Ripken and Gwynn are Hall worthy. He's also bucking the trend to get some publicity and get his name read. While I don't agree with his ethic, he has earned the right to vote, and shouldn't be stripped of that.

jsarno - not sure I follow your logic. The above, when referring to Cobb, Ryan, Aaron, Ruth and Mays, refer to the number of people who didn't vote for each player. All of those guys made it in on their first ballot. Not sure why DiMaggio took 3 years to get in...

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Just for the record: they didn't vote "no", they just didn't vote. They knew they would get in without a hitch. They just didn't want it to be unanimous because they don't think these guys are better than the others who came before them and didn't get unanimous elections. It Makes sense. Neither Ripken or Gwynn are/were better than Ruth, Cobbs, Mays, et. al.