The Jokeman Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Not at all. Ripken should be in the hall, because he did do some things special. But he is also a media driven darling, for doing something that is a bit worthless really. Big deal, he played in all of those games in a row. I mean, that really didn't do anything to change or impact his team or the game of baseball. Period. He just played every day. Again, he was a .274 hitter that averaged about 20 HR's and 80 RBI and played every day. Without the streak.....that isn't all that impressive. Period. 20 HRs and 80 RBIs was considered a good season in the 1980s. I'm not a big fan of Cal but will give him a nod as being the best at his position during most of his career and think should be in the HOF but as stated he's not an all time great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Wow, what a thread. First of all, I dont think ANYONE here is saying Cal Jr. doesnt belong in the Hall. Some speculate without the streak, he wouldnt be in the hall, but the streak exists, and thus everyone here seems to be in agreement. On the Unanimous thing. You have to understand the guys voting for the hall. Or better yet, understand that you cant understand them. Baseball is a sport of tradition if nothing else. Some voters feel that if Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb cant be a unanimous HOFer, certainally someone much more marginal (Ripken/Gwynn), shouldnt be either. And thus they choose not to vote ANY player in the first try. Others submitted blank ballots as a protest to the steroid era. Still others voted for Bobby Bonilla, Tony Fernandez and Jay Buhner...go figure. So, there is little to be angry about here (except for the 6 fools who voted for canseco). Ripken and Gwynn are both HOFers. Neither is worthy of being the first player unanimously selected. I think all is well today in the baseball world All pretty solid points. One thing about how retarded a ton of the voters are though have to deal with Ripkens own team, the Baltimore Orioles. Eddie Murray was hated by the media, but one of the most complete and dangerous hitters in major league baseball history from BOTH sides of the plate. Murray's career and impacting worth to the Orioles lineup ran circles around Cal's. However, because he wasn't a media darling, a lot of writers made it miserable for him to get in. A lot even campaigned against Eddie Murray. Which is complete BS, just because they didn't like him. So, of course, other parts of Ripkens game are inflated by being a media darling. Take away that streak, and all the goodwill and Ripken could easily be argued on whether he should be in or not. Of course, though, I, for one, think everything that Ripken did should have helped him get in. He's not this baseball god that a ton of people make him out to be though. In most cases, ON THE FIELD, he's not even close to the majority of hall of famers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 LOL. Read a baseball book or some history on the game and you'll see. LOL? Vaughn hit for better average and ran far better than Ripken. Ripken had 4x the HRs, almost 2x doubles, and half again as many RBI. You can make an argument about what is most important but it is impossible to say one set of stats somehow is clearly better. Ripken brought power to the position that had not been there. You might not like that or like him but it is a fact. P.S. I don't like Ripken. I don't know why but I don't. The reason I'm pissed is about Gwynn. With that said, denying that Ripken is HOF material makes no sense. Even if Vaughn is deemed better offensively would being the third best SS hitter of all time (by the time he was in the league) disqualify him? I say he was underrated as a fielder and people shoot back saying Tony Fernandez was better? That is not even relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Vaughn hit for better average and ran far better than Ripken. Ripken had 4x the HRs, almost 2x doubles, and half again as many RBI. Miss my hint? Look at league average at their times and try to use more advanced statistics to compare players in different era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Take away that streak, and all the goodwill and Ripken could easily be argued on whether he should be in or not. Bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 With that said, denying that Ripken is HOF material makes no sense. Even if Vaughn is deemed better offensively would being the third best SS hitter of all time (by the time he was in the league) disqualify him? . This is the point. You asked the question "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't." and people are replying to your question. Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan are definitely better offensive shortstops than Ripken. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 LOL? Vaughn hit for better average and ran far better than Ripken. Ripken had 4x the HRs, almost 2x doubles, and half again as many RBI. You can make an argument about what is most important but it is impossible to say one set of stats somehow is clearly better. Ripken brought power to the position that had not been there. You might not like that or like him but it is a fact. P.S. I don't like Ripken. I don't know why but I don't. The reason I'm pissed is about Gwynn. With that said, denying that Ripken is HOF material makes no sense. Even if Vaughn is deemed better offensively would being the third best SS hitter of all time (by the time he was in the league) disqualify him? I say he was underrated as a fielder and people shoot back saying Tony Fernandez was better? That is not even relevant. No one is saying that he isn't a HOF player. We are all saying that he would be heavily debated without the streak. .274, 20-80 is not impressive. That could easily make for the rationale on why to not put Ripken in on the first ballot. He's gotta be the weakest first ballot player ever. Again, without that streak, you put two guys side by side with those numbers and no name next to them, and most voters would think you are crazy looking at Ripkens numbers. If I had a MLB team, and had to start it with that HOF list that was out today, I would probably pick at least five of those guys who DID NOT make the hall of fame today over Ripken to start my team. Easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 No one is saying that he isn't a HOF player. We are all saying that he would be heavily debated without the streak. .274, 20-80 is not impressive. That could easily make for the rationale on why to not put Ripken in on the first ballot. He's gotta be the weakest first ballot player ever. Again, without that streak, you put two guys side by side with those numbers and no name next to them, and most voters would think you are crazy looking at Ripkens numbers. If I had a MLB team, and had to start it with that HOF list that was out today, I would probably pick at least five of those guys who DID NOT make the hall of fame today over Ripken for my team. Easily. This is a quote from your first post in the thread: You take away coming to work everyday, and he really hasn't done much to stick out from the pack. He rarely, if ever, was the best player in the game in his era. I don't know, without the streak, would he even get in at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 This is a quote from your first post in the thread: Am I the only one who does not see a contradiction here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 This is a quote from your first post in the thread: Does that say he wouldn't get in. It's good enough to question his stats though. Take away the streak and signing autographs for 8 hours before every game and you have...... .274 20-80 A better than average fielder with below average range. You tell me another player that would be in with those numbers? Hell, Palmeiro's numbers kill those numbers, and before Palmeiro was proved to be a juicer, he was debated all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Miss my hint? Look at league average at their times and try to use more advanced statistics to compare players in different era. Your condescending tone notwithstanding, simply using OPS does not take away from the fact that Ripken's production from the SS position was a major anamoly at the time he played and had a huge impact on the game. You can make an argument but to say Vaughn was definitively better when they were different types of players is silly. If he was, I guess that makes Ripken 3rd all time. Should that keep him from the hall on the first ballot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Your condescending tone notwithstanding, simply using OPS does not take away from the fact that Ripken's production from the SS position was a major anamoly at the time he played and had a huge impact on the game. You can make an argument but to say Vaughn was definitively better when they were different types of players is silly. Did I say I only used OPS? Have you checked other avdanced stats, like OPS+, VORP, win shares, and SLG+? I assume you do know there're stats to compare players in different era. Let's make it simple, just look at the league average at their times and then look at their traditional offensive stats. This should help you to remove any doubts. If he was, I guess that makes Ripken 3rd all time. Should that keep him from the hall on the first ballot? I never said he shouldn't. However, I don't agree with your statement of "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't." because Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan are definitely better offensive shortstops than Ripken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Does that say he wouldn't get in. It's good enough to question his stats though. Take away the streak and signing autographs for 8 hours before every game and you have...... .274 20-80 A better than average fielder with below average range. You tell me another player that would be in with those numbers? Hell, Palmeiro's numbers kill those numbers, and before Palmeiro was proved to be a juicer, he was debated all of the time. .270 20-80 for 20+ years equals 450 home runs from the shortstop position. That's not too common is it? For the record, I am VERY pro Eddie Murray and was pro Palmeiro pre juice revelation, but those guys both played a position where more production is expected. Ripken in some ways created SS production. That's important. Your origianl quote certainly casts doubt as to whether you think he should be in the hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Does that say he wouldn't get in. It's good enough to question his stats though. Take away the streak and signing autographs for 8 hours before every game and you have...... .274 20-80 A better than average fielder with below average range. You tell me another player that would be in with those numbers? Hell, Palmeiro's numbers kill those numbers, and before Palmeiro was proved to be a juicer, he was debated all of the time. It doesn't matter how long you keep shoveling it, it's still bull schit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Did I say I only used OPS? Have you checked other avdanced stats, like OPS+, VORP, win shares, and SLG+? I assume you do know there're stats to compare players in different era. Let's make it simple, just look at the league average at their times and then look at their traditional offensive stats. This should help you to remove any doubts. I never said he shouldn't. However, I don't agree with your statement of "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't." because Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan are definitely better offensive shortstops than Ripken. Not according to Baseball Reference's HoF Monitor for batting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Not according to Baseball Reference's HoF Monitor for batting... Do you mean the percentage of votes?? Right, this is how HOFers are ranked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Do you mean the percentage of votes?? Right, this is how HOFers are ranked. I like the head banging guy, especially when it's YOU who have no idea what I'm talking about. Baseball-Reference.com. HoF Monitor for batting. Ripken is 25th All Time. AV is 116. Wagner is 12th. But thanks for looping me in. 'Preciate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I like the head banging guy, especially when it's YOU who have no idea what I'm talking about. Baseball-Reference.com. HoF Monitor for batting. Ripken is 25th All Time. AV is 116. Wagner is 12th. But thanks for looping me in. 'Preciate that. I see, from that website. And do you realize that HOF and offensive power are not equal? For example, a player who played 2632 consecutive games does get extra credit on HOF voting/ranking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I see, from that website. Apology accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Apology accepted. Indeed, I didn't realize you're talking about a webite when we're discussing stats. However, it doesn't change the fact that Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan are definitely better offensive shortstops than Ripken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts