What is your take on the Hall Of Fame??

[Mozzie22]

O'ZZ'ie Smith is the greatest defensive player in the history of organized baseball, that is the reason he is in the hall of fame. He also had respectable offensive numbers in several catagories. Although he was/is a beloved player, his defense is what defines him as a player, not a pregame backflip and not the cities he played in (although St.Louis is the greatest baseball city on the planet).

It is "The Hall of Fame", not the hall of stats. Thats just the way it's named and the way I see it. I believe a player should also have a certin level of fame as well as the stats that usually attribute fame. Thats why I would not cry if Biggio or Thome did not make the hall, because although they were great at what they did well, they never really garnered the Fame one would attribute to Hall worthyness(just my opinion)..

Ossie Smith is a perfect example. His defence alone did not get him in, and his fame alone did not. It was the fame he gathered while being incredibly flamboyant as a defensive player that got him in. Without the flash or fame that came along with it, hes not even a consideration...

I'm just tired of hearing HOF discussions take place like an accounting meeting crunching numbers.

But make no mistake, I'm fully aware that stats, preferably great ones, usually usher in fame. I understand that, but also realise it's not a rule but an attribute of greatness. something that can be void of an otherwise statworthy fellow..

 

[ThoseBackPages]

The HOF is a money making Joke here in 2009

 

[autocut]

Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

 

[ostrander111]

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

I love entering these threads to see your remarks...and maybe someone is just a little jealous a certain juiced loser is not making it to the HALL...

YOWCH!!!!!!!!!! Gettin a little personal here......yikers!

 

[autocut]

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

I love entering these threads to see your remarks...and maybe someone is just a little jealous a certain juiced loser is not making it to the HALL...

YOWCH!!!!!!!!!! Gettin a little personal here......yikers!

Actually Big Mac had a point. Rose gambled as a coach, not a player. So, he should be banned from baseball as for his coaching career goes, not as a player. If Rose was elected to the HOF before he became a coach, would they have removed him from the HOF? Like in basketball. Lenny Wilkins is in the HOF as a player and a coach. Baseball needs to separate the 2.

 

[Big Mac McGwire]

it cant be that all its cracked up to be if the man who had the most hits in the history of baseball is not in there. last time i checked his gambling didnt have anything to do with him getting over 4k hits. but we honor racist owners who didnt want satchell paige and josh gibson, and jackie robinson to ever play. But yea those old racists are honored in cooperstown.

I love entering these threads to see your remarks...and maybe someone is just a little jealous a certain juiced loser is not making it to the HALL...

i really can not stand people like this. if the scumbag really goes into all of these threads to see my remarks he would have seen a previous response to mac HOF situation. But what does he know. He should take his basketball card set filled with thugs and go jump off a bridge. im not gonna lose my cool cause the last thing i would want to is to get suspended over some jerk. so i will let it be. for everyone that did not see it here is my repsonse about McGwire and the HOF.

From the thread "Is Mark McGwire a future Hall of Famer?
ill close on this topic with this. I could give 2 hecks worth if McGwire gets in. Would i go to Cooperstown to see the induction? Of Course. Will i hold my breath until it happens? No. He has been my all time favorite player. Back in the early 90's when he got hurt i never thought he would have lasted like he did. I never thought in 93 and 94 he would ever end up hitting 500 HR's. Anything MAC gave me as a fan after 1995 when he came back was a bonus. He already provided me with the greatest season a Player collector could ever wish for as well as a baseball fan - 1998. Him not making the hall will not change my feelings of my all time favorite player nor it will it deter me from collecting him. No other player past or present gives me a rush when i see a autographed item of his that i do not have and that i want. The hall of fame is filled with spitball pitchers, Racists, biggots and Old time cronie owners who did not want black players to ever play. He was a class act player. And i feel his character puts him above some of the players that are in the HOF. He is a member of the 500 Home run club and that was all i ever wanted him to be when i was a teenager watching him go deep. Just my 2 cents.

Man, i do sound Jealous that he is not in. Get real. Of course im gonna say he should be in, but Jealous?? I never thought my posts would be feeding trolls.

 

[predatorkj]

Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

That still does not mean that Ripken got in based on popularity.

Ripken holds the games played streak.That is one hell of an accomplishment your leaving out.Murray didn't even touch that.That alone is hall worthy in my opinion because of the way the game is played...especially now.Its hard, even if a player is healthy and he wants to, to play all those games.Besides...while I agree that character do get thrown in the mix...the main thing looked at is stats and accomplishments.That is what ultimately gets a player in.

 

[fengzhang]

Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

 

[predatorkj]

I selected the third option.

It isn't just one or the other. If it were only a popularity contest; Ron Santo, Don Mattingly, ect would already be in. If it were all about stats; Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Big Mac would already be in.

Players that reach a certain milestone; 3000 hits, 500 HR (probably soon to be 600 HR), 300 wins, ect should be in the HOF. If they lasted long enough in the league to reach those milestones, they must have been liked enough. Players like Biggio do a lot for the community and different charities.

The three names you mentioned are not in the HOF because of transgressions against the game or its rules or policies.Or just plain straight out for cheating

Joe Jackson didn't bet on baseball. Pete Rose bet (admitted to and assume to) after he stopped playing. Mark McGwire never failed a drug test. So how can you say these players cheated?

On another note, Rose and Jackson were both eligible for the HOF before the Commissioner or MLB could say a player wasn't eligible.

They are believed to have cheated.You act like I get a vote.I don't.But the voters do think that Mac has cheated and you know the scoop with Joe Jackson and Rose.They are not eligible.I would not say they didn't get in before they had been banned from MLB because they were not popular.They didn't get in for one reason or another but I seriously doubt that it was not due to popularity.I haven't ever really heard too many people who didn't know or like Rose.I have never really heard anyone bashing them on any program ever.It may happen but its certainly not done a lot.So the popularity thing is once again left at the door.

As for Mac...whether he failed a test or not...the voters obviously feel that he doesn't deserve to get in because they feel his stats are padded by his steroid use.I will use the same argument that I used in the Mac HOF thread...if you even believe he used for just two years...just two...he would have lost a lot of homers due to that and may not have even reached over 500 homers.His other stats are certainly not HOF worthy.He was a hell of a player but based on the other stats...I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face he was HOF worthy.The only thing that even makes his name worth mentioning is his homers and as long as those are in contention, which they are no matter if you like or agree with it or not, he will always be looked at as not HOF worthy.I am sorry...I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[predatorkj]

Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

 

[predatorkj]

I selected the third option.

It isn't just one or the other. If it were only a popularity contest; Ron Santo, Don Mattingly, ect would already be in. If it were all about stats; Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Big Mac would already be in.

Players that reach a certain milestone; 3000 hits, 500 HR (probably soon to be 600 HR), 300 wins, ect should be in the HOF. If they lasted long enough in the league to reach those milestones, they must have been liked enough. Players like Biggio do a lot for the community and different charities.

The three names you mentioned are not in the HOF because of transgressions against the game or its rules or policies.Or just plain straight out for cheating

Joe Jackson didn't bet on baseball. Pete Rose bet (admitted to and assume to) after he stopped playing. Mark McGwire never failed a drug test. So how can you say these players cheated?

On another note, Rose and Jackson were both eligible for the HOF before the Commissioner or MLB could say a player wasn't eligible.

Jackson and McGwire never broke any rules of baseball. Jackson didn't snitch on his teammates (maybe), he certainly wasn't in on the scheme, and McGwire did something that was entirely within the rules when he did it.

Tell the voters that.Its still not a popularity contest.

 

[EricChavezCollector3]

Just let everybody in, stop keeping score, and make everyone happy.

 

[matfanofold]

Well, I'm just glad that the majority of you understand that the hall of fame is more than just statistics. That is also takes in to account the level of popularity a certin player achieves as well.. Also, to the guy who said Ozzie was the best defensive shortstop ever, do you have the numbers to back that up? If I remember correctly, he by no means was the best ever, just very good and very popular. Also, I'm not sure he was better than average in any offensive statistical catagory so I'd love to see where he stood out in any single statistical offensive catagory. No disrespect for Ozzie, I love him and think he is hall worthy, just wanted some clarification there..

 

[Big Mac McGwire]

I selected the third option.

It isn't just one or the other. If it were only a popularity contest; Ron Santo, Don Mattingly, ect would already be in. If it were all about stats; Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Big Mac would already be in.

Players that reach a certain milestone; 3000 hits, 500 HR (probably soon to be 600 HR), 300 wins, ect should be in the HOF. If they lasted long enough in the league to reach those milestones, they must have been liked enough. Players like Biggio do a lot for the community and different charities.

The three names you mentioned are not in the HOF because of transgressions against the game or its rules or policies.Or just plain straight out for cheating

Joe Jackson didn't bet on baseball. Pete Rose bet (admitted to and assume to) after he stopped playing. Mark McGwire never failed a drug test. So how can you say these players cheated?

On another note, Rose and Jackson were both eligible for the HOF before the Commissioner or MLB could say a player wasn't eligible.

They are believed to have cheated.You act like I get a vote.I don't.But the voters do think that Mac has cheated and you know the scoop with Joe Jackson and Rose.They are not eligible.I would not say they didn't get in before they had been banned from MLB because they were not popular.They didn't get in for one reason or another but I seriously doubt that it was not due to popularity.I haven't ever really heard too many people who didn't know or like Rose.I have never really heard anyone bashing them on any program ever.It may happen but its certainly not done a lot.So the popularity thing is once again left at the door.

As for Mac...whether he failed a test or not...the voters obviously feel that he doesn't deserve to get in because they feel his stats are padded by his steroid use.I will use the same argument that I used in the Mac HOF thread...if you even believe he used for just two years...just two...he would have lost a lot of homers due to that and may not have even reached over 500 homers.His other stats are certainly not HOF worthy.He was a hell of a player but based on the other stats...I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face he was HOF worthy.The only thing that even makes his name worth mentioning is his homers and as long as those are in contention, which they are no matter if you like or agree with it or not, he will always be looked at as not HOF worthy.I am sorry...I don't know what else to tell you.

ill be the first to agree that without the HR totals he was not HOF worthy. .263 career average etc and all that. But he is worthy based on the HR totals as from previous guys who got in soley on that. But, lets just say he juiced for 2 years, who is to say that he could not hit 50 a year without juice. He hit 49 as a rookie, so your saying that for him in his prime he could not hit at least 50 a HR a season? His swing is soley for hitting HR's. Thats all he was trying to do. For giggles take away 25 a year for 98 and 99. ,Thats 50 HR off of his 583, He still has well over 530 HR's. So your saying that in his prime, he was only a 30 HR' Hitter? i can't buy that. But once again his arguement is based soley on speculation and i understand that. I will not sit here though and not argue that he could easily hit 50 HR a season with roids, because i feel as well with other people that he could have. Would he have 70 a year maybe not, but 50 HR a season in his prime i feel was very very capable for guy who thats all he was trying to do. But yes, besides all his HR's was he a HOF'r? No, he prolly wasn't. I am not naieve. But 500 was the previous in, so i have to argue that he should be in based on that.

 

[fengzhang]

Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

 

[Big Mac McGwire]

Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

How can you say that? Ripken had over 400 HR's and 3000 Hits. Biggio had 3000 Hits was he a 3000 caliber hitter? Hell no, did he have 400 Homeruns??? Any shortstop nomatter what era that has over 400HR and 3k hits is a lock.

 

[fengzhang]

Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

How can you say that? Ripken had over 400 HR's and 3000 Hits. Biggio had 3000 Hits was he a 3000 caliber hitter? Hell no, did he have 400 Homeruns??? Any shortstop nomatter what era that has over 400HR and 3k hits is a lock.

Like I said, he would've been a HOFer anyway.

But, his production did not warrant 98.5% of the vote. His 3000 hits came out of playing 162 games a year, year after year. How many career .275 hitters have 3000 hits? In the end, he is still just a .275 hitter. His slugging percentage is still just .440. His on base percentage is still just .340. His "amazing" totals were the culmination of playing so many at-bats. In my opinion, for someone to get 98.5% of the vote, they should be on the level of Ruth or Aaron or Maddux in terms of their on-the-field ability. This goes back to my point that Ripken's HOF voting was bolstered by his popularity and his popularity was tied to the hoopla associated with the Ironman Streak.

As you can tell, I don't like rewarding players for hanging on past their prime or for getting 650 at-bats a year. I'm not going to be a big fan of Ripken or Nolan Ryan or Pete Rose.

 

[autocut]

Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

How can you say that? Ripken had over 400 HR's and 3000 Hits. Biggio had 3000 Hits was he a 3000 caliber hitter? Hell no, did he have 400 Homeruns??? Any shortstop nomatter what era that has over 400HR and 3k hits is a lock.

So, you saying his stats justify the 98.5% voting? Simple yes or no.

 

[autocut]

[quote="autocut":81pphz1w]Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

How can you say that? Ripken had over 400 HR's and 3000 Hits. Biggio had 3000 Hits was he a 3000 caliber hitter? Hell no, did he have 400 Homeruns??? Any shortstop nomatter what era that has over 400HR and 3k hits is a lock.

Like I said, he would've been a HOFer anyway.

But, his production did not warrant 98.5% of the vote. His 3000 hits came out of playing 162 games a year, year after year. How many career .275 hitters have 3000 hits? In the end, he is still just a .275 hitter. His slugging percentage is still just .440. His on base percentage is still just .340. His "amazing" totals were the culmination of playing so many at-bats. In my opinion, for someone to get 98.5% of the vote, they should be on the level of Ruth or Aaron or Maddux in terms of their on-the-field ability. This goes back to my point that Ripken's HOF voting was bolstered by his popularity and his popularity was tied to the hoopla associated with the Ironman Streak.

As you can tell, I don't like rewarding players for hanging on past their prime or for getting 650 at-bats a year. I'm not going to be a big fan of Ripken or Nolan Ryan or Pete Rose.[/quote:81pphz1w]

So, I guess you don't like Randy Johnson either

 

[Mozzie22]

Because I don't have the numbers of every shortstop that ever played, and because not everyone agrees on what constitutes "important" statistics, I'll use someone that I think everyone would agree has superior knowledge when it comes to baseball statistics: Bill James.

In Bill James's book, The New Historical Baseball Abstract, he introduced the WinShares system. By this system he took into consideration more than just fielding percentages (which are grossly overrated) and comes to the conclusion that Ozzie Smith is the greatest defensive shortstop of all time.

Because some people reading this may actually be too young to remember Ozzie Smith actually playing, I will compare him to someone that still plays and is often compared to Ozzie. Omar Vizquel is frequently compared to Ozzie Smith not only because of his Gold Gloves but because he actually has a higher career fielding percentage than Ozzie. Range factor is what is truly important for a SS and in this comparison. Ozzie had a career range factor/game of almost 1.0 higher than his league average. Vizquel’s is around .3 better than league average. In fact, the year Vizquel made only 3 errors, his range factor is below league average. More assists are more valuable than fewer errors and Ozzie is the king of assists.

Ozzie Smith had a career range factor of 5.22 versus a league average of 4.78. Omar’s RF was 4.64 versus a league average of 4.62. Ozzie Smith had a range factor of over 5.00 8 times in his career as opposed to Vizquel who never had a RF over 5.

I realize that Ozzie vs Omar doesn't take into account any other shortstops but I wanted someone that most should be familiar with. Ozzie had 580 stolen bases, was routinely one of the hardest players to strike out, one a silver slugger award, and ironically is often first remembered by many for hitting a very important home run. Now, I realize Ozzie was a defensive player but I'd hardly consider him an offensive liability.

I hope those stats help to make my point but I am fully aware that "the best ever" is truly an individual opinion.

Well, I'm just glad that the majority of you understand that the hall of fame is more than just statistics. That is also takes in to account the level of popularity a certin player achieves as well.. Also, to the guy who said Ozzie was the best defensive shortstop ever, do you have the numbers to back that up? If I remember correctly, he by no means was the best ever, just very good and very popular. Also, I'm not sure he was better than average in any offensive statistical catagory so I'd love to see where he stood out in any single statistical offensive catagory. No disrespect for Ozzie, I love him and think he is hall worthy, just wanted some clarification there..