cal ripken is in the hall of fame now. question is, how could some of these writers still not select him in?

Answer 1

4 or 5 writers protested the "steroid period" by abstaining on the Gwynn and Ripkin votes.

Answer 2

Let me preface this by saying that I wholeheartedly DO think that Ripken belongs in the Hall of Fame. That said, i think the Devil's advocate argument is such:

Ripken was swomething of an overblown player. Many fans and baseball insiders give him more credit and adulation than he deserves, mostly because of the Streak. In most ways, the Streak is the most overrated and overblown record in the American sports landscape, owing nearly as much to sheer dumb luck as to perseverence and hard work. This is strike one.

Strike two would be that Ripken was not an exceptional fielder. Sure, he won two Gold Gloves, but so has Derek Jeter, and anybody who looks closely will see that Jeter and Ripken both had the same glaring deficiency: range. Neither were/are able to retrieve the as many balls as a smaller, speedier shortstop can (think Houston's Adam Everett), and both make plays that seem spectacular on the surface but are really plays that a rangier shortstop makes routinely and without fanfare. That said, Ripken was a serviceable shortstop (on the whole, probably better defensively than Jeter), but nothing that alone comes anywhere near Hall of Fame standards. Strike two.

Most people are able to overlook the fact that Ripken was not a great defensive wizard because he was such a good hitter. Offensively, it's tough to vote against Ripken, except to say that some of his batting accomplishments are unduly magnified simply because of the position at which he played. He had 3,000 hits, but keep in mind that he is also number four on the list of career at-bats, giving him more oppurtunities than almost every other hitter. And he had 431 home runs, a healthy number (albeit not legendary). He did, however, have more strikeouts than walks, his career average was just .276. and his on-base percentage was a solid but unspectacular .340. Offensively, Ripken had the numbers of a good power hitter, but aside from his 3,000 hits, he doesn't have another offensive statistic that usually stamps one's card into Cooperstown (.300 average, 500 homeruns, any decent number of stolen bases or gold gloves). From this standpoint he was little more than a decent power hitter who happened to play at a position that doesn't breed many power hitters. Let's call that strike three.

Those are just some arguments that a sportwriter might have made to justify not picking Ripken. However, the fact remains that the guy does have 3,000 hits, does have the consecutive-games-played streak, was a pretty good postseason hitter, and was one of the most popular players in the game for nearly 20 years. The truth of the matter is that some sportswriters probably just have a Billy Budd-style hatred for the guy. Still, he got in, and that's what really matters at the end of the day.

Answer 3

One writer selected nobody. Who knows, Both Gwyn and Ripkin were clearly HOFers from any point of view I can think of. What is more amazing that Gossage isn't in the hall. Nobody has shaped the game more than Gossage since Ruth. Think about it, when you see a closer your seeing the ghost of Goose. Fingers might have come before Gossage, it was Gossage the defined what the posisition was. No pitcher in my lifetime was more feared than Goose.

Anyway back to your question. Many sports writers have agendas. Some think only Ruth like players should be elected on the first ballot. So they won't vote for any player on the first ballot. Some figure that Ripkin and Gwyn are shoe ins so they use their ballot to keep other players around they feel deserve the hall but don't have the same level of support. Some might have personal problems with a given player. Maybe he had a rude comment when he was a player and they tried to interview him. Maybe he did something like end the career of their favorite manager with a clutch hit. Theres no commentary box on the ballot unfortunately. There might even be a sports writer or two that think players like Ripken and Gwynn do not deserve the hall. Not sure if any player in last 20 years has appeared on every ballot.

Answer 4

You will find that most sports journalists are nothing more frustrated childhood. They live their fantasies through the players they report on. Every so often that frustration comes to the surface and when a special situation comes up they have to find a way to grab the spotlight. Call it a form of grandstanding. Perhaps call it their own 15 minutes of fame. Any way you look at it, it adds up to nonsense. Anyone with any common sense and who was a responsible hall of fame voter to begin with would have and should have voted for both Ripkin and Gwynn. Fortunately most didn't have egos to feed and did the right thing. As for the non voters, hopefully the baseball writers association will take some action and start cleaning house.

Answer 5

Egos and media bias.

Sportswriters are not immune from the need to get their name into the headlines, albeit in a negative way.

Plus, it is rare for any player, even the likes of Tony Gwynn not to have an enemy/naysayer or two. There will always be writers who didn't get an interview on a given day, or who were given the brush off. Some people have long memories and bones to pick.

It's human nature, so we can't expect all the writers to do the right thing. There's 2% of bad apples in every bushel.

Answer 6

A lot of the time sportswriters will hold grudges against certain players, others just don't think anyone should be unanimous. There was one person who left his ballot completely blank this year. He didn't vote for Ripken obviously, which shows he may not think he deserves to be unanimous.

Answer 7

The baseball writers are ******* and some of them believe that no one should be unanimously voted in on their first ballot. It's especially stupid when they're voting on a player that is a complete shoe-in like Ripken or Gwynn.

Answer 8

It doesn't really matter because he is in. He recieved the second highest percentage of votes ever with more then 98%. There will always be a few people that don't agree with the rest of the crowd.

Cal Ripkin was an amazing baseball player and certainly deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He's in so who really cares about the few ignorant dumba*s's that didn't vote him in?

Answer 9

Baseball writers are a quirky lot. For example: they overlook Jim Rice every time. Never giving him the percent he needs. Look up his stats as compared with others voted in. This year his percent of votes actually went down. What ?? In the end life is not fair and if it were we would all be rich.

Answer 10

They need to change the way players are inducted to the Hall of Fame to not have the player with the most hits ever in is ridiculous what's next not having the home run king in oh that's in a few years

Answer 11

There has never been a unanimous selection. It seems some writers want to make sure that never happens, so they don't vote for the logical choices everyone else will be voting for. Hey, maybe Barry Bonds will be the first unanimous choice!! (Yeah, right.)