Sure-fire Hall of Famers

[Mean Dean]

Well, sure, but he also wouldn't have gotten so few votes to begin with if the eligibility rules were as clear as they are now. It doesn't seem to me like Waner and Foxx were even eligible candidates in 1946. That was the first year that a one-year waiting period was in effect, and Foxx and Waner had both appeared in games in 1945. So I'm guessing that most writers understood correctly that they weren't up yet, but some did not. It certainly would not be the first time that the writers screwed up their own rules. (For instance, Edinson Volquez got Rookie of the Year votes in 2008, some people vote for Pete Rose for HOF even though he isn't eligible, etc.)

[Outta Leftfield]

Dean, I went back and checked and you're right about eligibility confusion being reflected in the voting in 1945. For example, active players like Joe Dimaggio and Joe Gordon got one vote each, and Hank Greenberg got three. Moreover, Ted Lyons got 4 votes in '45. He didn't play in 1945, but returned in 1946 at age 45, posting a 2.32 ERA before retiring after 5 games. (Lyons also led the league in ERA in 1942 with 2.10 before going off to war at age 41. Lyons received 3 votes in 1946, despite having been active in that year.

What's weird is that not only did active players receive votes, but those votes appear to have been counted (according to baseball-reference.com) rather than declared invalid.

Anyway, I think my main point still holds--that there was some resistance to first ballot election of HOF candidates that developed in the 1940s and '50s and that slowly faded through the '60s and '70s, but was still strong enough to keep guys like Ford & Berra out on the first ballot. That resistance now appears to be gone, except perhaps for a tiny handful of voters who keep even the greatest from 100%.

[Mean Dean]

I'm not sure... it seems like "1st ballot" being so arbitrary in the early years of the HOF should have short-circuited the building of a tradition that considered it important... but I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen that way. I certainly can't think of any [i:887693b3f8]logical[/i:887693b3f8] reason the 1st ballot should be seen as special, since there's no rule about it; it doesn't say it on the guy's plaque; and if I quizzed even hardcore baseball fans on whether various all-time greats were 1st ballot or not, I don't think the average score would be much better than 50%.

[ADRIANGABRIEL]

Bill James' [i:16bf04620a]Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame[/i:16bf04620a] is a must-read.

[Stormcrow2012]

Doing something simply because it is tradition is mindless.

Ripken's longevity may have ended up hurting his team in many ways. Sure he was durable but we are talking baseball not football here.... Ripken was way overrated.

[Outta Leftfield]

[quote:89df6a7746="Stormcrow2012"]Doing something simply because it is tradition is mindless.[/quote:89df6a7746]

I wasn't praising or justifying traditional voting patterns--simply presenting them.

[quote:89df6a7746]Ripken's longevity may have ended up hurting his team in many ways. Sure he was durable but we are talking baseball not football here.... Ripken was way overrated.[/quote:89df6a7746]

Ripken is viewed as an outstanding player by various statistical measures, including the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) system. His total of 89.9 makes him 26th of all time among position players, using this measure. WAR sees him as excellent both offensively (72.3) and defensively (17.6).

In my opinion, Hall of Fame voters are looking at four major categories when they vote: Dominance, Excellence over time, Career Totals, and Unique Accomplishments.

Not everyone has all four of these--for example, Roger Maris was dominant for a few years, and he had a unique achievement (the single season home run record), but he didn't have excellence over time or high career totals, so he's not in the Hall of Fame. The players who have all four categories aced (as Cal does) tend today to get quick admittance to the Hall.

Cal's record suggests that he was dominant (2 MVPs), excellent over time (a 21 year career, with a stretch from 1982-1996 when he was a really good player), had strong career totals (3000+ hits, 1695 RBI, 1647 Runs, etc.), and obviously had the unique accomplishment of 2632 consecutive games played.

Cal Jr's high voting percentage no doubt in part reflects his unique achievement, the record for consecutive games played, which broke Gehrig's record by more than 500 games. Unlike Lou, Cal not only played every game but almost every inning of his consecutive games. This is an accomplishment that just about anyone can relate to--most of us have missed work or classes due to illness, personal problems, fatigue, etc. Cal didn't miss a day of work for more than 16 years, and performed at a very high level the whole time. That gave him a bit of mystique, which he earned. Gehrig had a similar mystique--which Lou also earned. Babe Ruth complained (after they quarrelled) that Lou hurt the team by playing every game, but I think it was just that Babe was jealous of Lou's pristine image.

Ripken wasn't as great a player as Willie Mays or Henry Aaron (or Gehrig), but IMHO Cal deserved every Hall of Fame vote he got. If Willie and Hank received fewer votes than Cal (in part because they played in an earlier era when voting patterns were different), that's not necessarily a reason to take it out on Cal.

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:98426e976f="Stormcrow2012"]Doing something simply because it is tradition is mindless.

Ripken's longevity may have ended up hurting his team in many ways. Sure he was durable but we are talking baseball not football here.... Ripken was way overrated.[/quote:98426e976f]

Really?

Let's review his resume, minus the consecutive game streak:
7 Silver Sluggers
2 time MVP
1 Gold Glove
RoY
19 time all star

3184 hits (14th all time, 2nd among guys who played SS for most of their career... 1st among post-deadball shortstops)

1647 runs scored (34th all time, behind Wagner at the time of his enshrinement, now behind Jeter as well)

603 doubles (13 all time, behind Wagner at SS)

431 HR (41st all time, first among SS)

7 times in top ten offensive WAR (as a short stop)

8 times in top ten defensive WAR (yes, he was not as bad a shortstop as many believe)

8 times top ten total WAR, position players (26th all time among position players with 89.9 career WAR)

24th all time RBI (behind Wagner and ARod among primary SS)

20th career XBH (Behind ARod)

All time leader: GIDP (yep, he was slow and he hit it on the ground a lot)
Games at SS: 5th all time.

I'd put him in without the streak. And I developed a fairly intense dislike of Cal Ripken during the streak and those years in the mid 90's when Baltimore didn't suck.