PDA

View Full Version : Ripken, Gwynn votes won't be unanimous



Reds Nd2
01-08-2007, 08:10 PM
I haven't seen this posted anywhere.
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/ladewski/201907,081LAD2.article


'Dew' tell: Ripken, Gwynn votes won't be unanimous

January 8, 2007

EDITOR'S NOTE: The Daily Southtown's Paul Ladewski, a longtime member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, did not vote for any candidates listed on the 2007 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, meaning neither Cal Ripken Jr. nor Tony Gwynn has a chance to be elected unanimously. Here is Ladewski's defense of his position:

So I've turned Cal Ripken Jr. and Baltimore baseball fans into a bunch of crabs, huh?

Same with Tony Gwynn and San Diego diehards, it seems.

Well, I can assure you that wasn't my intent when I turned in a blank Hall of Fame ballot and thus bypassed the two most eligible candidates the other day.

Rather, after much serious thought in the last year, my decision was based on this belief: At this point, I don't have nearly enough information to make a value judgment of this magnitude. In particular, that concerns any player in the Steroids Era, which I consider to be the 1993-2004 period, give or a take a season.

This isn't to suggest that Gwynn or Ripken or the majority of the other eligible candidates padded his statistics with performance-enhancers and cheated the game, their predecessors and the fans in the process.

In fact, from the contact I've had with Gwynn and Ripken over the years, I like them as players and people. And, no, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Gwynn and Ripken helped deprive Chicago of two World Series appearances. In consecutive years, no less.

But tell me, except for the players themselves, who can say what they put into their bodies over the years with any degree of certainty?

I mean, Hall of Fame hopeful Rafael Palmeiro swore under oath that he was innocent, right? The same Rafael Palmeiro who played with Ripken for five seasons, by the way. Palmeiro tested positive for steroid use during the 2005 season.

Now let's suppose a player is voted into the Hall of Fame, then a short time later, a former teammate steps forward to Canseco him. And another. What to do then? Keep him there? Take him out? Drape black crepe over his plaque?

See what I mean?

Besides, what makes Gwynn and Ripken so special that they deserve to be unanimous selections?

Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Honus Wagner didn't receive such Hall passes. Neither did Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. In fact, nobody has in the history of the game.

Based on the standards set by the Hall of Fame voters decades ago, is there a neutral observer out there who can honestly say Gwynn and Ripken should be afforded an unprecedented honor?

Rest assured that I haven't written off anyone who played in the 'Roids Rage Age permanently. At this time next year, the Barry Bonds case may have revealed more substantive evidence on the subject. Maybe some of the names of the nearly 100 big-leaguers whom federal investigators said tested positive for steroids will become public information. And maybe a few of them will come forward to tell us what they know, good or bad.

Until then, I stand firm. Better one year too late than one year too soon, I say.

Paul Ladewski can be reached at pladd@aol.com
Apparently, there was an article a few months back where Paul Ladewski pontificated on turning in a blank ballot and it's only recently been confirmed that he, in fact, did just that. I tried finding the original article but didn't have any success.

I'm undecided on this. On the one hand, I can see his point of view and like Tony Gwynn said, "I want him to vote his conscience."

On the other hand, to discount the achievments of every player from "1993-2004 period, give or a take a season" who might make the Hall of Fame ballot seems to me rather disingenuous.

The comment that "Besides, what makes Gwynn and Ripken so special that they deserve to be unanimous selections?", while a good question to ask, seems assinine when used in defense of ones position to turn in a blank ballot. I guess that I'm not as undecided as I thought when I began this thread. :laugh:

But to paraphrase another HoF hopeful, I'm not hear to talk about my opinions. I'd much rather read what the RedsZone faithful think on the subject. I learn more that way.

RedsManRick
01-08-2007, 08:13 PM
This guy has to be the most pompous author I've seen. He's upholding the sanctity of an institution full of liars, cheaters, adulterers, etc. by excluding 2 members who have done nothing to raise suspicion other than play in an era in which the media was able to uncover the cheating of other players?

I can understand passing on Big Mac until there's more data/evidence out there given his somewhat borderline status. But not voting for Gwynn? What? I wonder what his excuse for Gossage, Blyleven, Rice, etc. is?

RedFanAlways1966
01-08-2007, 08:23 PM
What a JERK. His reasoning is flawed... but it might get him the attention he seems to desire. I don't buy his reasoning, but I doubt that his ego cares.

MrCinatit
01-08-2007, 08:28 PM
Discounting two members because they happen to play during an era he does not agree with is insane.
Does this mean he will not vote for anyone who played before 1920? After all, there were more gamblers involved in baseball than the 1919 Sox.
Does this mean he will nto vote for anyone who played before 1947? After all, it was only an all white game then.
How about all pitchers who threw when the spitball was legal?
Meanwhile, to say that steriods only suddenly showed up in baseball in 1993 ("give or take a couple years") is ignorant. Cheater drugs have been in baseball before then, we just don't want to admit it.

savafan
01-08-2007, 11:44 PM
this guy should have his voting credentials taken away

MWM
01-08-2007, 11:49 PM
What a jackass. He's just trying to draw attention to himself. And it's working. I had never heard of the guy until now. But that's sports journalism these days. Take what's obvious and try to argue something else to make yourself sound smart.

Yachtzee
01-09-2007, 12:25 AM
I wonder if this guy voted for Bruce Sutter over much more deserving candidates last year? Seems like the type.

KoryMac5
01-09-2007, 12:28 AM
He's unfortunately not the only writer with a thought process along these lines. The Hall Of Fame voting process has been screwed up for years and needs to be revamped to hold writers more accountable for their votes and the thought process behind those votes.

savafan
01-09-2007, 04:58 AM
He's unfortunately not the only writer with a thought process along these lines. The Hall Of Fame voting process has been screwed up for years and needs to be revamped to hold writers more accountable for their votes and the thought process behind those votes.

Yeah, trained chimps with darts and pictures could do as good of a job as the sportswriters.

redsfan4445
01-09-2007, 05:34 AM
So by sending in a blank ballet he effects Rice, Dawson and Concepcion!!.. he could have voted for those players if he had doubts about ANY player he thinks played during that time frmae he mentions!!..!!! what a jerk!!
I sent him a e-mail saying the same thing!!!

Ltlabner
01-09-2007, 06:37 AM
I agree with what everybody posted thus far. A very poor way of handling the situation and it comes off as less than honest when he blabbers on about wanting to protect the sanctity of the hall.

As some said, I'd love to see his previous votes. I'm currious if all of his previous votes were only for players who were pure as the wind driven snow.

Chip R
01-09-2007, 08:31 AM
this guy should have his voting credentials taken away


Agreed. If this guy isn't going to vote, take his vote away.

bucksfan2
01-09-2007, 08:51 AM
I dont mind this that much. The baseball HOF and its voters are hypocritical but they do hold to their standards. Maybe this voter wouldnt vote for the older players Rice, Concepcion, etc. and didn't think the steroid era players McGwire, Ripkin, Gwynn dont deserve to be in. I think Gwynn is the only guy on this ballot from the steroid era who with out a doubt didn't use any performance enhancing substance.

Hoosier Red
01-09-2007, 09:12 AM
I think Gwynn is the only guy on this ballot from the steroid era who with out a doubt didn't use any performance enhancing substance.

If he did, he should sue his dealer.

Team Clark
01-09-2007, 09:13 AM
He and several others who do not even bother to turn in their ballot should have their BBWAA status revoked. This is a clear instance where the so called writer wants this subject to be about him. Distasteful and disgusting.

registerthis
01-09-2007, 11:08 AM
Maybe this voter wouldnt vote for the older players Rice, Concepcion, etc. and didn't think the steroid era players McGwire, Ripkin, Gwynn dont deserve to be in.

But on what basis? It seems the only reason he could come up with for not voting for them was that they played during an era where other players were known to have used performance enhancing substances. That's pathetic.

Team Clark
01-09-2007, 11:27 AM
But on what basis? It seems the only reason he could come up with for not voting for them was that they played during an era where other players were known to have used performance enhancing substances. That's pathetic.

His decision not to put Gwynn on the ballot makes this whole thing stink. Gwynn is a sure fire Hall Of Famer. I have spent the last two days trying to find an article that was written, in a serious manner, to suggest Gwynn is not a HOF. Even ESPN had to have someone write a piece against him and the author apologized for having to do it. :laugh:

HOF ballots should not be used for political sense or to call attention to one's self. Being able to vote is a time honored PRIVELEGE. If you abuse that privelege it should be taken away. FYI... Last year there were over 25 ballots that were sent to the wrong address, writers who were DEAD, un-returned or lost. Give me a break. You can't get something that important in the right hands?

Bigredfan#1
01-09-2007, 11:34 AM
If a sportswriter gets caught plagerizing, then should all sports writers be accused? If a sports writer is found to write lies because it sells magazines or books, then should we boycott all of them.

Never have I read any where that Gwynn or Ripken has been linked to steroids.

This guy is a joke and I just question if he should ever be allowed to vote on hall of fame nominees.

Arrogance must reign in him!!

jojo
01-09-2007, 11:35 AM
Discounting two members because they happen to play during an era he does not agree with is insane.
Does this mean he will not vote for anyone who played before 1920? After all, there were more gamblers involved in baseball than the 1919 Sox.
Does this mean he will nto vote for anyone who played before 1947? After all, it was only an all white game then.
How about all pitchers who threw when the spitball was legal?
Meanwhile, to say that steriods only suddenly showed up in baseball in 1993 ("give or take a couple years") is ignorant. Cheater drugs have been in baseball before then, we just don't want to admit it.

How about discouting any era where players took speed? That should just about take care of the 60's,70's and 80's.....

Team Clark
01-09-2007, 11:37 AM
Arrogance must reign in him!!

Maybe we should invite him to post here! :laugh:

paulrichjr
01-09-2007, 01:48 PM
This guy is the first one I have ever heard that admitted to not voting for a "shoein" candidate. Think about it...Everytime someone has been elected to the Hall there has been more than one of these guys out there for every single candidate. Guys like Johnny Bench, Tom Seaver, Willie Mays, Nolan Ryan, even Hank Aaron had some moron not vote for them.

Team Clark
01-09-2007, 01:51 PM
This guy is the first one I have ever heard that admitted to not voting for a "shoein" candidate. Think about it...Everytime someone has been elected to the Hall there has been more than one of these guys out there for every single candidate. Guys like Johnny Bench, Tom Seaver, Willie Mays, Nolan Ryan, even Hank Aaron had some moron not vote for them.

Ted Williams and Babe Ruth also had nay sayers. What a shame. Granted "it takes all kinds' but this is a whole new level.

Reds Nd2
01-09-2007, 02:10 PM
Apparently Paul Ladewski wasn't the only one who turned in a blank ballot.

From MLB.com:


Mark McGwire, also a ballot newcomer, fell well short of election, his name appearing on less than a quarter of the record 545 ballots cast, two of which were left completely blank.