Cal Ripken Did Not Save Baseball.

If the McGwire/Sosa HR race of 1998 saved baseball, but Cal Ripken had already saved baseball in 1995, I wonder what killed baseball in between?

I say it was Charlie Hayes.

The Black Sox scandal killed baseball in 1919, Babe Ruth saved baseball in 1920, free agency killed it again in 1973, Mark Fidrych saved it again in 1975, the work stoppage killed it again in 1994, Cal Ripken saved it again in 1995, Charlie Hayes killed it in 1996, and then McGwire/Sosa saved it again in 1998.

"On the night of Sept. 6, 1995, Cal Ripken Jr. saved baseball.

The game was flickering when the Baltimore Orioles shortstop broke Lou Gehrig's record of 2,130 consecutive games played."

Do you know why baseball would have survived?

Because baseball is the perfect game. It has something for everyone. It's the game for the proletariat. It sates the vox populi.


"Ripken will easily be elected to the Hall of Fame when voting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America is announced Jan. 9. He and the San Diego Padres' Tony Gwynn are first-ballot shoo-ins.

But if ever a candidate deserves to be a unanimous choice, it's Ripken, something that's never happened in 63 elections held by the baseball writers. (On nine occasions, no election was held).

Tom Seaver came the closest in 1992 when he received 98.84%, missing by five votes of the 430 cast. Nolan Ryan received 491 of 497 (98.79%) in 1999, and in 1936's first election, Ty Cobb got 222 of 226 (98.23%).
...

Why then, shouldn't he be a unanimous choice?"

He should be a unanimous choice.

Why shouldn't Tony Gwynn be a unanimous choice, for that matter?

Is there a sportswriter on the face of the Earth who doesn't think Tony Gwynn belongs in the Hall of Fame?

Why weren't Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth and Willie Mays and Cy Young unanimous choices?


The sportswriters have developed their own dopey protocols as it pertains to HOF voting.

There's the first ballot thing, the silly votes for Jim Deshaies, and there will probably be a holdout who won't vote for Ripken simply because nobody ever gets 100% of the vote.

But, since Bodley posed the question, I'll answer it.

Ripken should not be a unanimous choice because this may present the impression that he's the greatest player ever.

A shorstop/third baseman who hit .276 is not the greatest player ever.