But you know, some east coast writer is going to say no 300 HR’s and no batting title to attempt to justify themselves.

…that neither Ruth nor Cobb was unanimous, so nobody deserves to be?

That this is seen as a real argument has always seemed to me to be an indictment of sports writers everywhere.

So some members of the BBWAA made some idiotic decisions in the past. That’s no excuse for some others to continue making idiotic decisions in the future.

But what kind of fan “noise” do you suggest?

A HOF trip next July to cheer Rickey and Bill King would indeed be priceless.

The fact that some of the people in the BBWAA have HOF votes is borderline criminal.

i loves me some ricky lines

All it will take is one clown like a Jon Heyman, Bill Plaschke, etc, to screw this up. My guess is someone will focus in on Rickey’s career BA of “only” .279 to argue that he really wasn’t that good as a leadoff hitter, and his SB numbers were inflated by the 1982 season, or that his presence at the top of the Yankees batting order didn’t prevent them from sucking during the late 80’s (his time with the Yankees, of course, would be the only relevant part of his career for HoF consideration).

Any BBWAA member who does not vote for Rickey should be immediately stripped of his/her membership, as it is immediately obvious that such a vote indicates zero knowledge of the game of baseball.

I remember when Ricky returned to the A’s in 1989. He definitely helped to define that special year with his talent and explosive offense. Not to mention his MVP award the following year. He will remain one of the many shining memories for me as a kid growing up and watching the A’s dominate.

He should absolutely dominate this voting.

I think you’d definitely get 100% votes here on AN because we all understand how great Rickey was [not “Ricky” gromit]. But there are how many BBW that vote? If only for the attention it would garner, there are those who think more highly of themselves than they do of baseball history. They will state that they have principles and standards to uphold, but such comments will really be a farce and a way to get some cheap notoriety.

And while the younger generation doesn’t think as much in these terms, I also think race will be a factor in the 100% question but it will be painted as follows: “Well if Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb didn’t get 100%, then why should Rickey?” Of course this ignores the strong argument that Babe and Ty played before integration and consequently did not put up their numbers against the very best competition. But we all know how messy that argument gets. So while I’m hoping its unanimous, I think at least one asshat will ruin it for Rickey.

If you could split him in two, you’d have two Hall of Famers.

If there’s a group on this planet that has a more undeserved role, I’d like to see it. Maybe in 20-25 years when all the dinosaurs are dead the voting might have some competence to it, but until then I wouldn’t be surprised to see Rickey never get in and David Eckstein get in unanimously.

For what it’s worth, Rickey and Tim Raines getting in on the same year would be amazing. But it won’t happen because people don’t realize that Tim Raines might have been the best player in baseball for a couple years during the early 80s.

Some voters believe that because no one has been voted in unanimously, no one should. Some will not vote first-ballot for any player who was active during the strikes in 1981 and/or 1994. Some will even hold playing in the steroid era against players simply on principle, without evidence.

Who really cares though? Rickey’s a no-doubt Hall of Famer, we all know that. We all know he was the greatest leadoff hitter ever. Most (I hope) believe he was the greatest player ever to don an Oakland A’s uni. Many think he’s worthy of “inner circle” status once he’s elected to the Hall of Fame. I’d be happy if Rickey topped Tom Seaver’s 98.84% but my faith in the BBRAA has worn thin to the point that I don’t really care about the stuff they vote on.

Either way, I just want a freakin’ Rickey bobblehead.

Rickey is undoubtedly a first ballot Hall of Famer, and there is no defensible reason for a writer to not vote him in. Your comment about him being the first and of “nobody else” being more deserving is a bit far-fetched, however – do you really believe that Rickey Henderson was the greatest baseball player of all time?

I do wonder, though – who’s the guy refusing to vote these players in just for the sake of making it non-unanimous? Is it a different person every time? How do the writers make sure that at least one person won’t vote for Rickey? If it’s the same guy every time, what’s the point of even giving him a vote if he will never vote anyone in?

(I assume he’s otherwise occupied and unlikely to post at the moment.)

The Hall should literally have an inner circle, or several circles, wherein garden variety HOF’ers get enshrined at the first level, really great HOF’ers qualify for the second level, and only the absolute GOATs make it to the ultra-exclusive top tier. Such an arrangement would have much more meaning than facile measurements of percentage of the vote or number of years on the ballot before enshrinement.

Rickey will be recognized as one of the all-time greats. Don’t let a handful of sourpuss sportswriters rain on our parade. Ignore them and enjoy it for what it is.

It’s a bad idea for sportswriters to be the judges anyway. Is it a “Hall of Fame” or a “Hall of Accomplishment”?? The fact that a writer would turn in a “blank ballot” for Cal Ripkin just shows you; someone will do it and there is nothing you can do, because it was a flawed system to begin with.

In the time I took to write this, anothr person on Planet Earth died from malaria. 2.5Billion…billion people will be taking a shit on the ground today, because they have no proper sanitation…..and someone is “worried” and “outraged” about a congentially-flawed system of voting for the MLB Hall of Fame?????