15 minutes of fame

[Backtobanks]

Paul Ladewski is making sure he gets his 15 minutes of fame. According to Benmaller.com:

 

 

Cal Ripken Jr. won't be the first unanimous selection to baseball's Hall of Fame when the results are announced at 2 p.m. Tuesday. That's a certainty because Paul Ladewski of a suburban Chicago newspaper has revealed that he submitted a blank ballot because he doesn't have enough information to consider the merits of any players from the steroids era (1993-2004). He told the Baltimore Sun that he doesn't suspect Ripken or Tony Gwynn of using performance-enhancing drugs, but that he can't be sure they didn't.

[daske17]

You have got to be kidding me. He was probably the kid growing up that reminded the teacher to give everyone homework over Christmas break.

 

Furthermore, he works for the Daily Southtown. I think that speaks for itself.

[Chris]

Ouch.

 

I honestly thought that Cal had a chance at a unanimous vote, but knew the chance was slim. Unfortunately, the slim chance had nothing to do with what Cal did on the field. When you consider the longevity required to make it to the HOF you are going to meet lots of people. Intentionally or not, there's a great chance that someone is going to get their feelings hurt at some point and try to pay back a player when the HOF vote happens. In addition, you will have those seeking media attention.

 

If this (or any) writer did keep from voting for Cal based on the "steroid era" it is a shame. I would also question if they know anything about Ripken. Cal still has a great work ethic to this day, one of the best I have seen.

 

In addition, Cal had a pretty good career pre 1993 with a World Series, Rookie of the Year and 2 MVP awards among many other accomplishments.

[rocket]

do they let any writer have a vote? jesus

[treebird]

whatta buffoon

[Post Count Padder]

You've got to be kidding me. It's people like this who give sportswriters a bad name.

[CuseCubFan69]

15 minutes of fame...pretty good title!

[Chris]

His defense of the blank ballot

[illiniguy]

I wouldn't vote for Cal either. I think he should go in, but to be the only unanimous choice you should be thought of as the best ever. IMO Cal is not even in that type of conversation. But, to leave him out because of his era is equally moronic.

[CuseCubFan69]

I wouldn't vote for Cal either. I think he should go in, but to be the only unanimous choice you should be thought of as the best ever. IMO Cal is not even in that type of conversation. But, to leave him out because of his era is equally moronic.

 

Didn't Cal have a 0.00 era?

 

I wonder how he compares to the other great SS's?

[Backtobanks]

The other amazing thing is that it looks like he will turn in a blank ballot for all players during the "steroid era" (1993-2004), so he might be sending in blank ballots for a few more years. He has a right to his opinion, but if I had anything to do with it, I would take away his privilege to vote for the HOF.

[illiniguy]

I wouldn't vote for Cal either. I think he should go in, but to be the only unanimous choice you should be thought of as the best ever. IMO Cal is not even in that type of conversation. But, to leave him out because of his era is equally moronic.

 

Didn't Cal have a 0.00 era?

 

I wonder how he compares to the other great SS's?

Sorry the era in which he played. Better?

[CuseCubFan69]

I wouldn't vote for Cal either. I think he should go in, but to be the only unanimous choice you should be thought of as the best ever. IMO Cal is not even in that type of conversation. But, to leave him out because of his era is equally moronic.

 

Didn't Cal have a 0.00 era?

 

I wonder how he compares to the other great SS's?

Sorry the era in which he played. Better?

 

I was just teasing about the usage of era!

 

Who do you consider to be the best ever SS's?

[illiniguy]

I wouldn't vote for Cal either. I think he should go in, but to be the only unanimous choice you should be thought of as the best ever. IMO Cal is not even in that type of conversation. But, to leave him out because of his era is equally moronic.

 

Didn't Cal have a 0.00 era?

 

I wonder how he compares to the other great SS's?

Sorry the era in which he played. Better?

 

I was just teasing about the usage of era!

 

Who do you consider to be the best ever SS's?

Honus Wagner hands down. Then another Pirate Arky Vaughn. I would say A-Rod would challenge these two, but he had to be a Yankee.

[moorecg]

Anyone wanting to discuss this omission with Mr. 15 minutes can reach him at: Paul Ladewski can be reached at pladd@aol.com

[swordsman]

Do abstentions count against something being considered unanimous?

[illiniguy]

Do abstentions count against something being considered unanimous?

I would imagine he would mail it in blank.

[daske17]

Do abstentions count against something being considered unanimous?

 

I don't think this is considered an abstention. Had it not sent in his ballot, it would be. However, since he sent it in with no names, it's an effective "no" vote for everyone on the ballot.

[swordsman]

Is it? I've never seen a ballot. If it has a yes box and a no box next to each name, then this would seem to be an abstention, wouldn't it?

[Soriano12]

If anyone thinks that Ripken or Gwynn possibly did roids, they are a freakin dumbass.

[daske17]

Is it? I've never seen a ballot. If it has a yes box and a no box next to each name, then this would seem to be an abstention, wouldn't it?

 

I don't I've made myself clear, but it doesn't have a yes/no box. The Hall tabulates votes based on percentages (with players needing 75% to get in). If you receive 100 ballots, and 99 of those ballots have a X next to the name, the player gets in with 99 percent of the vote.

 

What this guy has effectively done is become that one vote that prevents unanimity by sending it in blank.

[CuseCubFan69]

If anyone thinks that Ripken or Gwynn possibly did roids, they are a freakin dumbass.

 

I think sometimes we don't really know who the saints are who who the sinners are.

[swordsman]

Maybe. Does he get off the hook if someone else doesn't vote for them?

[Outshined_One]

This is what's known as being an attention whore. Nicely done, jackass.

[Brian]

Maybe. Does he get off the hook if someone else doesn't vote for them?

 

I don't really get as riled up as some people about the HOF (who deserves it who doesn't etc.), but I've got to say emphatically no but I think the issue should die. This guy doesn't care about "not having enough information", and he isn't trying to be some anti-steroid crusader. Ripken and Gwynn are two of the most well liked and well respected baseball players of our generation. Now this no name reporter writing for a no name paper is going to have people searching out his articles. His name is going to be said on news broadcast all over the country tonight and definitely all over Sportscenter, PTI, around the Horn etc. He wants the attention and I would be surprised if he doesn't have some delusion that this will land him some sort of bigger job.