Ripken and Aparacio are tempting ... never saw Appling, though obviously he was a HOF guy. That said, give me The Wizard, and every time.

I was genuinely surprised to see Bowa's name on the list at #5, and if my math is right, he was once #2? Really? I'll be even more surprised if he gets a single vote -- or do we have some Philly natives on here?

Ripken's a pretty easy choice for me. OK, not quite as good defensively as Smith or Aparicio. Just like Mike Schmidt wasn't quite as good defensively as Brooks Robinson.

He makes up for it elsewhere.

Yeah, even as I was voting for Smith, I figured "Iron Man will get 80 percent of this vote" ... we'll see.

I voted for Ozzie, but I think Cal is clearly a better player.

I just loved watching Ozzie - as a fan, he was someone I would pay to go see (although living in Toronto at that time, I didn't have the opportunity).  I'm still a bit miffed that he didn't do a flip at the All-star game at the Dome, the only time I ever saw him live.

Actually, by any defensive measurement I can think of, Cal Ripken was a much, much better fielder than Aparacio.

No disrespect meant to Aparacio, a heck of a shortstop for many years and by all accounts a swell guy, but he's largely the beneficiary of all kinds of ugly Lazy Sportswriter cliches.  If you're a bad hitter, you must be a good defender.  If you won a gold glove once, you're the league's best gloveman forever, it's not like the managers who vote would take their choice lightly.  And if all else fails, assume the Hispanic guy is a defensive wizard.

assume the Hispanic guy is a defensive wizard.

Does that explain Hanley Ramirez? For a shortstop, he's a hell of a designated hitter!

Ripken was the best player of the six, but I'd rather have Ozzie on my team.  A little less ego and probably wouldn't demand or get the big bucks that Cal would. 

If you're a bad hitter, you must be a good defender.

Aparicio was actually regarded as a fine offensive player while he was active, simply because he led the league in stealing bases every year. This led to the assumption that he was the best leadoff hitter in the league. This was silly, but he really was an outstanding defender.

I see that Scott Rolen visited the site to vote for Larry, but who else has done so?

Didn't vote for the supposed Iron Man, who has missed, like, a thousand games in a row, but for Ozzie Smith. (I also tried to come up with some line connecting his appearance on The Simpsons to a modified version of Smithers' famous quote ["Luke Appling has been dead for 17 years"] but the mind wasn't working.)

Appling and Smith are appealing, especially because I have always, always loved the Wizard.  But Cal Ripken was a better player than either.  His intangibles were, in my view, substantially overrated, but his tangible skills have by now become quite underrated, especially his defense which was outsanding.

Ripken had the best throwing arm I have ever seen on a non-pitcher except possibly Jesse Barfield (I never saw Willie Mays or Roberto Clemente).  The velocity wasn't the thing that was the most impressive about it - just your garden-variety 90mph zing.  It was how he threw and the consistency with which he threw.  He would plant and fire throws that no other shortstop would attempt.

Ripken had the best throwing arm I have ever seen on a non-pitcher except possibly Jesse Barfield

Which made him a great defensive player. Alas, it made him boring as hell to watch. The great arm let him set up way, way deeper than an ordinary shortstop. And he studied the hitters and was very very smart about positioning. He never needed to dive for a ball, he hardly ever even needed to throw on the run. A step or two, field the ball, and zing the throw to first. His release was seamless and every throw looked exactly like the last one, on a line to the first baseman's chest.

The consensus here seems to be that Ripken was the best overall player, but I was checking the stats at baseballreference.com and, as a hitter, Appling was as good as Ripken over his career.  On top of that, it was his OB% that made up most of his value, which, if i recall correctly, would make his 112 OPS+ slightly more productive than Ripken's 112.

Ripken had a slightly higher peak, thanks to his '91 season, but Appling was pretty close in OPS+:

162-145-144-143-128-124-123-115-114-107-105-105-102-97-95-93-92-91-89-70
142-138-125-124-123-121-117-113-113-111-110-103-101-94-86-86-66

For me, it comes down to fielding; from what I've heard [or read in Baseball Digest many years ago] Appling was a superb fielder...but Ripken was too bad.  So I choose Appling on the fact that I'd rather have his excellent OBP that Ripken excellent SLG%.

I'll take Smith at SS and Ripken at 3B.

I'll take Vizquel, as he's still playing and is more likely to play well today than the others

I'll take Vizquel, as he's still playing and is more likely to play well today than the others

Those fools who chose Appling will feel pretty silly when they find out he's dead.

Same with Cal Ripken. Poor man never even got to see his son get his 3,000th hit, let alone ever play a decent short stop.

What are you talking about?  Ol Aches and Pains has excellent range for a dead man.  His managers used to say that the worse he looked, the better he played, and believe me, he isn't looking too good right now...

</juvenile humour>