OT: Cal Ripken—Revolutionary SS or Overrated Hack? Discuss

[maacoshark]

The wrong is strong with this post.

A) You're not a MLB manager, but they absolutely concern themselves with this. If a player comes to a manager with a great bat but poor fielding skills, they hide him in RF, or maybe 1B if the guy is too slow to play OF. They do this in kids leagues and they do this in the majors. Bryce Harper was a catcher when the Nats drafted him, but they had to move him to the OF.
B) If you only concern yourself with half the game at any one time, you're not a very good manager. If you have two good batters who can't field, do you still not care what position they field?
C) Your statement would only make sense if you could bat 9 DH's. In the AL, good hitters who can't field anymore play DH. Good SS play SS regardless of their bat.
D) For multiple generations of baseball, SS's could barely hit a lick because the talent pool required the best fielder, regardless of bat skill, play SS.
E) Cal changed all that, permanently.

Like I said before Cal Ripken wasnt even the first offensive shortstop. Ernie Banks was a better offensive player and was around long before Ripken.
You guys are basing Ripkens greatness as a shortstop because of his offensive production. Does that make him a better player than someone that played another posiion.
In that era I followed the Bluejays and the Orioles and I can tell you that Ripken wouldnt have played ss for the Jays. He likely would have played 3rd base. He wouldnt have played ss for a lot of teams. So how does that make him such a great ss? You guys just dont get it.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Ponderous logic....f***ing ponderous. I’ll watch from here on out. Clearly logic and reasoning has been discarded by one side.

 

[kicksavedave]

Like I said before Cal Ripken wasnt even the first offensive shortstop. Ernie Banks was a better offensive player and was around long before Ripken.
You guys are basing Ripkens greatness as a shortstop because of his offensive production. Does that make him a better player than someone that played another posiion.
In that era I followed the Bluejays and the Orioles and I can tell you that Ripken wouldnt have played ss for the Jays. He likely would have played 3rd base. He wouldnt have played ss for a lot of teams. So how does that make him such a great ss? You guys just dont get it.

LMAO FFS, you just proved my point. Ernie Banks only played SS for 9 years, basically his first 9 years in the ML. Then he moved to 1B mostly with a few stops at 3B and OF along the way. He played 11 years at 1B and 9 at SS. Cal played 17 seasons at SS (2300+ Games), most of them never missing a game. Ernie played 1125 games at SS, and 1259 at 1B. I'd leave it to you to figure out why that all is, but you'd get that wrong too.

I'll leave you with this simple set of tools to compare Cal in the field at SS to Ozzie Smith, probably considered the greatest fielding SS of all time.

Cal Ripken Jr. Fielding Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

Ozzie Smith Fielding Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

 

[maacoshark]

LMAO FFS, you just proved my point. Ernie Banks only played SS for 9 years, basically his first 9 years in the ML. Then he moved to 1B mostly with a few stops at 3B and OF along the way. He played 11 years at 1B and 9 at SS. Cal played 17 seasons at SS (2300+ Games), most of them never missing a game. Ernie played 1125 games at SS, and 1259 at 1B. I'd leave it to you to figure out why that all is, but you'd get that wrong too.

I'll leave you with this simple set of tools to compare Cal in the field at SS to Ozzie Smith, probably considered the greatest fielding SS of all time.

Cal Ripken Jr. Fielding Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

Ozzie Smith Fielding Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

Do you not listen? Fielding percentage doesnt tell you what kind of range that player has. Does it show you how many balls that he should have gotten to? No it doesnt. And trust me it happened alot.
I used the Blue Jays as an example. The Jays had Tony Fernandez at ss. If Ripken was on that roster there is no way that he would have played ss over Fernandez. He would have played 3rd base. And there is no argument.
And your argument about Banks doesnt really hold water. You make it sound like he played ss for a handful of games. He played 9 seasons before being moved to another position. Something that the Orioles should have done with Ripken. With every post you guys make you are looking more and more like Leaf fans. To stubborn to even consider looking at another point of view.
Here's another thing to think about. What if the Phillies decided to use Schmidt at ss instead 3rd. Would you consider him a lesser ss than Ripken?

 

[kicksavedave]

The advanced stats I posted shows a lot you can glean about how well they played in the field, not just fielding percentage. Total assists, type of assist, total putouts, type of ABs faced (ground ball vs fly), errors of all sort.

The key stat that debunks your assertion that Cal didn't get to as many balls as Smith is the average balls fielded per year. For the years that Cal was a starting SS, vs the years that Ozzie was a starting SS, Cal fielded 566 balls per year. Ozzie fielded 557 balls per year. So the idea that Ozzie got to more balls isn't proven by any statistic. Sure Ozzie had better range. But Cal had better positioning. Cal had less ground to travel. In the end, they both had about the same exact chances per year to make plays. Further, given they had nearly identical chances to field balls over a long sample, Cal's % converted to outs is 92%, Ozzie was 91%. MLB average was 89%.

I'm open to other points of view, if they aren't absurd and unfounded. Show me a point of view supported by facts and reality and I'll consider it. I've already done that for you, but you refuse to do the same.

 

[32hunter]

why not both?

 

[maacoshark]

The advanced stats I posted shows a lot you can glean about how well they played in the field, not just fielding percentage. Total assists, type of assist, total putouts, type of ABs faced (ground ball vs fly), errors of all sort.

The key stat that debunks your assertion that Cal didn't get to as many balls as Smith is the average balls fielded per year. For the years that Cal was a starting SS, vs the years that Ozzie was a starting SS, Cal fielded 566 balls per year. Ozzie fielded 557 balls per year. So the idea that Ozzie got to more balls isn't proven by any statistic. Sure Ozzie had better range. But Cal had better positioning. Cal had less ground to travel. In the end, they both had about the same exact chances per year to make plays. Further, given they had nearly identical chances to field balls over a long sample, Cal's % converted to outs is 92%, Ozzie was 91%. MLB average was 89%.

I'm open to other points of view, if they aren't absurd and unfounded. Show me a point of view supported by facts and reality and I'll consider it. I've already done that for you, but you refuse to do the same.

Wow are you for real? I cannot believe you are comparing Ripkens defensive ability to Ozzie Smith. He isn't even in the same ballpark.
And you can't use a stat about balls fielded. Pitching has so much to do with that. Some pitchers dont give up many ground balls.

 

[kicksavedave]

Wow are you for real? I cannot believe you are comparing Ripkens defensive ability to Ozzie Smith. He isn't even in the same ballpark.
And you can't use a stat about balls fielded. Pitching has so much to do with that. Some pitchers dont give up many ground balls.

You clearly don't even understand what the stat represents. The number of balls fielded is roughly the same for both players, in fact slightly higher for Cal, over a massive sample, ~17 years or more. If either player was fielding more balls than the other that stat would reflect it.

What it doesn't reflect is how they got to those balls. Ozzie had greater range, but yet he fielded fewer balls per season. Given that he didn't play 162 games for 17 years straight like Cal did, it stands to reason they probably fielded the same amount of balls per game/per inning, over their long careers.

There are in fact three things that go into all that. How many chances to field balls is based on how many balls are hit into their area, which yes, can depend on pitching ground balls vs fly balls, but over 17 years that is definitely going to average out. The next factor is range, which Ozzie clearly had better range than Cal, no dispute there. So how does Cal field just as many balls as Ozzie if pitching averages out and over 17 years the balls hit to their area will also average out?

 

[RandyHolt]

I wonder if he holds the record for most foul balls off of his own foot

 

[Silky mitts]

On this date 17 years ago Cal Ripken played his final game going 0-3 in a 5-1 loss to Boston. Down 95 Jaromir Jagr was playing his 1st game for the Caps going 1 g 1 a in a 6-1 win over NJ.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Love the thread title.

 

[SDBondra]

This thread totally reinforces my opinions of some posters on this forum. Ripken was head and shoulders above all other shortstops of his era, even the great Ozzie Smith. But really, we should be talking more about Eddie Murray. That guy might be the most underrated player in history.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

I won't rant against Ripken fans again. But the majority of his prime he hit .250 or under
His best seasons came in the steroid era I'm not saying his big seasons were fake. But Sosa, Bonds, McGwire all did

3 good hitting seasons over 20 years all in the steroid era.. Keep loving Cal but he was drastically overrated His age 38 season in 1999 he was definitely juicing.

 

[txpd]

I won't rant against Ripken fans again. But the majority of his prime he hit .250 or under
His best seasons came in the steroid era I'm not saying his big seasons were fake. But Sosa, Bonds, McGwire all did

3 good hitting seasons over 20 years all in the steroid era.. Keep loving Cal but he was drastically overrated His age 38 season in 1999 he was definitely juicing.

Ah...good. He wasn't good but when he was good he had to be cheating. 10 4. I get it. What I don't get is this majority of his prime he it 250 or under. How did you twist the numbers to say that? Of his first 18 full seasons he hit .250 exactly once. He hit under .250 exactly never. He hit .250 something 5 times. So, I don't get how you figured that one out.
Btw...5 seasons between .251 and .260. he hit 27, 21, 21, 14, 23 Home Runs and 98, 93, 84, 72, and 90 RBI.

 

[Chokingdogs]

Ah...good. He wasn't good but when he was good he had to be cheating. 10 4. I get it. What I don't get is this majority of his prime he it 250 or under. How did you twist the numbers to say that? Of his first 18 full seasons he hit .250 exactly once. He hit under .250 exactly never. He hit .250 something 5 times. So, I don't get how you figured that one out.
Btw...5 seasons between .251 and .260. he hit 27, 21, 21, 14, 23 Home Runs and 98, 93, 84, 72, and 90 RBI.

Well....in 81 he hit .128 and in 01 hit .239....

If you take those two seasons and extrapolate them in the fabric of his prime years hitting a little over .250....click your heels together, close your eyes and whisper by the beard of Zeus then eat a buffalo wild wing ( garlic)....

Poof...At or below .250!

 

[txpd]

Well....in 81 he hit .128 and in 01 hit .239....

If you take those two seasons and extrapolate them in the fabric of his prime years hitting a little over .250....click your heels together, close your eyes and whisper by the beard of Zeus then eat a buffalo wild wing ( garlic)....

Poof...At or below .250!

I did say first 18 full seasons. But ok. We can do that. His 39 AB first season and his last season. Out of 20 seasons he hit under .250. Twice. That is a majority if he played 3 seasons. So I still don't get it.

 

[Hivemind]

I won't rant against Ripken fans again. But the majority of his prime he hit .250 or under
His best seasons came in the steroid era I'm not saying his big seasons were fake. But Sosa, Bonds, McGwire all did

3 good hitting seasons over 20 years all in the steroid era.. Keep loving Cal but he was drastically overrated His age 38 season in 1999 he was definitely juicing.

Is this really how far you're willing to go down the rabbit hole? Really?

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Juan Gonzalez Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

Was a better hitter almost every season also a 2x MVP but no one cares because he didn't have the streak and did it in the steroid era.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Rafael Palmeiro Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

Also a much better player and played for the O's

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

In OPS the most important hitting stat almost 500 players have a better career OPS then Ripken.
On Base Plus Slugging (OPS) All Time Leaders on Baseball Almanac

 

[kicksavedave]

Gonzo was an outfielder and Palmiero was a 1B and DH who did roids.

Serious question, have you been drinking that wodka tonight? Thats' maybe the worst comparison I've ever seen on this site.

Why not just compare Cal to Ken Griffey Jr since, you know, they both played, baseball.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

On-base plus slugging - Wikipedia

Also note his OPS ranks as just average to barley above average by league standards.... And he played in steroid era

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Are we just posting random go0d players made great by roids now? I was a huge fan of Rafi....Those O’s teams were fun.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

All-Time #MLBRank: The 10 greatest shortstops. (Ripken #4)

Shortstop JAWS Leaders | Baseball-Reference.com. (Ripken #3)

https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/gallery/top-shortstops-in-mlb-history-070811 (Ripken #3)

The Top 100 Shortstops of All-Time (Ripken #2)


I’m pretty sure I could go on and on.....

 

[Hivemind]

All pitchers now suck because they have awful OPS stats.