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

[Hivemind]

Is Matt Weiters an elite catcher because he's a average batter for the position and larger in size then most catchers?

Bc that sounds like the Cal debate

.250 hitting sucks and doing that 7 prime seasons is enough to deem him vastly overrated

In which three seasons did Wieters lead MLB in WAR?
Where are Wieters two MVP awards?
Where are Wieters eight silver slugger awards?
Where are the plethora of catching prospects who credit Wieters with inspiring them to stick at C instead of shifting to the corner infield?
Where is Wieters top-50 all-time rank in WAR accumulated?

 

[maacoshark]

I could be wrong here but....I think all positions in the field are of the defensive variety.

My point is in the batting lineup he is just another hitter. How you you judge a player as a shortstop from offensive stats? You can't.

 

[Corby78]

This is such a stupid debate. He is a HoF ss and a legend. He was on the fringe of a drastic change in how you play SS and what teams expect from that position. Power on the corners and defense up the middle is no more, in part to him.

 

[maacoshark]

Advanced stats tell us that Ripken was a historically great shortstop. Among the very best.

He had a good fielding percentage but he couldnt get to near as many balls as any other shortstop at that time. So what if he made the play on balls that were hit right to him. He probably had less range than any other shortstop at that time.
He was probably more suited to play 3rd base. And I'm not saying 3rd basemen are hacks in the field. There are some excellent fielding 3rd basemen, they just didnt have a lot of range. Mike Schmidt was a perfect example. Schmidt was a great fielder but I would have never used him at shortstop.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Matt Wieters Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

4 time all star and gold glove. OPS is pretty much the same, both overrated

 

[txpd]

fancy stats. MLB all time WAR ranking. Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron are the top 5. Ripken is 25.

Career Leaders &amp Records for WAR Position Players | Baseball-Reference.com

Defensive WAR rankings. Ozzie Smith, Mark Belanger, Brooks Robinson, Cal Ripken, Joe Tinker are the top 5

Career Leaders &amp Records for Defensive WAR | Baseball-Reference.com

 

[Hivemind]

Matt Wieters Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

4 time all star and gold glove. OPS is pretty much the same, both overrated

Are you being intentionally dense? You're attempting to compare a 4-time All-Star to a 19-time All-Star. Literally the only season Cal didn't play in the ASG was his rookie year.

And once again, when has Wieters led MLB in WAR? When has he even come close? Wieters has exactly two seasons of 3+ WAR. Ripken had fifteen. Wieters' career high in WAR is 5.2 in 2011 (which is a really good season). Ripken had eight seasons above that 5.2 mark, included breaching 10+ WAR twice (1984, 1991). For reference, Alex Rodriguez broke the 10+ WAR threshold only once. Harper's career high is exactly 10.0. Machado's career high is 7.1. Even Mike Trout has only broken 10 WAR twice. Ripken's 11.5WAR 1991 season ranks as the 11th best individual season of all time. Literally the only player in the modern era to post better WAR marks is Barry Bonds.

You have absolutely zero concept of how good Ripken was, and it's frankly embarrassing at this point.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I have Cal around 3/4th all time as a SS. Such a model star athlete....was a real pleasure and privilege to watch his career honestly.

 

[maacoshark]

Are you being intentionally dense? You're attempting to compare a 4-time All-Star to a 19-time All-Star. Literally the only season Cal didn't play in the ASG was his rookie year.

And once again, when has Wieters led MLB in WAR? When has he even come close? Wieters has exactly two seasons of 3+ WAR. Ripken had fifteen. Wieters' career high in WAR is 5.2 in 2011 (which is a really good season). Ripken had eight seasons above that 5.2 mark, included breaching 10+ WAR twice (1984, 1991). For reference, Alex Rodriguez broke the 10+ WAR threshold only once. Harper's career high is exactly 10.0. Machado's career high is 7.1. Even Mike Trout has only broken 10 WAR twice. Ripken's 11.5WAR 1991 season ranks as the 11th best individual season of all time. Literally the only player in the modern era to post better WAR marks is Barry Bonds.

You have absolutely zero concept of how good Ripken was, and it's frankly embarrassing at this point.

Do you find it necessary to call someone dense because their opinion is different than yours? What makes your opinion more legit than anyone elses?
For some reason you are obsessed with Ripken. He was a very good player for a very long time but he was not the greatest ever.

 

[Ajax1995]

Do you find it necessary to call someone dense because their opinion is different than yours? What makes your opinion more legit than anyone elses?
For some reason you are obsessed with Ripken. He was a very good player for a very long time but he was not the greatest ever.

It would seem you aren’t a big fan of facts over feelings arguments...?

He has a ton of facts to back up his argument. You apparently only have your feelings. But for some reason you believe your feelings should carry just as much weight as his facts.

Seriously? I don’t care what the facts are I know what I know? Really...?

 

[txpd]

Do you find it necessary to call someone dense because their opinion is different than yours? What makes your opinion more legit than anyone elses?.

When you say you think something about a player and I show you numbers that say otherwise, its helpful if you are going to refute those numbers to explain how. "Because" isn't really good enough. I quick look at the WAR stats rankings show that there are no average or above average players near the top in any category. This indicates that his 25th ranking alltime on offense is significant. It shows his 4th all time on defense suggests strongly that he was not a no range, catch what is hit right too him SS.

I would and have argued that Brooks Orpik's value doesn't show up in the fancy stats. You seem to want to say that Ripken's suck doesn't show up in the fancy stats. That said, the things that fancy stats measure Orpik does suck. The stats fail on a player like Orpik because his value cant be measured much on a stats sheet. Baseball is the ultimate numbers game. Here Hive presents the numbers that are then dismissed without reason.

If Ripken is ranked 4th all time defensive WAR and you think he is a no range average SS, give me reasons.

 

[third man in]

My point is in the batting lineup he is just another hitter. How you you judge a player as a shortstop from offensive stats? You can't.

The point is if Ripken couldn't cut it as a fielder at SS the team would have to put in a typical SS for that era a light hitting defensive specialist type.

That's how it works with baseball, your value as a batter is relative to the defensive position you play.

 

[maacoshark]

The point is if Ripken couldn't cut it as a fielder at SS the team would have to put in a typical SS for that era a light hitting defensive specialist type.

That's how it works with baseball, your value as a batter is relative to the defensive position you play.

Ripken was fine as a fielder. I always felt they had him in the wrong position though.

 

[maacoshark]

When you say you think something about a player and I show you numbers that say otherwise, its helpful if you are going to refute those numbers to explain how. "Because" isn't really good enough. I quick look at the WAR stats rankings show that there are no average or above average players near the top in any category. This indicates that his 25th ranking alltime on offense is significant. It shows his 4th all time on defense suggests strongly that he was not a no range, catch what is hit right too him SS.

I would and have argued that Brooks Orpik's value doesn't show up in the fancy stats. You seem to want to say that Ripken's suck doesn't show up in the fancy stats. That said, the things that fancy stats measure Orpik does suck. The stats fail on a player like Orpik because his value cant be measured much on a stats sheet. Baseball is the ultimate numbers game. Here Hive presents the numbers that are then dismissed without reason.

If Ripken is ranked 4th all time defensive WAR and you think he is a no range average SS, give me reasons.

Numbers dont tell you everything and you know that. I followed his career I know his numbers are pretty good. But when you break it down they weren't spectacular. He averaged just over 20 home runs per season only once breaking 30. He only broke 100 RBI 4 times in 21 seasons. His career batting average was .276. He did hit a ton of doubles though. Those are good numbers but they aren't off the charts. Here is a pathetic stat though. 36 stolen bases in 21 seasons. He was actually caught stealing more often. He was a brutal base runner. He had no quickness or speed which is why I have never considered him a great defensive shortstop even though he may have had a good fielding percentage. Like I said before he made the plays on balls that were hit right to him.
BTW Ripken wasnt the first power hitting ss. Ernie Banks was.

 

[maacoshark]

The point is if Ripken couldn't cut it as a fielder at SS the team would have to put in a typical SS for that era a light hitting defensive specialist type.

That's how it works with baseball, your value as a batter is relative to the defensive position you play.

That's not how it works.

 

[third man in]

That's not how it works.

2 players have identical batting stats. One is a DH the other is CF. Which player is more valuable? Hint- it shouldn't be hard.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Ripken had 5 seasons where, defensively, he was worth 3 or more wins above a replacement level fielder. 5 other seasons, he was worth at least 2 wins. He led the league 5 times and was 2nd 3 times. He had 8 seasons when he was in the top 5 in range factor/game, including 3 when he led the league. Led the league 5 times in Total Zone Runs, and was second 4 times. These are all only considering his time at shortstop. He wasn't just a "fine" fielder. He was one of the best in the league.

 

[txpd]

That's not how it works.

Except that is how it works. A typical middle infielder is a singles hitter that might steal some bases. A 3rd or 1st baseman is had to create extra base hits, home runs and rbi to make the lineup. Wade Boggs is the exception to the Mike Schmidt, Eddie Matthews, Chipper Jones. Look at the hall of fame 1st basemen. Big power, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, McCovey, Killebrew, Perez, Murray. If you have a shortstop that hits like a 3rd or 1st baseman but can legit field the position, you have an advantage.

You don't see that?

Here is this of HOF SS. How many of these guys were consistant 20hr/80rbi players?
Hall of Famers by Position

 

[kicksavedave]

That's not how it works.

Thats almost exactly how it works, in baseball, across every level.

From Babe Ruth leagues to the major leagues, the very best infield position fielder is usually put at shortstop, and the next best fielder is usually put at 3B then 2B then 1B. There's a very specific reason that as infielders age, there is a tendency to see them get moved from SS to 3B to 1B over their careers. But that tendency also happens in reverse when they are younger. Players that can't field ground balls well or can't throw well are moved out of the infield or to 1B. If you ever played baseball as a kid you would have seen this first hand. As young players, how they hit has nothing to do with where they play, its all about how well they field in terms of what position they play.

So for decades, the majors had the very best fielders at SS and for decades those players could barely hit a lick. Mark Belanger was the perfect example. He's the guy Ripken effectively replaced. Great fielding SS, terrible hitter. Very typical for that era and for the prior 50-75 years.

Then Ripken comes along. He can play SS near the very top of all the majors, but he can also hit better than any SS that played when he came around. That was a truly unique and game changing combination. Comparing his numbers to MLB averages for all positions isn't an accurate picture of what he contributed to the team. Comparing his numbers to a 3B/1B player who would be a drastic liability at SS isn't an accurate picture.

 

[maacoshark]

Thats almost exactly how it works, in baseball, across every level.

From Babe Ruth leagues to the major leagues, the very best infield position fielder is usually put at shortstop, and the next best fielder is usually put at 3B then 2B then 1B. There's a very specific reason that as infielders age, there is a tendency to see them get moved from SS to 3B to 1B over their careers. But that tendency also happens in reverse when they are younger. Players that can't field ground balls well or can't throw well are moved out of the infield or to 1B. If you ever played baseball as a kid you would have seen this first hand. As young players, how they hit has nothing to do with where they play, its all about how well they field in terms of what position they play.

So for decades, the majors had the very best fielders at SS and for decades those players could barely hit a lick. Mark Belanger was the perfect example. He's the guy Ripken effectively replaced. Great fielding SS, terrible hitter. Very typical for that era and for the prior 50-75 years.

Then Ripken comes along. He can play SS near the very top of all the majors, but he can also hit better than any SS that played when he came around. That was a truly unique and game changing combination. Comparing his numbers to MLB averages for all positions isn't an accurate picture of what he contributed to the team. Comparing his numbers to a 3B/1B player who would be a drastic liability at SS isn't an accurate picture.

Give your head a shake. When a player is in the batting lineup I could care less what position he is playing in the field. I dont even think about it.

 

[maacoshark]

Except that is how it works. A typical middle infielder is a singles hitter that might steal some bases. A 3rd or 1st baseman is had to create extra base hits, home runs and rbi to make the lineup. Wade Boggs is the exception to the Mike Schmidt, Eddie Matthews, Chipper Jones. Look at the hall of fame 1st basemen. Big power, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, McCovey, Killebrew, Perez, Murray. If you have a shortstop that hits like a 3rd or 1st baseman but can legit field the position, you have an advantage.

You don't see that?

Here is this of HOF SS. How many of these guys were consistant 20hr/80rbi players?
Hall of Famers by Position

I dont care about a shortstops offensive numbers. I want my shortstop to excel at shortstop. When I decided who would be my shortstop, hitting was never part of the decision.

 

[maacoshark]

Ripken had 5 seasons where, defensively, he was worth 3 or more wins above a replacement level fielder. 5 other seasons, he was worth at least 2 wins. He led the league 5 times and was 2nd 3 times. He had 8 seasons when he was in the top 5 in range factor/game, including 3 when he led the league. Led the league 5 times in Total Zone Runs, and was second 4 times. These are all only considering his time at shortstop. He wasn't just a "fine" fielder. He was one of the best in the league.

He was not one of the best fielding shortstops. Infact he had less range than any other shortstop at the time. But there are no stats to tell you that. All you guys know here are stats. Have you ever even watched him play? Get real guys.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Come on Maaco, give yourself a double head shake....you’re just wrong. Your antiquated notions are just that....your beliefs in what should be or have been.


You heard it here first. “(Ripken) wasn’t one of the best fielding SS”.....huge eye roll...

 

[maacoshark]

Except that is how it works. A typical middle infielder is a singles hitter that might steal some bases. A 3rd or 1st baseman is had to create extra base hits, home runs and rbi to make the lineup. Wade Boggs is the exception to the Mike Schmidt, Eddie Matthews, Chipper Jones. Look at the hall of fame 1st basemen. Big power, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, McCovey, Killebrew, Perez, Murray. If you have a shortstop that hits like a 3rd or 1st baseman but can legit field the position, you have an advantage.

You don't see that?

Here is this of HOF SS. How many of these guys were consistant 20hr/80rbi players?
Hall of Famers by Position

Duh. A typical shortstop is a shortstop first. Then a hitter. Ripken was a hitter first.
I know exactly what you are saying. You are saying that the Orioles had an advantage because they had a better offensive player playing the shortstop position. That might be true but did they match up at all the other positions.
I dont look at it the same way. In the field I put the guy where he is best suited to play. I'd rather have quick players with a lot of range up the middle. Offense was never a thought when deciding this. Have you eve thought Ripken played ss because of lack of options. I know I would have rather had him on 3rd because he is a good fielder but lacked the range of most ss. BTW Ripken did play some 3rd in his career. He wasnt a ss only.
If you weren't so bias you might understand. But from reading your posts I know you won't.

 

[txpd]

I dont care about a shortstops offensive numbers. I want my shortstop to excel at shortstop. When I decided who would be my shortstop, hitting was never part of the decision.

Ripken ranked 4th all time in defensive WAR. Where are you going to get a better fielding shortstop.

Further, its a bad thing that he can hit better than any field first short stop?