Ripken

#26
#26
volfanbill said:
Larkin and Smith both were better than Ripken,
Click to expand...


The offensive stats just don't back you up on this one.

Ripken's best year was better than both of these players' best year, his 2nd best year was better than both of these...etc.

During his generation, Cal was the best offensive player ever to play extensively at SS. Had ernie banks stayed at short, it would be a different conversation.
 
#27
#27
season averages

Barry Larkin
99 R, 33 2b, 15 HR, 71 RBI, 28 SB, 61 K, .295 BA

Cal Ripken
89 R, 33 2b, 23 HR, 91 RBI, 2 SB, 63 K, .276 BA

Ozzie Smith
79 R, 25 2b, 2 hr, 50 rbi, 37 SB, 37 K, .262 BA

biggest differences favoring Cal over Larkin are HR's and RBI's. I honestly don't know where Ripken batted, but Larkin was the 2man and occasional lead off hitter, not a spot for homers and RBI's during his hey dey. Smith gets my nod because he was far and away the best defensive shortstop in the past 25 years at least and was at least so so in offense
 
#28
#28
JonWard said:
The offensive stats just don't back you up on this one.

Ripken's best year was better than both of these players' best year, his 2nd best year was better than both of these...etc.

During his generation, Cal was the best offensive player ever to play extensively at SS. Had ernie banks stayed at short, it would be a different conversation.
Click to expand...
When did Cal Ripken ever have a 30/30 year?
 
#31
#31
hatvol96 said:
Not the point. Someone said Ripken's best year was better than Larkn's. I simply pointed out that Larkin had a far more versatile offfensive game.
Click to expand...

That was the point showing that your post on Ripken not being a 30/30 guy was also irrelevant.
 
#32
#32
jaybird_1981 said:
That was the point showing that your post on Ripken not being a 30/30 guy was also irrelevant.
Click to expand...
So being able to run the bases is irrelevant. Thanks for that bit of baseball insight. Tell that to all the teams that prospered with Rickey Henderson at the top of their lineup. I guess batting average is also irrelevant.
 
#33
#33
hatvol96 said:
So being able to run the bases is irrelevant. Thanks for that bit of baseball insight. Tell that to all the teams that prospered with Rickey Henderson at the top of their lineup. I guess batting average is also irrelevant.
Click to expand...


It is irrelevant for your number three hitter being able to steal thirty bases. Besides if you had baseball knowledge you would know stolen bases has nothing to do with how well you run the bases.
 
#34
#34
jaybird_1981 said:
It is irrelevant for your number three hitter being able to steal thirty bases. Besides if you had baseball knowledge you would know stolen bases has nothing to do with how well you run the bases.
Click to expand...
Having been a two time all state baseball player, I think I've got a pretty good idea how the game works. It's irrelevant for someone to have an extra skill in their arsenal? I don't remember the Giants telling Willie Mays not to run. Don't remember the Reds putting the stop sign up for Eric Davis. Never saw the A's stop Canseco from running. If stealing bases is irrelevant, why would those teams risk losing valuable players to something meaningless? With the exception of the occasional Vince Coleman, great base stealers are also great base runners. Just go bow to your shrine of the most overrated player of all time, the Aluminum Horse, Cal Ripken.
 
#35
#35
hatvol96 said:
Having been a two time all state baseball player, I think I've got a pretty good idea how the game works. It's irrelevant for someone to have an extra skill in their arsenal? I don't remember the Giants telling Willie Mays not to run. Don't remember the Reds putting the stop sign up for Eric Davis. Never saw the A's stop Canseco from running. If stealing bases is irrelevant, why would those teams risk losing valuable players to something meaningless? With the exception of the occasional Vince Coleman, great base stealers are also great base runners. Just go bow to your shrine of the most overrated player of all time, the Aluminum Horse, Cal Ripken.
Click to expand...


Trust me my friend I have a bit of a baseball background myself :thumbsup: . And I am telling you it is IRRELEVANT in regards to CAL RIPKEN JR. Some guys can run and some can't it doesn't detract from ones greatness. We are not talking about who are the best five tool players here we are talking about someones hall of fame merit and there are plenty of guys who don't steal bases in the hall.
 
#36
#36
jaybird_1981 said:
Trust me my friend I have a bit of a baseball background myself :thumbsup: . And I am telling you it is IRRELEVANT in regards to CAL RIPKEN. Some guys can run and some can't it doesn't detract from ones greatness. We are not talking about who are the best five tool players here we are talking about someones hall of fame merit and there are plenty of guys who don't steal bases in the hall.
Click to expand...
If you are comparing Barry Larkin and Cal Ripken, which is how the 30/30 discussion came up, it's completely relevant. Larkin's history of injury would be relevant. If two players are being compared, all skills are relevant.
 
#37
#37
hatvol96 said:
If you are comparing Barry Larkin and Cal Ripken, which is how the 30/30 discussion came up, it's completely relevant. Larkin's history of injury would be relevant. If two players are being compared, all skills are relevant.
Click to expand...


Ok all I am saying though is a 30/30 year doesn't make him a better ball player. A more versatile player yes and I do understand the argument Larkin was alot better than people give him credit for. But this is how I look at it, and I know you think longevity doesn't count for much, but I think it does a little bit. I mean if Larkin had stayed healthy I would probably think he was the better player but he didn't so I can't say that.
 
#38
#38
jaybird_1981 said:
Ok all I am saying though is a 30/30 year doesn't make him a better ball player. A more versatile player yes and I do understand the argument Larkin was alot better than people give him credit for. But this is how I look at it, and I know you think longevity doesn't count for much, but I think it does a little bit. I mean if Larkin had stayed healthy I would probably think he was the better player but he didn't so I can't say that.
Click to expand...
That's certainly fair.
 
#42
#42
still think it's larkin hands down. Had he stayed healthy this wouldn't even come up. Ripken was a really good baseball player. By Hall standards, he deserves to be there. But Larkin was better all around, and the defense that the Wizard had makes Ozzie a better player than Ripken in my book. All those flashy plays you see Jeter get to were gimmies for Ozzie and his flashy plays are plays Jeter, Ripken, or even Larkin never dreamed of getting to
 
#44
#44
Ripken was picked by 537 voters and appeared on 98.53 percent of ballots to finish with the third-highest percentage behind Tom Seaver (98.84) and Nolan Ryan (98.79).

The former Baltimore Orioles shortstop said he was both relieved and euphoric. If he had been picked by two of the eight voters who didn't select him, he would have set the percentage record -- but he didn't mind.

"All I wanted to hear was, `You're in,"' Ripken said during a conference call. "I really didn't get caught up with wanting to be unanimous or wanting to be the most."
Click to expand...
Ripken, Gwynn elected to Hall of Fame as McGwire falls far short - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top