PDA

View Full Version : Cal Ripken Overated?



Living Legend
04-10-2009, 04:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-goCt2Bqb-Q

dbroncos78087
04-10-2009, 08:24 PM
I hope your point was to criticize this guy, because Cal Ripken is not overrated. I mean 2132 games is 13+ seasons and i dont think anyone, or a very small group of people in this country who have "real" jobs (not criticizing baseball as a real job, just qualifying for those who dont consider it a real job) have a work record that solid.

Driven
04-11-2009, 03:14 AM
Cal is extremely overrated. But he's a great ambassador for the game.

Living Legend
04-15-2009, 01:04 AM
Would you fast forward 5 years of your life to see Matsui break his overrated record?

brandonwarne52
04-15-2009, 01:08 AM
Cal is extremely overrated. But he's a great ambassador for the game.

:clap:

EricU812
04-15-2009, 09:00 AM
Excellent player, and a deserved hall of famer...however, even as an Orioles fan, I'd say that he did not deserve nearly as many all star games and he did. Towards the end of his career he was somewhere between average and good. He however was always voted in by the fans because he was such a huge name.

That being said, he did a great job creating a name for himself. He was fantastic by the media...and if anything he was much more over hyped by the media than anyone else in history. However, he played the media game better than anyone else in baseball.

However, I would say his style of play helped redefine the shortstop position today.

He is over rated...but he played both the media game, and was on the field every day...so he is a much deserved over rated.

bshone
04-15-2009, 10:27 AM
From the outside looking in, I can see how one would consider Ripken to be overrated TODAY. But consider the fact that he was probably the third best shortstop to ever play the game before he retired (now with ARod having played SS and Jeter, you could argue that Ripken is not ranked as high, but he still set the tone for the tall, power-hitting SS).

As far as his all-star appearances, I'm sure we could find several Red Sox players and Yankees players who didn't deserve to make the all-star game. In fact, consider this: Baltimore is a much smaller city than Boston and New York, so the fact that Ripken was voted in suggests to me that there were more fans outside of Baltimore voting for Cal than say Derek Jeter or Robsinson Cano to get into the all-star game.

From the standpoint of an O's fan, I think he deserves all of the accolades he has received. His father was an important piece to the organization, so watching Cal grow up to be the player he became (without ever relying on his father to give him an advantage over other players) was amazing. Not only did Jr. prove he was worthy, he took it further by working his *** off to become the best shortstop in the game for many years during his career. He played the game the way it should be played - with passion. He was a fans dream - he'd sign autographs until everyone that wanted one got it. How many families were proud to have their sons/daughters watch Cal growing up with his work ethic and his demeanor both on and off the field?

You might argue that the streak itself was overrated, but that's completely thanks to the media. Cal never suggested that the streak was a big deal - he just loved to play.

rkelly7
04-15-2009, 01:02 PM
People need to realize that Cal Ripken was one of the best baseball players to ever live, however, he was only a great hitter.
400 home runs is impressive, but he isn't one of the 100 best hitters to ever play the game. It's also amazing how he hit so well while changing his batting stance a million times.

What is impressive is his consecutive game streak. That may never be matched again and it shows how durable the iron man was. Cal doesn't want to be remembered for his stats, he wants to be remembered as someone who played the game of baseball right. No steroids. No whining. No BS.

Again, he isn't one of the best hitters all time. Thats Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron (I didn't mention Bonds for a reason.....).

Cal is a great ambassador to the game and will one day be a part owner of the Orioles. I yearn for that day.

bshone
04-15-2009, 02:08 PM
I think Cal would make a terrific Commissioner if he decides to pursue that avenue. I'm not sure if coaching is in his future, but I do hope that he is part owner of the Orioles one day.

Pavelb1
04-15-2009, 02:16 PM
Aaron?....no. Manny, Mays and Hornsby are better. And that's just righties.

And almost any stat you pull out that Aaron exceeds the above three in.. Ripken *will* be in the top 100 of that stat.

pf289
04-15-2009, 05:19 PM
How is he overrated? Nobody ever said he was the greatest hitter or fielder. He was an awesome player and leader and obviously his streak was what he is most known for. Deserving of the HOF more than most.

chaos47
04-15-2009, 06:02 PM
to say he is overrated is ridiculous. he changed the way people thought about shortstops. no one thought of ss as a hitting position until Cal came along, and he also played great defense. in todays baseball 400 homeruns might not seem like alot, but it was impressive for shortstops. I'll agree at the end of his career he was more a name than a great player, but he definately is not overrated.

Living Legend
04-15-2009, 08:08 PM
I was surprised to hear the guy in the first link say that he would pay $1 million for the chance to spray Cal Ripken Jr. in the face with a full can of mace spray.

bmurphy28
04-16-2009, 10:54 AM
what a bunch of losers

bmurphy28
04-16-2009, 10:55 AM
i never thought id agree with Jim Rome

degnor
04-20-2009, 05:50 PM
What other shortstop has hit as many as homeruns as Cal Ripken hit from that position (he has 431 career homeruns, 325 were from 83-96, when he played SS almost exclusively)? A-Rod has around 350 from that position. Who else has generated that kind of power from a position that is typically reserved for speedy, slap-hitters? He is one of the greatest Shortstops of all time, and a great man off the field.

bigity b
04-20-2009, 06:25 PM
Cal Ripken overrated? How does a legend who re-wrote the script on what type of athlete is needed for the position considered overrated? To add on above, before Cal SS were slap-hitting defense first guys hitting at the bottom of the order. Cal's shadow (figuratively and literally) is all over the left side of the infield from when he played to the players who play the position today. Statistically, he is unmatched when he played the positions in the '80s and '90s. Dont look at his last few years and say his career is overrated.

Lastly (and a side note i say to all Cal nay-sayers) - did you show up for your job every single day for 18 years+? Taking days off for family, sick, hurt, etc dont count. I'm talking about not missing a single day of work no matter how bad you didnt want to get out of bed.

Living Legend
04-20-2009, 06:48 PM
"He did nothing great, hes an AVERAGE player at best"

brandonwarne52
04-20-2009, 08:45 PM
What is spectacular about .276/.340/.447

bshone
04-20-2009, 09:15 PM
What is spectacular about .276/.340/.447

1. Consistency

For 19 straight seasons he batted over .250 (over .300 five times)
In 12 seasons he hit over 20 homers
In 15 seasons he drove in at least 75 runs

The point here is that he was consistently a dependable player for so long. Most major league hitters don't hit .276 (in fact, according to Wikipedia, the major league's average BA is "somewhere between .260 and .275", which suggests that Ripken was better than the average player in baseball for many seasons).

2. Defense Matters, Too

Bill James once said that Ripken had the greatest arm among all SS, which makes sense considering he came up as a 3B. Ripken's defense did not suffer even though his size (particularly his height) was a concern. In fact, his arm more than made up for his range because he was able to play 5-10 feet deeper than most SS.

The point here is that most teams never considered having a power hitting shortstop because they never thought that the lack of defensive skills would be outweighed by the offense.

rkelly7
04-20-2009, 10:37 PM
"He did nothing great, hes an AVERAGE player at best"

If you think Cal is average, you must have ridiculously high expectations for ball players. If Cal is average, that makes Derek Jeter sub-par.

I would much rather have Cal for his whole career on my team than Jeter. Cal never missed a day, and was so consistent it was ridiculous.

So if 400 home runs from a shortstop who played 2632 consecutive games (16 whole seasons, plus 40 games) is considered average, the only player in your Hall of Fame is Babe Ruth.

I would call you an idiot, but i think you were joking and I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Cal is one of the greatest short stops of all time, better than Jeter. Period.

bigity b
04-22-2009, 11:45 AM
he revolutionized the position. that is not overrating him. that is a fact.

Kirel
04-22-2009, 01:47 PM
If you think Cal is average, you must have ridiculously high expectations for ball players. If Cal is average, that makes Derek Jeter sub-par.

I would much rather have Cal for his whole career on my team than Jeter. Cal never missed a day, and was so consistent it was ridiculous.

So if 400 home runs from a shortstop who played 2632 consecutive games (16 whole seasons, plus 40 games) is considered average, the only player in your Hall of Fame is Babe Ruth.

I would call you an idiot, but i think you were joking and I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Cal is one of the greatest short stops of all time, better than Jeter. Period.
Part of his 400 home runs is that he played 2600 games. Same can be said of most counting stats.

Getting 400 in 20 years is simply not as interesting as getting 400 in 12.

Ripken, offensively anyway, was decent but definatly doesn't sit on the shoulders of the greats with the bat.

As for defining the power shortstop, I would point out that Ernie Banks, in the 50s, had 5 40+ homerun seasons as a shortstop. Barry Larkin, a near contempoary hit of Ripkens for reasonably power and did so without sacrificing the contact and on base skills Ripken did and was probably the better hitter overall. Prime of his career Robin Yount put up some power right about the time Ripken started out. Rico Petrocelli had a couple good power seasons in the early 70s. Ripkens achievements powerwise aren't particularly unique or overwhelming.

That said, "average" is a quite harsh. Ripken never did anything great other than stay healthy, but unlike alot of players he did a whole lot of things quite well(the only knock I have on him is that he didn't hit for much average at all and he didn't walk enough to make up for it). He's a hall of famer for sure, well above average given his position and the era he played in, but he's not one of the greatest in history, everyone should know his name type by many, if any, measures excluding his games played streak.

Now, offensively, Jeter is substantially better than Ripken. However, Jeter probably should have been at 3B or in the OF years ago. It's fairly unfair to give him credit as a shortstop given his defensive....prowess?

bshone
04-25-2009, 04:32 PM
Part of his 400 home runs is that he played 2600 games. Same can be said of most counting stats.

Getting 400 in 20 years is simply not as interesting as getting 400 in 12.

Ripken, offensively anyway, was decent but definatly doesn't sit on the shoulders of the greats with the bat.

As for defining the power shortstop, I would point out that Ernie Banks, in the 50s, had 5 40+ homerun seasons as a shortstop. Barry Larkin, a near contempoary hit of Ripkens for reasonably power and did so without sacrificing the contact and on base skills Ripken did and was probably the better hitter overall. Prime of his career Robin Yount put up some power right about the time Ripken started out. Rico Petrocelli had a couple good power seasons in the early 70s. Ripkens achievements powerwise aren't particularly unique or overwhelming.

That said, "average" is a quite harsh. Ripken never did anything great other than stay healthy, but unlike alot of players he did a whole lot of things quite well(the only knock I have on him is that he didn't hit for much average at all and he didn't walk enough to make up for it). He's a hall of famer for sure, well above average given his position and the era he played in, but he's not one of the greatest in history, everyone should know his name type by many, if any, measures excluding his games played streak.

Now, offensively, Jeter is substantially better than Ripken. However, Jeter probably should have been at 3B or in the OF years ago. It's fairly unfair to give him credit as a shortstop given his defensive....prowess?

In your post you compare Ripken to three players – Ernie Banks, Barry Larkin, and Derek Jeter. I looked at each player’s career stats to see how they compare to Ripken:

Ernie Banks

First of all, Banks didn’t play SS for 16 seasons like Ripken did. Sure, they both moved away from SS as they got older, but Ripken consistently played SS for 16 seasons while Banks only played there for 9 seasons. That being said, generally speaking while Banks was playing SS he had his best offensive years so it’s still valid to compare the two players – just keep in mind that Cal’s greatest impact may have been his long-tenured consistency both offensively and defensively.

You mention that Banks had five 40+ home run seasons but you also fail to mention that he had 10 consecutive seasons in which he did not hit above .276 (which was Cal Ripken’s career average). In fact, Banks hit over .276 for only six seasons – Cal hit over .300 in five different seasons (Banks only achieved this twice).

Really the only thing that Banks did better than Cal after looking at their career stats is he hit for more power (career slugging percentage for Banks is .830 and only .788 for Ripken). But what’s interesting is in a 162-game average over the course of their careers, Banks had less hits and less doubles – the only stat he had more than Cal in was homeruns (Banks averaged 33 per season while Cal only averaged 23).

Overall, Ernie Banks was a hell of a player but only for the first half of his career was he above average. In fact, beginning around 1961 (roughly halfway through his career) he didn’t do much except hit home runs (and he wasn’t even playing SS then so it’s tough to compare him to Ripken if we’re talking SS only).

Barry Larkin

I agree with what you said about Larkin – he is basically Cal Ripken with less power (less HR and RBI) but he made up for it with his high OBP, speed (SB), and he scored a lot more runs. Generally speaking, Larkin is slightly underrated in my opinion. He was also consistent, playing 19 seasons with the Reds.

Derek Jeter

Jeter and Larkin are closer than any two players listed in this thread. Again, Jeter doesn’t have quite the power numbers as Ripken but he more than makes up for it given his high BA (worst season BA for Jeter so far in his career was .291 in 1997), speed (averages 22 SB), and his role in the top of the order scoring runs (averages 120 per season). The thing about Jeter that really sticks out to me are his strike out’s. His 162-game average is 112 SO’s per season (that means every 5-6 at bats he strikes out).

Kirel
04-25-2009, 08:35 PM
In your post you compare Ripken to three players – Ernie Banks, Barry Larkin, and Derek Jeter. I looked at each player’s career stats to see how they compare to Ripken:

Ernie Banks

First of all, Banks didn’t play SS for 16 seasons like Ripken did. Sure, they both moved away from SS as they got older, but Ripken consistently played SS for 16 seasons while Banks only played there for 9 seasons. That being said, generally speaking while Banks was playing SS he had his best offensive years so it’s still valid to compare the two players – just keep in mind that Cal’s greatest impact may have been his long-tenured consistency both offensively and defensively.

You mention that Banks had five 40+ home run seasons but you also fail to mention that he had 10 consecutive seasons in which he did not hit above .276 (which was Cal Ripken’s career average). In fact, Banks hit over .276 for only six seasons – Cal hit over .300 in five different seasons (Banks only achieved this twice).

Really the only thing that Banks did better than Cal after looking at their career stats is he hit for more power (career slugging percentage for Banks is .830 and only .788 for Ripken). But what’s interesting is in a 162-game average over the course of their careers, Banks had less hits and less doubles – the only stat he had more than Cal in was homeruns (Banks averaged 33 per season while Cal only averaged 23).

Overall, Ernie Banks was a hell of a player but only for the first half of his career was he above average. In fact, beginning around 1961 (roughly halfway through his career) he didn’t do much except hit home runs (and he wasn’t even playing SS then so it’s tough to compare him to Ripken if we’re talking SS only).

Barry Larkin

I agree with what you said about Larkin – he is basically Cal Ripken with less power (less HR and RBI) but he made up for it with his high OBP, speed (SB), and he scored a lot more runs. Generally speaking, Larkin is slightly underrated in my opinion. He was also consistent, playing 19 seasons with the Reds.

Derek Jeter

Jeter and Larkin are closer than any two players listed in this thread. Again, Jeter doesn’t have quite the power numbers as Ripken but he more than makes up for it given his high BA (worst season BA for Jeter so far in his career was .291 in 1997), speed (averages 22 SB), and his role in the top of the order scoring runs (averages 120 per season). The thing about Jeter that really sticks out to me are his strike out’s. His 162-game average is 112 SO’s per season (that means every 5-6 at bats he strikes out).
The point with Banks was simply to show that Ripken wasn't the first power laden SS. I doubt Banks was, he was just the heaviest pre-Ripken power hitting SS I happened to find in the little time I looked. As for batting average, unless you are consistently winning the comparison by 30+ points, I'm just not that interested. I don't consider Ripken a great hitter by any means. He hit for alot of power but was mostly only so-so in terms of the rest of the hitting tool set.

My point was that while Ripken did have a consistent career, he wasn't the first to most of his achievments, or the best at any reall, and I really don't consider him an innovativor. Other players did what he did well before he did it. He just happened to do it for a long time. Like I said, he wasn't really great at anything, he was very good at alot of things. HOF'ers can go both ways, but I do think he's hailed a bit too often as a player with great achievements when he's really more of a player with alot of good ones.

x the game x
04-30-2009, 02:56 AM
how can any1 compare jeter to cal?cal is like tim duncan,hes not flashy but hes so fundamentally sound that he is the greatest to ever do it.(at his position)

VTklunk
04-30-2009, 02:43 PM
If there is one thing that is true about baseball that is not necessarily true of other sports, is that statistics don't lie. In football, the Denver Broncos running backs last season rushed for 4.8 yards per carry - second in the league - but did they have the best running backs in the league? Absolutely not, in fact they were down to their sixth string for much of the season, but this was the result of a good passing attack and very good offensive line/blocking system. But baseball is different, so let's take a look at Cal's fielding statistics (when he was a shortstop) versus that of the Gold Glove winner.

Year | Winner (Games) | W's % | W's Att | W's DPs| Cal's % | C's Att | C's DPs
1983 A Trammel (140) .979 616 71 .970 831 113
1984 A Trammel (114) .980 504 71 .971 906 122
1985 A Griffin (162) .960 748 87 .967 786 123
1986 T Fernandez (163) .983 752 103 .982 735 105
1987 T Fernandez (146) .979 680 88 .973 740 103
1988 T Fernandez (154) .981 731 106 .973 785 119
1989 T Fernandez (140) .992 741 93 .990 815 119
1990 O Guillen (159) .977* 743 100 .996 680 94
1993 O Vizquel (155) .980 735 108 .977 738 101
1994 O Vizquel (69**) .981 323 54 .985 460 72
1995 O Vizquel (136***).986 624 84 .989 622 100
1996 O Vizquel (150) .971 693 91 .980 709 109

* Guillen had 17 errors, Cal had three. THREE!
** Cal played 112 games
*** Cal played 144 games

Just looking at the stats, Cal was without question better in 1985, 1990, 1994, 1995, and 1996. In 1984 Cal had almost double the attemps, so that certainly should be there also. In 1986, it is incredibly close, so no big deal there. The other years, Cal had a slightly lower percentage, but more attempts and more double plays. Now you might say that's because he played more games, but that means he was much more valuable to the team. A backup shortstop probably doesn't have this fielding percentage, or bat nearly as well.

The only explanation is that the voters decided not to go by what is known to be accurate - the statistics - and just choose the player they "felt" was the best. In other words they chose the flashier player. If Cal had the 8 to 10 (including the two he did win) Gold Gloves he should have won, no one would be calling him overrated.