As long as we're doing player/athlete comparisons, what about these two??
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I have always been amazed with the durability shown by these two players with a caveat --- it seemed to me that Ripken was going for the record, the Team encouraged it and in the long run it probably hurt the Team by allowing him to play when he wasn't necessarily effective. While Ripken played longer than Gehrig the stats for each aren't really very close, Gehrig wins everything that really matters.
How do you feel about the two?? Is there anyone who really thinks Ripken is was the better player?? Did the mere fact of his durability and the Team's allowance benefit him enough for inclusion in the HOF??
Al H.
How do you feel about the two?? Is there anyone who really thinks Ripken is was the better player?? Did the mere fact of his durability and the Team's allowance benefit him enough for inclusion in the HOF??
Al H.
0
Comments
1. I doubt anyone thinks Ripken was better than Gehrig, nor should anyone think that.
2. But Ripken was clearly a HOFer on the merits, and his durability and the Orioles' contrivance to allow him to break Gehrig's consecutive games record has nothing to do with that.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
ball to semi athletic slow white guys. Ripken to elite Omar Vizquel type athletes.
In other words, how many balls that Gehrig hit(or his teammates, or anyone in 1920) for a
base hit would have been outs today.
Hard to compare when they played so many years apart simply because Gehring was hitting the
ball to semi athletic slow white guys. Ripken to elite Omar Vizquel type athletes.
In other words, how many balls that Gehrig hit(or his teammates, or anyone in 1920) for a
base hit would have been outs today.
Or, conversely, how many home runs that Ripken hit would have been fly ball outs in the more cavernous stadiums of Gehrig's era and how many fly ball outs that Gehrig hit would have been home runs.
I do think the term "semi-athletic white guys" is an inaccurate one, in any case. Though back then, guys did not have the benefit of working out in million-dollar gyms all year round surrounded by weight trainers and fitness instructors and energy drinks and protein bars and Lord knows what else.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I do think the term "semi-athletic white guys" is an inaccurate one, in any case. Though back then, guys did not have the benefit of working out in million-dollar gyms all year round surrounded by weight trainers and fitness instructors and energy drinks and protein bars and Lord knows what else.
It's a silly description of the players of that era for numerous reasons. But the key point that it misses, as also many references to players of that era, is that if Gehrig were playing today he would have access to the million-dollar gyms and trainers and he would use them. To hypothesize what a player from the 20's would do today, and then assume that he would bring his 38 ounce bat, clunky shoes and outdated training regimen with him makes no sense.
Gehrig would be a superstar if he played today; that's just an educated guess, of course, but there isn't a single piece of evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe otherwise. He wouldn't stand as far above the average player today as he did then, because the average player has gotten better, but he would still stand far above the average player. Baseball-reference shows his normalized stats as 2,592 hits, a .318 BA, 468 HR and a career OPS of 1.015. As guesses go, that sounds reasonable to me.
Dallas says its a silly description, and then agrees with me that the average player has gotten better. lol.
Put the label, 'Slow white guy' on every player in 1920 and it would fit the vast majority.
where conversely Ripken would be facing a top of the line, fresh relief pitcher.
I do think the term "semi-athletic white guys" is an inaccurate one, in any case. Though back then, guys did not have the benefit of working out in million-dollar gyms all year round surrounded by weight trainers and fitness instructors and energy drinks and protein bars and Lord knows what else.
It's a silly description of the players of that era for numerous reasons. But the key point that it misses, as also many references to players of that era, is that if Gehrig were playing today he would have access to the million-dollar gyms and trainers and he would use them. To hypothesize what a player from the 20's would do today, and then assume that he would bring his 38 ounce bat, clunky shoes and outdated training regimen with him makes no sense.
Gehrig would be a superstar if he played today; that's just an educated guess. Baseball-reference shows his normalized stats as 2,592 hits, a .318 BA, 468 HR and a career OPS of 1.015. As guesses go, that sounds reasonable to me.
Those normalized stats look amazing similar to that of Miguel Cabrera.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Grote, how many home runs did Gehrig hit against a tired starter late in the game
where conversely Ripken would be facing a top of the line, fresh relief pitcher.
How many relief pitchers today are considered "top of the line" pitchers in any case? Many are failed starters or mediocre players who also benefitted from league expansion to retain a roster position, as there are twice as many MLB teams today than there was back in 1920. In addition, league ERA back in 1920 was a full half run per game lower than it was in 2015.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
My point is valid.
Dallas says its a silly description, and then agrees with me that the average player has gotten better. lol.
Put the label, 'Slow white guy' on every player in 1920 and it would fit the vast majority.
To the degree that you ever make a point it can be hard to discern. If your point is that the average player today is somewhat better than the average player when Gehrig was playing, then we agree; but you didn't say that. If your point, which you've now said twice, is that the average player when Gehrig played was semi-athletic and slow, then you're wrong and we don't agree.
It would help if you would share your opinion to the question asked: was Gehrig a better player than Ripken? Why or why not? If you think Ty Cobb was a slow white guy and Prince Fielder and the other lean mean fighting machines of today could run rings around him, then explain why you think that. What you've said so far is just silly; maybe you can salvage it if you try again.
Ripken stood out from a worldwide talent pool.
The difference between who was better is probably not that great.
If Rod Carew or Tony Gwynn played back then, they would have hit .400 almost every year.
See, they had Ozzie Smith or Omar Vizquel at shortstop.
Gehrig had a slow, plodding white guy wearing a 25 lb. wool uniform with an iron anvil for a glove.
And not just at shortstop.
Dallas- What I'm saying is Gehrig stood out from a talent pool of US born white guys.
Ripken stood out from a worldwide talent pool.
The difference between who was better is probably not that great.
If Rod Carew or Tony Gwynn played back then, they would have hit .400 almost every year.
See, they had Ozzie Smith or Omar Vizquel at shortstop.
Gehrig had a slow, plodding white guy wearing a 25 lb. wool uniform with an iron anvil for a glove.
And not just at shortstop.
If Carew or Gywnn played back then they would have been wearing a 25 lb wool uniform and an anvil for a glove as well. They wouldn't have been privy to any modern advances and would have been using axes as bats as well. They wouldn't have been as fit or conditioned as during their own era. They would have no access to modern medicine or treatments.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Dallas- What I'm saying is Gehrig stood out from a talent pool of US born white guys.
Ripken stood out from a worldwide talent pool.
The difference between who was better is probably not that great.
If Rod Carew or Tony Gwynn played back then, they would have hit .400 almost every year.
See, they had Ozzie Smith or Omar Vizquel at shortstop.
Gehrig had a slow, plodding white guy wearing a 25 lb. wool uniform with an iron anvil for a glove.
And not just at shortstop.
If Carew or Gywnn played back then they would have been wearing a 25 lb wool uniform and an anvil for a glove as well. They wouldn't have been privy to any modern advances and would have been using axes as bats as well. They wouldn't have been as fit or conditioned as during their own era. They would have no access to modern medicine or treatments.
mark
Exactly. You can't transport players back in time at present levels just as you can't transport players back from the 1920s into the present day. Imagine if Gehrig had the benefits of technology, player development and fitness methods that players have today. He'd have been that much better and that much more athletic.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dallas- What I'm saying is Gehrig stood out from a talent pool of US born white guys.
Ripken stood out from a worldwide talent pool.
I get your point, but you're making way too big a deal out of it. Gehrig was - for a good chunk of his career - the greatest player in baseball, and by a substantial margin. Measured by Win Shares, from 1927-1936 Gehrig was 28% better than the next best player (Paul Waner). Margins that large for a period that long are exceedingly rare.
Ripken, on the other hand, was never the best player in baseball by any margin at all. And more to your point, he was also never the best "US born white guy" in baseball. You appear to be making a huge deal out of the fact that Ripken was competing with Rickey Henderson and Kirby Puckett, but ignoring that he was also competing with Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandberg.
For the period 1982 - 1991 (Ripken's best 10-year stretch), had Ripken been 28% better than all of the other US born white guys, he would have been the best player in baseball by a comfortable margin. But in fact he wasn't even the best US born white guy over that period (Boggs was).
Ripken was a great player and I take no pleasure in knocking him down. But as great as he was, he wasn't as great as Gehrig, and I don't think he was even close. In any event, the "facts" that you have presented don't indicate otherwise.
among other things, this statement is classically stupid and the reference to slow white guys is a little over the top stupid..
I have watched enough old film to know that all those "white guys" that keep being referenced were just as fast, as tough and as athletically gifted as the players of today. to my mind, the players haven't changed as much as the Game has changed. the mound is lower, the strike zone is smaller, the ball is more lively, Parks are more hitter friendly, artificial turf has been a factor, the available equipment is better, technology is available to assist players, drugs have been used, etc, etc, etc.
as only one example, go tell someone that Bob Feller and other pitchers of the day never threw a pitch that topped 100mph and that it isn't safe for them to pitch in both games of a Sunday doubleheader while they watch their pitch count to make sure it doesn't exceed 100 every 4-5 days. remind the hitters that no one can really throw a curve ball, only a straight pitch and that steel spikes probably won't hurt when the other players use them as a weapon. let them know that the upcoming 500 mile train trip won't really be that bad, they can catch up on their sleep after tomorrows game. then remind them that they need to stay in shape during the off-season and should probably play winter ball and to not be late for mini-camp --- forget about going back home to work on the family farm in the off-season, heck they might get hurt or lose a leg in a hunting accident. lastly, remind todays players that quite a number of players back in the day actually lost YEARS in the prime of their career to enlist in the US Military and fight in WWII.
yeah, those old time slow white guys were soft.