Home Sports Talk

As long as we're doing player/athlete comparisons, what about these two??

keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
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.

Comments

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: keetsIs 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??


    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.
    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ripen was a great player and deserves the hof. He was not, however on the same level as gehrig. Certainly not on offense. defensively, ripken holds the edge as shortstop.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ripken a HOF everyday of the week and twice on Sunday's. Other then that they don't belong in the same sentence. Wide wide gap



    mark
    Walker Proof Digital Album
    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......
  • DarinDarin Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
    DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21
    In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,477 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: Darin

    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.
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: grote15
    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.
    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • DarinDarin Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21
    In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
  • DarinDarin Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
    DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21
    In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: dallasactuary

    Originally posted by: grote15

    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
    Walker Proof Digital Album
    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......
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,477 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: Darin

    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.
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: Darin
    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.
    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • DarinDarin Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.


    DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21
    In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: Darin

    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

    Walker Proof Digital Album
    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......
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,477 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: Justacommeman

    Originally posted by: Darin

    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.
  • gripgrip Posts: 9,962 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Enjoyed the post. Thanks.
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: Darin
    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.
    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The difference between who was better is probably not that great.



    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.