15th Anniversary Of Ripken Breaking Gehrig’s Streak
Posted by Steve Lombardi on September 6, 2010
Yes, today's the day that Ripken's famous game was played back in 1995 - 15 years ago.
Garret Anderson and Jim Edmonds both played in that game, for the Angels, opposing Ripken's Orioles, and were active at one point this season - the last players from that contest to appear in a major league game.
Mike Mussina won that game for the O's. And, on that same day, the following pitchers won contests elsewhere: Roger Clemens for the Bosox, Al Leiter for the Jays, Ken Hill for the Indians, the non K-Rod shortstop turned hurler Frankie Rodriguez for the Brewers, Jack McDowell for the Yankees, Brian Keyser for the Chisox, a 29-year old Tom Glavine for the Braves, Armando Reynoso for the Rockies, Willie Banks for the Marlins, John Smiley for the Reds, Mike Grace for the Phillies, Doug Bochtler for the Padres, and Tavo Alvarez for the Expos (beating Mark Leiter - so, the Leiter family went 1-1 on Ripken Day).
In some ways, that Ripken game seems like yesterday - at least for me. But, in other ways - especially when you look at that list of winning pitcher names - it seems like a long time ago.
How about you, what do you remember most from that day - if you were a baseball fan at that time?
September 6th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Strange, I can't remember many of the details but I seem to recall wave after wave of applause from the crowd. I also forgot he hit a home run. Had to check the box.
I suppose, on this happy anniversary, it would be impolite to question whether "the streak" was good or bad for the O's as a team, especially in its latter stages.
Looking at the winning pitchers that day, my memory is that it was a happier time. Our baseball heros were still heros sans 'roids. Little did we know.
September 6th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
The years just go way to fast. I still remember going to what turned out to be the last game of the streak against the Yankees on 9/19/98, number 2632.
September 6th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Neil,
You mean you don't remember Chris Berman's call?
"Oh my goodness, he's done it again!" He had hit a HR in game #2130 as well.
September 6th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Statboy, no, strangely I don't. I'm glad I've forgotten most Bermanisms. But that's a topic for another time and place....
September 6th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
I remember the HRs in game 2130 and 2131. I also remember the game he sat out and was wondering why the announcers hadn't (yet) said anything.
My memory of game 2131, was that I never thought that Gehrig's record would ever be broken and he I was watching it. Didn't he take a lap around the field at some point?
September 6th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
I watched the game in spite of the usually bad ESPN coverage. Cal Ripken has always been a class act, has never embarassed the game, his family or himself. Thanks Cal!
September 6th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
To paraphrase it, Gehrig's record might have been broken, but his spirit will never die. I was just a kid, listening on the radio, when Gehrig declared himself to be the "Luckiest Man Alive"; and if his record had to fall, I am glad it fell to a man like Ripkin who had enough sense not to try to use his accomplishment to denigrate one of the greatest role models that baseball ever produced.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Yet I wonder if Ripken did more harm than good with the streak. While I respect him for wanting to play everyday, we have to face that there was quite a bit of erraticness in his career. Ripken in his carrer had a 112 OPS+, 89.9 WAR and 19.3 Batting Runs. Gehrig, on the other hand had a 179 OPS+, 118.3 WAR, and 90.3 Batting Runs. SO it seems that Gehrig had the numbers to justify playing everyday. Ripken it doesn't seeem as much despite earning a number of milestones. I don't want to make it seem as if Ripken wasn't great or a respectable player. Just wondered if a break or two maybe would of helped his numbers to be a little more consistent, and help the Orioles sucess as well.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
edmonds & anderson played in ripken's record breaker? that's nothing.
Jamie Moyer was the winning pitcher in Lou Gehrig's MLB debut
September 6th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
I was far too young to actually watch and remember the game, but looking through the box scores of the games, I saw a somber reminder of just how long ago this game really was. On this day, Jose Lima started for the Tigers. Considering what happened earlier this year, that was the thing that stood out most to me.
Maybe its because I wasn't a baseball fan at the point, but I never really understood the gravity of the Ripken moment. I never understood how beating the streak was such a special moment. Perhaps I have to look at it in the context of the strike the year before. I just wonder if hypothetically a young player beats Ripken's streak in 20-25 years, would the moment be seen as one of baseball's great moments?
I am not trying to take anything away from this momentous anniversary at all. I am just trying to understand why the general consensus is that this moment is one of the top 10 if not top 5 moments in baseball history.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
#8 - Did you read the article in the NY Times about Gehrig and head injuries? I think it was within the past 30 days.
They were different types of players. No argument there.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
@9 All kidding aside, this was the third of three games in the series between the team then known as the California Angels and the Baltimore Orioles. The O's took the series, 2-1, after losing the opener on Sept. 4 (Labor Day that year) and winning on Sept. 5. And Moyer was the starter and loser in the what was game #2,129 in Ripken's streak.
I remember the Phillies game against the Dodgers that Mike Grace won that night. Grace (probably no relation to Mark Grace, then a star first baseman with the Cubs) was a promising young pitcher whose career, like that of so many of their promising young pitchers in the 1990s, was derailed early on by injuries. He was a September call-up making his second major league start. He had lost his first one in San Diego earlier in that road trip.
I don't know if it is still true with all of the reorganization and expansion in recent years, but the Dodgers were usually home when the Angels were on the road and vice versa. And ditto for the Phillies and the Orioles (although that may have changed with the arrival of the Nationals closer to the Orioles; when Philadelphia and Washington play each other, the Orioles will need to be home some of the time for reasons I'm too exhausted to lay out here).
So, the Dodgers played at home against the Phillies that night. That game, due to start at 7:35 p.m. Pacific Time/10:35 p.m. Eastern Time, was going to be the 2nd game of the ESPN Wednesday night doubleheader. Of course, we folks in Philadelphia were likely going to get either no game or the Montreal/San Fransicso game, the only other West Coast night game that night. (The Mets had played at San Diego during the day. Oakland and Seattle, like the Angels, were on the East Coast. Arizona was just a glint in someone's eye. The Rockies, who sometimes hosted late ESPN games, had played a day game against the Cubs in Wrigley.)
Over the years, I haven't generally stayed up past the first inning or so of Phillies night games on the West Coast. But this game, shown on whichever was in existence in 1995, SportsChannel or Comcast Sports Net (both have been on channel 2 on my cable system, and a Wednesday night game was always on the cable channel, not on channel 57, due to an ESPN competition requirement), was in something like the 7th inning when the Ripken game finally ended. I had mainly watched the Orioles game, but I did peek in at the Phillies game a few times. It was a quick-moving game that was still scoreless when I turned it off. The Phillies ended up winning 1-0, the only game they won by that score that year. By contrast, they have won five 1-0 games this year so far.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Only in the last two years of "the streak" is there even the possibility that Ripken's production level might not have justified his everyday status. He had a WAR of 2.9 or better every year from '82 to '96. In '97 and '98, he put up WARs of 1.5 and 1.6 respectively, with the streak ending at the end of the '98 season, and both occurring long after he had already broken the record.
Now, is it possible that Ripken might have benefited from a day off here and there and been more productive? Sure, it's possible. But it would be impossible to figure that impact and would be one of a thousand "what ifs" that we could apply to anyone's career.
But the idea that Ripken's streak or pursuit of the streak harmed the team is pretty hard to prove. Maybe he shouldn't have been an everyday player in '97 and '98, but a quick look at the Orioles rosters for those years don't really show a viable replacement for Ripken. And he definitely deserved the starting nod for the other 16 years and was far from a detriment to his team in even his worst seasons.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
One more thing - I found one player in the Phillies-Dodgers box score from that day who has appeared in the major leagues in 2010, coincidentally for both the Phillies and the Dodgers - Juan Castro. During his stint with the Phillies, he didn't quite distinguish himself at the plate, but he was captured for posterity fielding the final out in the most memorable of the team's 1-0 victories this year, and perhaps their most notable 1-0 win of all-time, Roy Halladay's perfect game. The one game in which he appeared with the Dodgers this year, on August 15, marked his third stint with the team. And since this topic is mainly about a person who spent a career playing mainly shortstop and a bit of third base with the Orioles, it's worth noting that Castro also spent some time with Baltimore in 2008, playing mainly shortstop plus a bit of third base.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
I remember him taking the jog around the stadium. I was only 11 so I didnt get to see much of the game. I also remember hearing that if it hadnt been for the strike, the record breaking game was supposed to be @ Yankee Stadium.
We always ponder how a player would have done if he played more and wasnt injured; I wonder if Cal woulda been better had he rested from time to time.
September 6th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
To the question at hand, I remember the lap around the field. I was 12 at the time, so the memory isn't the clearest. I'm pretty sure they waited until the game was official before having the accomplishment recognized. There was a long delay in the 5th inning when he did his jog. I remember him high-fiving/handshaking fans throughout the stadium as he went, and the unfurling of the numbers on the warehouse. That's about all I got. I remember thinking it was both perfectly logical and oddly goofy that they did the whole thing in the middle of the game: logical in the sense that they didn't want to do it early and risk the game somehow being rained out (even though there was no apparent threat of rain) and goofy in the sense that a major league game had to stop to celebrate a guy who played a lot of major league games without stopping. C'est la vie.
September 6th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
I remember thinking, in much the same way I thought about Galaraga's imperfect game this year, that if Cal had 'opted' to sit out, leaving Gehrig with the record, it would of somehow transcended any record and Cal would have been deemed the 'best' and the most 'gracious'.
It would be a bow to Gehrig's disease and his courage. He could of 'left Gehrig the 'record' - but letting everyone know - he could of taken it.
I realize now, as an adult, what an impossibility that would of been, but still fantasize how great that situation could of been.
I am not now, criticizing Cal. In no way. The guy was/is great.
It just would of been amazing if he did.
In some ways, I think his record would be worth more.
I just thought so much of Cal then, I thought we just might see the greatest piece of sportsmanship ever.
Either way.... fond memories of the man and the acomplishment.
September 6th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
If not for the streak, the "Does Cal Ripken Belong in the Hall of Fame" topic would be interesting.
Having watched his whole career as a baseball-conscious teenager and adult, he never seemed HOF to me. And we fans were attuned to his HOFness since the streak kept forcing the conversation. Cal wasn't great. Good player, and a new breed of SS, but just good. At his best, for a couple non-consecutive seasons, very good. Played every day? Not sure why that's a ticket to the HOF. It's cool, but not a baseball skill.
The true HOFers can hold up to the HOF standards even when you take away their greatest attribute. Cal loses the streak? Not a HOF shoe-in by any means.
Ripken would have been HOF fringe. 400HRs and 3000 H, I know. Like Biggio: good, not great. Borderline HOF. Harold Baines, Tim Raines, Jeff Kent. Ripken.
September 6th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
I can't believe it's been that long. It doesn't seem like yesterday, but it certainly doesn't seem like 15 years ago.
Ripken should have held onto the streak beyond 9/19/98, number 2632. But it wouldn't have lasted much longer anyways, because he finally landed on the disabled list in 1999.
September 7th, 2010 at 12:32 am
#8 and #18 seem to be forgetting that Ripken was (mostly) a shortstop. Zack, how many shortstops in baseball history have put up better offensive numbers than Ripken? Honus Wagner, for sure; who else? Ernie Banks was awesome, but played more games at first base than at short; Arky Vaughan was outstanding, but in a career about half the length of Ripken's; maybe George Davis, maybe Derek Jeter, but, really, you're talking about one of the top 5 or so ever hitters to play shortstop. And he could field a little, too. The comparison to Harold Baines is laughable. Matt, 112 OPS+ as a shortstop doesn't quite match up to 179 OPS+ as a first baseman, but it's more than enough to justify a place on the field - how many teams currently have a shortstop putting up an OPS+ of 112 or better?
We debated Ripken's streak on rec.sport.baaseball while it was happening. There were convincing arguments that he and the Os would have been better off giving him a few days off each year. But streak or no he's massively overqualified for HoF induction.
September 7th, 2010 at 1:06 am
@#18:
I respectfully disagree. I mean, I've always thought that The Streak was silly, sort of a gimmick, and certainly nothing compared to, say, Brett Favre's streak in the NFL, but as #20 says, Ripken would still be overqualified for HoF induction even if he took a couple of games off per season. The Streak's notoriety makes him overrated (and perhaps insufferable, depending on one's POV), but he's still a Top 5 all-time SS. He was never in a class defensively with Ozzie Smith, say, or Dave Concepcion, but his cannon arm allowed him to play SS competently for a very long time.
September 7th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Yes, at his peak he was clearly great as an all around player. Though after 30 not the same player, & games off likely would have helped him & the club, & the streak does not add value in itself. Though meaningful sentimentally & symbolic of dedication.
His actual play was as a top 5 all time SS, certainly. Though imagine if he maintained at the same level post 30.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:16 am
I remember that day well, I remember thinking "this will never, ever happen again". Nobody will touch that record, not a chance.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:56 am
"If not for the streak, the "Does Cal Ripken Belong in the Hall of Fame" topic would be interesting."
It would be interesting, because, as usual with players who were good on both sides of the ball, you'd get a lot of people forgetting the value of his position and acting like he was a borderliner, and doing stupid things like comparing his offense to the offense of outfielders and !Bs in the hall, then wondering whether he really belongs.
Hitting 400HR and 3000 hits would end up getting him in regardless of the fools, but the 3k doesn't mean much more than the streak in any case. The streak tells you that he was an everday player for a very long time, and as durable as they come. 3000 hits basically says the same thing. Renteria will get 3000 hits if he plays as long as Ripken, and he's a below average player.
Harold Baines? Are you kidding? The man has *offensive* numbers like Kent or Biggio, but played 2/3 of his career as a DH, and the rest in right. Maybe you know better, but I've heard it takes some fielding talent to play 2B or SS.
September 7th, 2010 at 7:17 am
@Zack: By your standards, there wouldn't be more than 20 players in the Hall of Fame. WTF do you want? Ripken hit .276 with 431 homers, 1,695 RBI, and 3,184 hits, mostly as a shortstop. Roberto Clemente hit .317 with 240 homers, 1,305 RBI, and 3,000 hits. Was he also a borderline HOFer? Give me a break!
@Dodgerdave: Please learn how to spell. There's no such word as "anyways!"
September 7th, 2010 at 7:51 am
I was only 7 when this game happened, but I remember the celebration after the game, Ripken waving to the crowd, as well as the newspaper the next day. I actually cut out the sports section and put it on my bedroom wall.
September 7th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Wow! I remember that game and watching the highlights too. All from my college dorm room. I will always look up to Ripken and his work ethic.
September 7th, 2010 at 8:11 am
I don't remember where I was when Ripken ended his streak, but I remember he did it without fanfare, saying something to the effect that his effort was becoming a distraction. I do remember watching 2131 in a hotel room in Kansas City (prior to heading back over to work). That was a big deal, and may have had an effect on how the strike was resolved. Would he have been better if he'd taken an occasional day off? Yeah sure, but so what? Not everyone is Gehrig--shoot, almost NO ONE is Gehrig!--and that's ok. Ripken was highly regarded and deservedly so. While we're at it, didn't he have a string of consecutive *innings* that went six or seven years (8,243 ending in '87)?
September 7th, 2010 at 9:00 am
I remember the 1983 ALCS (being a Sox fan in those days), when Cal Ripken Jr (Sr was an Oriole coach at the time) was introduced at Memorial Stadium as the only player to play in every inning of every game. (Due to rainouts and makeups, Greg Walker led the AL in games played in 1985 with 163.) Gehrig extended the streak with some first-inning pinch-hitting appearances. Ripken's record-breaking game in '95 was probably the only weeknight regular season baseball game I watched when I was at college. Although BalBurg (#28) doesn't, most of us probably forget that the Orioles would have forfeit their strikebreaker games rather than end the streak before he broke Gehrig's record.
September 7th, 2010 at 9:13 am
First off, I have to confess that I'm a Ripken fan. But, that said, as far as the streak, IMHO, a better way to look at it is "Most seasons in a row without missing any scheduled games in that season" - because, to me, that's what the streak really is...it's not like he played 2,130 games in a row, with no time off, heading into 9/6/95.
In any event, I remember that night well. I was in front of the TV watching it on ESPN and enjoyed it all, very much. I even got my wife to sit and watch it with me - she tolerates me being a baseball junkie, but is not one herself - and she was caught up in the excitement of it as well.
But, looking back, what I remember most now is where I was there: I was a somewhat newlywed - we were married just for three years at the time. We were living in our first house - had only been in it for two years. No kids. One dog. And, I was working for Bankers Trust Company in their HQ across the street from the World Trade Center.
Today, 15 years later, we no longer live in New York. We're in our second house now for 11 years. We have two kids in elementary school. The dog we had back in 1995 has since passed away - but, we have two other dogs now, one 4 years old and the other 13 years old. I've changed employers four times since BTC and that building I worked in, back in 1995, as well as the WTC, are now gone as a result of 9/11.
My life is totally different now. And, it's almost, as if, that was a different guy watching that game back on 9/6/95. Sure seems like it, doing the then and now comparison. Yet, different guy and all, I can remember watching that game like it was yesterday. And, I'll probably always remember it too.
September 7th, 2010 at 9:23 am
#18/"Zack Says: If not for the streak, the "Does Cal Ripken Belong in the Hall of Fame" topic would be interesting."
Zack, with all due respect, Zack, no it isn't, because by either conventional or sabermetric standards, he's more than qualified,or as Jerry in #20 said, "streak or no, he's massively overqualified...".
In several ways, his career is similar to Yaz:
- extremely long career w/one team; became an icon and a symbol of that team
- underrated defensively (of course Ripkin played a more valuable position)
- had a great great MVP/career year, leading his team to the pennant
- constantly tinkered with his batting stance
- had several other great years,
BUT...
- he had a number of good but-not-great years over the second half of his career, which lead some contrarians to suggest "he might not be an automatic Hall-Of Famer if not for "the streak" (Ripkin) or The Triple Crown (Yaz).
This is ridiculous, since even if you removed these accomplishments from their respective careers, they would still be overqualified for the HOF.
September 7th, 2010 at 9:41 am
I am just trying to understand why the general consensus is that this moment is one of the top 10 if not top 5 moments in baseball history.
I always have as well.
Most overrated, pointless feat in baseball history.
September 7th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Rocketdoc {#23}:
That "Never be broken" comment is one I have heard {and said} several times since I started following baseball.
"Cobb's hit record? If Musual only came within 500 or so, it's untouchable.". Sorry, Pete Rose.
"Nobody will ever catch the Big Train in strikeouts.". Guess I couldn't foresee Ryan coming.
"714? No way anyone will ever top that." By the time Aaron broke it, I had finally learned that records are made to be broken. Now I am wondering how long it will take for Bonds record to fall.
Other than Cy Young's wins record, Ripkin's string is probably the least attainable. But it will be broken someday.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:18 am
#33: If you're looking for records "never to be broken", you might look at statistics where the conditions have changed so much it would be impossible to equal. On offense, I would mention the career triples record of 309 (Sam Crawford), since only two players who played after WWII have even half of that (Clemente, Musial). No active player even has a third of that (Carl Crawford,102). There's also the fluke single-season triples record of 36.
For pitching, there are several career records Cy Young holds, besides wins there's also innings pitched, and complete games; also negative ones such as hits allowed and losses.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:36 am
At the time I couldn't understand what the big deal was, and frankly I still struggle with that. A quirky stat perhaps, and an interesting local story. Maybe even a nice inspirational story about perseverance, but from a baseball standpoint it doesn't count for much. I always found Cal and Jeter to be very similar in the way they're treated by the media and many fans in general. They're just plain nice guys and every sportswriter wants them to be great so badly that they magnify every little thing they do to the point of making them infallible. Granted playing in 2131 straight games isn't a 'little' thing, but what does it really have to do with being a great player? Ripken is a HoFer with or without the streak, but I feel like his 'greatness' has been overrated by something that had little to do with how good of a player he was.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Side Notes:
If you're looking for records that may never be broken, look at some of the more esoteric records. For example, I think they could play baseball for another 200 years and you won't see someone throw 3 consecutive no-hitters or strike out 5 guys in an inning.
Something I noticed in the Lofton thread of last week that's reappearing here: people seem to be having a lot of trouble spelling a guy's name that is spelled correctly in the post, in several dozen other comments, and is spelled for you in the page title. A few slip-ups here and there are understandable, but if you're going to use the guy's name multiple times in the same comment, maybe take a second to make sure you're spelling it right.
September 7th, 2010 at 11:12 am
#5/"Djibouti Says:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:36 am
At the time I couldn't understand what the big deal was, and frankly I still struggle with that... I always found Cal and Jeter to be very similar in the way they're treated by the media and many fans in general. They're just plain nice guys and every sportswriter wants them to be great so badly that they magnify every little thing they do to the point of making them infallible. "
Well Djibouti, being "just plain nice guys" probably counts for a GREAT DEAL to the sportswriters who have to cover them, and write about them. I imagine that truly great players that are that easy to deal with (like Jeter and Ripkin) are more the exception than the rule, so the writers go out of their way to emphasize their "niceness". Good point about connecting those two in that way.
In previous generations, that was also true of Brooks Robinson, Ernie Banks and Stan Musial amongst others. That's my "Pop Psychology 101" take.
September 7th, 2010 at 11:25 am
I don't see why someone couldn't strike out 5 in an inning. I don't think 4 Ks has been that uncommon (not sure how many times it's been done). Strikeouts are more common than ever these days. Get a pitcher on a roll and one more wild pitch, and why not?
The consecutive game streak is just a selfish act that can only hamstring a team. I saw this with Hideki Matsui on the Yankees. Matsui wasn't an icon like Ripken, and Joe Torre circa 2004 had far more power than any Orioles manager, and most of Matsui's streak hadn't even occurred in MLB. Despite all that, Torre didn't have the balls to ever rest Matsui, though I can remember often thinking it would be a good thing to do so. I actually felt relieved when he broke his wrist, knowing that when he returned the team could just be managed normally, rather than revolving around one unmovable fixture.
September 7th, 2010 at 11:47 am
I think 4 K's in an inning has been done somewhere between 10 and 20 times. I recall a 5-K inning in the minors once, maybe 5 years ago.
September 7th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Why was this such a big deal? I think there are several reasons. First of all, after Gehrig, the next longest streak is 1307, set by Everett Scott.(His ended shortly before Gehrig's started.) So Gehrig's was the longest by a long way, much like Ruth's career homer record or Cobb's career hit mark or Johnson's career strikeout record. It seemed unattainable.
Partly it is who held the record. Gehrig was a star player who was in the prime of his life when he was struck down by ALS. He was a solid guy, college educated, a role mode who publicly accepted his cruel fate with grace and dignity.
If you grew up in the days before cable, and the Internet and Bill James, one of the ways you experienced baseball and learned about the game was reading books about great players. Gerhig and his streak loomed large in that world.
And if you liked numbers, well we didn't have WAR or VORP or OPS+. So I believe the numbers we had -- such as Gehrig's streak -- took on more significance.
Finally, there was the timing of when Ripken broke it. The 1994 work stoppage angered people in ways that other sports labor-related shutdowns haven't and won't. Even people who were casual fans seemed really angry at baseball. The World Series had always been part of fall. It was something you depend on. Then it was gone for what the public could see as no good reason.
So was the first big, happy moment for baseball after the lockout. And it was a record for being dependable.
September 7th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
While the streak itself is more of a quirk that is attached to Ripken's legacy rather than something of baseball value, and while it's entirely possible that his play would have benefited from some days off during his later years, it's important not to lose sight of the real value the streak added to his teams.
While it wouldn't have made much difference if he'd played 160 games in a season rather than 162, when you look beyond the fluffy nature of the record, Ripken's durability was absolutely remarkable, and unlike the record itself, durability is an extremely valuable trait for a baseball player to have, and not at all overrated. Consider for a moment the typical backup shortstop. You typically have either a guy who can field, but who's a terrible hitter, or someone who can hit a little bit, but who's more of a second/third baseman and not defensively suited to play short. Ripken's durability meant the Orioles were never forced to depend on a John McDonald type of hitter at shortstop. Even past his prime, Ripken was a capable defensive shortstop who was roughly an average hitter, which is significantly better than what you'd typically expect from whoever the backup shortstop is.
If anything, I think Ripken's come to be underrated as a player rather than overrated. The focus on him seems to be more the impressiveness of the streak and his iconic nature to the Orioles rather than his playing ability. However, he was a player in decline through the growth of offense in baseball, and was in his waning years just around the time when a cluster of offensively oriented shortstops started putting up big numbers. While he gets plenty of recognition based on career milestones and a positive image, he also had a fantastic ten-year peak from 1982-1991 that's easy to overlook when comparing his raw numbers to those that followed. There's just not that many players who have had an extended stretch as a very good defensive shortstop while providing middle-of-the-order offense. Even more rare is the ability to do that while being the most durable baseball player on the planet.
September 7th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Some great objective responses to my dissent - mo matter what someone might think, the disagreements are cordial.
I'm just sayin': was he a great player? Or was he a well-liked guy and a good to very good player who did a pretty amazing thing (cons. games).
I knew my comments would draw some fire, but I still find it interesting how automatic his HOF credentials are, when, if we take the name off the jersey and just look at the numbers, those credentials might seem less automatic. Maybe still deservedly HOF! But I'm not burning the flag here.
Of course he gets bonus points for being a SS and not a 1B or corner OF. And no, not everyone needs to be Honus Wagner to get into the HOF. But it's not laughable to compare him to Baines when that's a name on the most similar list. That list is very telling for Ripken. Who's on that list: some Dawson/Baines/Biggio non-automatic 80s-90s HOFers and some more automatic HOFers (Kaline, Yaz) from the previous era of lower offense.
Cal payed his career at a very good time for offense, and was early in the transition to today's harder hitting shortstops. This benefits him. His total/rate stats reflect that. Yes, the HRs and hits each matter. But career OPS+ 112, and only a few top OPS+ seasons, seven seasons WAR > 5, etc. - I don't need to quote his page for you guys. Most of his black/grey ink is for games, PAs, ABs, and such. He had some excellent seasons! Definitely.
#20, Gerry, I agree. Cal's numbers at SS are strong... in the context of the previous decades' shortstops. In today's SS world, they're good but less amazing. Again, he is HOF to me. I just don't want to get snowed by the game streak and forget our objectivity.
#31 - you're right that his career arc is like Yaz and could be held against him. I shuffle seasons in Excel to combat this. I sort 'em by WAR or WPA or OPS and see what the career looks like without the impact of aging or chronology of a team's sin wave.
ANYwhooo. He's HOF and deserves it. But if we black out the name and remove the streak stats (games, ABs, etc.), and just look at the non-streak numbers, it's less clear-cut.
September 7th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
#42/ "Zack Says: Some great objective responses to my dissent - mo matter what someone might think, the disagreements are cordial."
Zack, I think that Cal Ripken, Jr is both overrated and underrated at the same time:
OVERRATED: The Streak gives him extra bonus points for hard work, dedication, perseverance, playing the game the right way, diligence and all those other catch-phrases that sportwriters use when they want to say someone's better than he appears, but don't have the objective evidence. He had some great great great MVP-calibre years, but also a lot of good but-far-from great years, like Yaz (as I pointed out in #31). His decline over his last decade was somewhat masked by the rising offensive levels. He doesn't belong in that mythic "Inner Circle" with Rogers Hornsby, Mickey Mantle or Mike Schmidt or a number of others; to compare him with Lou Gehrig in any meaningful way, besides The Streak, is kinda silly.
UNNDERRATED: He was a very good to excellent defensive shortstop for most of his career, with great positioning and a cannon arm, who didn't get the credit he deserved, mainly because he was large and hit for power. Even an average-hitting good defensive SS has a great deal of value, and he was better-than average many years (13 years positive BR). His best years from 1982 to 1991 were just before the Holy Trinity of ARod/Jeter/Nomar came along in a higher-offense era, so his raw numbers don't look as impressive. As for the streak, it's impossible to determine how much better (if at all?) he may have been with a few games off each year. He may have performed exactly the same, but played in "X" less games. The Orioles almost never had any SS remotely as good as him to sub, anyway.
September 7th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I've never understood the argument that the Orioles didn't have anyone as good to replace Ripken, so there was no use in sitting him. The guy's a HOFer. Obviously they didn't have anyone as good as him on the bench. If they had, he'd be starting somewhere else, or we're talking about the mid-century Yankees. By that logic, no subs should ever play, because they are not as good as the starters. Subs play because on any particular day, they may be better than the banged-up starter, and/or the future performance of the rested starter plus X games of the inferior sub is expected to exceed the performance of the worn-down starter playing every day.
Although I don't like him, I agree Ripken has become underrated in a way, because the streak eclipsed everything else he ever did. To an extent the same is true of Gehrig. I suppose it's true of most players of the past. We remember them for one thing (Series-winning HR, back-to-back no-hitters, etc) and forget the details of worth careers. But it's disappointing when it happens to such a recent player.
September 7th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
worthy* careers...
September 7th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
#44/"Johnny Twisto Says: I've never understood the argument that the Orioles didn't have anyone as good to replace Ripken, so there was no use in sitting him."
JT, I'd agree in the sense that after a few years of The Streak, the Orioles usually didn't even bother putting a decent back-up shortstop on their roster, so what you said became a self-fullfilling prophecy. As several others have pointed out, practically speaking The Streak had no value by itself, so perhaps we should neither give him credit or subtract value for it. We know what he actually did, and can evaluate that; to project his career missing "X" number of games is pure speculation.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
#42
What's most telling to me about Ripken's similarity list is the fact that there's only one SS on the list, and even there Yount was only a SS for about half his career. It's primarily a list of players either in the Hall or on the fringes, but not one of the similar players is anywhere near Ripken as a defensive player. With no similarity scores above 800, his list reads more like the best fits of a bunch of questionable fits, as opposed to truly similar players.
I look at someone like Baines as a very good comparison as a hitter, and not a HoFer, consider the fact that a very good defensive SS's offensive numbers compare with those of someone who remained employed for 2800+ games and has stayed at least five years on the ballot with minimal career defensive contributions. Baines is at the bottom of the gray area between HoFer and obviously out; if he has been a capable SS, he'd be in by now.
The way I look at it, the HoF can be broken into four tiers:
- Tier 1: The Legends: Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Willy Mays, etc. The top tier are players who are typically in the all-time-best discussions at their position, or the best player of their generation.
- Tier 2: The No-Brainers: Al Kaline, Ernie Banks, Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, etc. This is the tier of HoFers who are clearly a notch below the absolute legends, but are among the best players of their generation and are typically among the five to ten best players at their position, are perennial all-stars, and win lots of awards. You'll rarely see a decent argument against someone in this category.
- Tier 3: The Big-Hallers: Andre Dawson, Richie Ashburn, Lou Brock, Joe Sewell, etc. This is where the majority of the debate takes place for HoFers. It represents the range between those who favor a more exclusive Hall, and those who favor a bigger one. This is also where most of the variance in ranking takes place. There are guys outside the Hall - Santo, Raines, Allen, etc. - who fall in this tier, and it's often here where counting stats becomes the most crucial to a player's candidacy.
- Tier 4: The Mistakes: Guys like George Kelly and Rick Ferrell. Where Tier 3 represents the gate keepers who can be debated, Tier 4 represents the guys who are such weak selections that, if you were to set the bar at their level, you would need to double the size of the Hall to accommodate them.
Looking at Ripken, he had a great prime, long career, excellent milestone numbers, was a perennial all-star, won two MVP's deservedly, and was the best all-around SS in the league for an extended period. That's pretty much the definition of Tier 2. He's a Hall of Famer, and by enough of a margin that he'd be a clear choice even without the streak. I don't know of anyone who rates him on the Mays/Aaron/Wagner level, but he's almost universally seen as a clear HoFer, which again is Tier 2. So I suppose that's a long winded way of saying that he's typically rated about where he should be, if not always for the best reasons.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
The issue with Ripken sitting here or there possible improving his play is a bit off-base, if you ask me. I think about a similar issue sometimes, with regards to guys making plays that lead to injuries and missed time.
Manny Ramirez broke his finger one year making a head first slide into home for the Sox. I don't even remember if he was safe or out on the play, but he missed signifigant time as a result. My thought process at the time was, "No single run is worth Manny missing a month, so he was dumb to slide." But guys can get hurt on any given play. There are probably calculated risks they should avoid, but overall, you can't predict the unpredictable. I believe the same is true with Ripken's streak. Unless there were games he was hobbling around just for the sake of the streak, the odds are he still presented the best option at SS or 3B until the tail end of it, when he had already broken the record and was just extending his own. The day you sit him because he had a head cold might have also been the day he hits 3 HRs. We have plenty of evidence of guys performing in spite of little nicks and scrapes. Is it possible there was a game here or there where his condition made him less effective than the backup? Sure. But you're trying to find a needle in a hay stack that may not even be there but, because it might be, you want to simply get rid of the entire haystack.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
#43, yes. Agreed.
#47. I concur with the core of your vision (irrespective of exactly who might be at each theoretical tier).
My yearning is to place Ripken at Tier 2.33, but not 3.5.
I simply find the streak objectionable, as a HOF resume bullet. I want him in for his skill at the five tools, or something fundamentally baseball-y.
High Pockets Kelly, Chick Hafey.... Without the silly choices (I originally typed "sins" - perhaps an overstatement) of the Veterans Committee, I think we'd all be a little less sensitive, and clearer headed, about the selection of fringe candidates. (Cal > Fringe)
September 7th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Ripken could have retired after the '91 season and been a Hall of Famer. As others have pointed out, his peak from '82 to '91 was phenomenal. The last ten years of his career got him The Streak, 3,000 hits, and 400 home runs--but he was already at 66.5 WAR after '91, including seven seasons at 6+ WAR (three of which were 8+, including the 11-WAR '91 MVP season to cap it all off). The last ten years of his career (five above-average seasons followed by five below-average seasons) were basically one long victory lap. The first ten years had already established him as an all-time great shortstop.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
#47/ "WilsonC Says: The way I look at it, the HoF can be broken into four tiers:
- Tier 2: The No-Brainers: Al Kaline, Ernie Banks, Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, etc."
There's plenty of people in Boston who DO NOT consider Wade Boggs as HOF-worthy/ their arguments:
- selfish player, all he cared about was his BA and hits
- he could have easily sacrificed his AVG, still hit .300, but with 25+HR and more RBI (see 1987 season)
- his extremely high OBA wasn't as valuable as an average player, because he was a lousy baserunner
- he was a mediocre third baseman (although they grudgingly admit he improved somewhat over his career)
- he should've expanded his strike zone with runners on base, so he could drive in more runs
I disagree with all but the third; he WAS a below-average baserunner, though that probably only cost his teams a few runs (at most) any season. WAR sees him a bit below-average for his career. I've also heard people on Boston sports-talk radio knock Al Kaline (and Yaz) as a guy who just stuck around to get 3.000 hits, and perhaps not HOF-worthy, but that's a separate discussion...
September 7th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Interesting that as soon as Ripken ended the streak, at age 38, he crushed the ball for a .952 OPS in 86 games.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
@51 Lawrence -- I'm not assuming that you agree with those who think that Kaline and Yaz "stuck around to get 3,000 hits"; in fact, you sound like a reasonable person who knows that much of what you hear on sports talk radio is utter blather, and maybe that was even your point. But just for the record:
-- In his final season (when he reached 3,000 hits), Al Kaline had a 107 OPS+, 3rd best among the '74 Tigers regulars, and he led the team in RBI.
-- As for Yaz, he had a 108 OPS+ the year he reached 3,000 hits. He played 4 years after that and averaged the same 108, with just one year below 100 (95). I'm not sure whose playing time Yaz was supposedly poaching; in his final year, 1983, the BoSox still managed to find almost 600 PAs for non-hitting 1B Dave Stapleton (76 OPS+), and 3 other lineup mainstays had OPS+ between 72 and 85. And there were no legit prospects on the AAA PawSox.
There have been players who hung around just to reach a milestone -- Craig Biggio comes to mind -- but not Kaline and Yaz. They played so long because their teams rightly considered them better than the alternatives.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Zack @42, "Cal's numbers at SS are strong... in the context of the previous decades' shortstops. In today's SS world, they're good but less amazing." I repeat my suggestion that you look at the 30 players holding down the regular shortstop position in the major leagues today and see how many of them are carrying a 112 OPS+. I think you'll find that even today there are a lot more shortstops under 90 than over 110.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
@50 @52
Let's avoid the HOF debate for Boggs, Ripken, Yaz or Kaline. It tends to generate more heat than light.
So how can you tell, from their statistics, who stays around too long and hurts their team and who retires at the "right" time? Both Yaz and Kaline were from a different time, financially speaking. A franchise can become captive to a streak or an arbitary statistic to its detriment.....
We've seen that in the posts here.
September 7th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Why I remember many thing about the night, two memories stand out. My mom passed away the previous Sunday morning, and she had followed the streak with much enthusiasm as it entered its final year or so. So sad she didn't quite make it to the tying and go ahead games. The other, the classy speech he gave after the game. He said there were so many people to thank, family, friends, players, coaches, but 4 stood out most of all: His mom, his dad, his wife, and Eddie Murray. He went on to say why these people had so much influence on his life and his game. I was in awe, having been a baseball fan long before the streak started as a little kid, when it started as a teenager waiting to graduate high school, and finally as an adult, watching it finally come to fruition in the living room of my own house.
September 8th, 2010 at 1:01 am
Gerry @ 54: "I repeat my suggestion that you look at the 30 players holding down the regular shortstop position in the major leagues today and see how many of them are carrying a 112 OPS+. I think you'll find that even today there are a lot more shortstops under 90 than over 110."
And that's why I submit Edgar Renteria isn't HOF. But just that Ripken's stats are BETTER than most/90% isn't enough, is it. HOF is supposed to pluck the best of the best. And maybe fewer than that.
Anywhooozle, good times. I'll save the rest of my Ripken feelings for the 2019 Jeter HOF talk when he's an all-time great HOF automatic, in spite of comparing to fringe guys and Tier 2.5 HOFers. You guys want to be captains of statistical objectivity? Try the Jeter conversation.
September 8th, 2010 at 2:04 am
I'm jumping in late and perhaps no one cares any more, but....
Several semi-random points on a sleepless night:
(a) I think Cal Ripken obviously deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure which "tier" -- he wasn't as good as Honus Wagner, but he was better than Luis Aparacio or Rabbit Maranville.
(b) The Streak has nothing to do with my assessment of his HOF credentials. That he was extremely durable? Yes. That he was *ready* to play every day? Yes. But the fact that he actually *did* play in over 2,000 straight games (I'll bet you know the exact number, but I don't care) ... well, I guess I'm un-American, but I thought the hype surrounding Ripken's approach to Gehrig's record was even more annoying than the buildup to Strasburg's MLB debut, because I just didn't care at all. I liked Ripken as a player, even admired him. But it actually saddens me that his career ultimately got packaged as the difference between playing 161 and 162 games a year.
(c) Pete Rose played 156 games or more 15 times in his career, as did Ripken. Is there any meaningful difference between the durability of Ripken and that of Rose? Clearly not.
(d) Most seasons with at least 153 games played: Rose 16, Ripken 15, Murray and Palmeiro 14, Brooks Robinson 13. What the heck was going on with the Orioles?
(e) None of us really knows the extent to which The Streak became self-perpetuating. But I think it's pretty safe to say that, once he got more than halfway to the record, there were many games in which Ripken played for no other reason than to prolong the streak. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't strike me as a good thing, either.
(f) As you may know, during Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, Ted Williams had a higher BA (.412-.408), higher OBP and SLG, and his Runs + RBI were 1 more than Joe's. He just didn't happen to get a hit every single day.
September 8th, 2010 at 6:56 am
Zack @ 57, Ripken's stats are better than 99% of all shortstops, maybe even 99.5%. Honestly. Do the work. Look at how many people have played shortstop - even look at just those who have played shortstop in the last 30 years, if you like - and tell me how many have had a better career than Ripken had, and what percentage that is. The Hall of Fame stopped being for the best of the best a long time ago, but even if that weren't the case - even if the Hall were only one third the size it is now - it would still have room for Ripken.
September 8th, 2010 at 9:06 am
#53/ "John Autin Says: @51 Lawrence -- I'm not assuming that you agree with those who think that Kaline and Yaz "stuck around to get 3,000 hits"; in fact, you sound like a reasonable person who knows that much of what you hear on sports talk radio is utter blather, and maybe that was even your point.
Yes, John, that was PRECISELY my point, that sports-talk radio is filled with negativity and contrarians, and plenty of people who frankly rely on cheap emotion instead of facts to make their case (the word "fan" does come from "fanatic"... ). I'm not trying to start any HOF debate for Boggs or Yaz or Kaline, I think that they are all quite overqualified, especially Yaz. "You sound like a reasonable person..." may be the best compliment I've gotten around here, thanks.
My point is that no matter how vastly overqualified a player is, how much of a "no-brainer" they are, some numbskull is going to present reasons they don't belong. Hey, I've heard people say that Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, and Rogers Hornsby don't belong in the HOF because "they were selfish and didn't really help their teams wins." Well, if you're not gonna include these Inner-Circle HOFers, there's really no point in having a HOF.
Also/#58 - the greatest players are frequently reduced to One Defining Image to the general public, so now:
RIPKEN = The Streak
MAYS = The Catch
COBB = fiery competetiveness
Barry BONDS = head grew because of steriod cheating
Joe DIMAGGIO = effortless grace
Ted WILLIAMS = last to hit .400
September 8th, 2010 at 9:54 am
To get a sense of just how great of a player Ripken really was, try to list he shortstops between Wagner and A-Rod who were greater players than Ripken.
Arky Vaughan? He was a better hitter in a much shorter career, but had neither Ripken's defensive ability nor his longevity.
Ernie Banks? He had a fantastic prime as a power hitting shortstop, but spent over half his career as an unremarkable first baseman.
Joe Cronin? He had a higher batting average in a time when everybody hit .300, but Ripken had as good an OPS through 2200 games, played significantly more games, and was probably a better fielder.
Robin Yount? He was comparable to Ripken as a hitter, but not as a fielder, and he only played half his career at the position.
Ozzie Smith? He was a better fielder, but nowhere near the hitter Ripken was. Ditto Apparicio.
Barry Larkin? He was as good a player as Ripken, maybe even a little better, but he was nowhere near as durable.
Luke Appling? He was about Ripken's level as a hitter on a career rate level, but didn't have a prime on the level as Ripken.
Lou Boudreau? He was probably about on Ripken's level at his best, but in about half the career length.
Derek Jeter? He's probably a better hitter, and also durable, but his numbers haven't yet been affected by his decline, and he's not in the same class as a fielder.
Nomar Garciaparra? He had a few years where he was a fantastic hitter, but his career dwindled long before he reached Ripken's level, and had nowhere near the durability.
Assuming we classify A-Rod as a shortstop and not a third baseman, there are really two shortstops separated by a century whose numbers tower above the rest. After that, though, you're getting into guys who were more dominant over a shorter peak, or guys who were a bit better over a much shorter career, or guys who might have been more talented but far less durable, or guys who hit better but were nowhere near the fielder, or guys who were better fielders but below average hitters. A few Hall of Famers might have been better overall, but there's none beyond the big two who had definitively better careers.
It's easy to underrate a player like Ripken when looking only at the career rate stats. A career 112 OPS+ is good, but not exceptional. When you look at a career rate, however, it gives a player no credit for his durability or longevity, and it also doesn't reflect how good a player was in his prime. Ripken wasn't a 112 OPS+ guy, but rather a 125-ish OPS+ guy who chose to keep playing for a long time after he was no longer a star. He wasn't a bad player after 1991; he just wasn't as good as when he was younger. That makes his counting stats terrific, but decreased his rate stats significantly. His career OPS+ needs to be taken in the context of someone who had a longer career than any other shortstop. We can look at his prime, where 1600+ games as a strong defensive 127 OPS+ hitter stacks up extremely well historically against other SS, and we can look at his career totals, which are unquestionably outstanding, but if we only look at his seasonal averages without crediting him for his career length, we're basically saying that even though he was still a good enough player to help his teams through the majority of his extended decline years, he would deserve more credit for sitting on the couch watching TV than for being a competent MLB-caliber baseball player.
September 8th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Zack, with the hall of fame as it exists today, a guy who is a legit everyday player for 20 years (i.e. somebody only a little bit better than Renteria for a similar length of time) is already about halfway (in WAR terms) to the career they need for the hall (as it exists today). 1.5 WAR is about the bottom for your "legit everyday" standard. Although plenty of everyday players don't do this in any given year, it's atypical to continue starting 140+ games if you are under that standard for a few years. Well 20 years averaging 1.5 WAR is 30 WAR for a career, and of guys who amass 60 WAR, a large majority are in the hall.
Basically if you are as much better than a typical everyday player as a typical everyday player is better than a replacement player, and you maintain that standard for 20 years, you're probably in. Well, to be more precise, if your strengths show up in triple crown stats or you hit certain milestones, you will be a lock. If neither of those things is true, you will at least have some play.
Ripken is as clear a choice as we usually get presented with, streak or no. You had three famous guys come up in the 90s who played short and hit better than Ripken. And that did change the perception of the position. But who else? Trammel hit a hair better than Ripken, was a hair less strong defensively, but had a much, shorter career. And he probably *should* be in the hall. The three guys who changed everybody's thinking, were all on track to be HoFers in 2001 when Cal retired. ARod and Jeter are already locks. ARod is on the edges of the all-time, all-timer conversation, showing up in Andy's post about best 20 all-time position players. Nomar won't be going to the hall, but if you look at his first 8 years, he sure looks like he was headed there. Another 3-4 years at his 1997-2003 standard of play, and he'd be in too.
It's not like there are another 5-6 guys who've come along since then who are as good. You just happened to have three spectacular guys come up within a year of each other at short.
September 9th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Obwohl, Es war ein wunderschöner Augenblick, als der Bundestrainer sagte: "Komm Stefan, zieh deine Sachen aus, jetzt geht's los."
September 10th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
#61 & #62. Points well taken. Nice posts. [Nodding to self, chin in hand, stroking my long and imposing beard]
September 19th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Exactly what I was thinking. Your post was fantastic. To get an ex back is not the hardest of the accomplishments But it for sure may cost some time