Why is Cal Ripken Jr. considered great?

[IVIisfits138]

Huh? Cal Ripken has better stats in almost every single category.

Besides you say its a lucky record, but no one will ever come close to it. There's no denying that...

I never said that Alan Trammell was better than Ripken, nor am I even implying that argument. Ripken is obviously the better player but I just don't feel its that far off. It's not a 98% to 18% Hall of Fame voting difference in my opinion.
I agree that no one will ever come close to it, nor do I believe any franchise would want their players to play that many games in a row.
And it is in fact the luckiest record in sports because even if Ripken had the best physical conditioning ever, am I supposed to believe that he did not put himself at risk at all times even off the field? A car accident, home improvement accident, sneezing and throwing out your back, getting drunk and tripping on your coffee table, etc. Any of those things could have happened and jeopardized his streak.

Yeah not to mention that his performance dwarfed over the other SS during his era.

Some of his statistics dwarf Trammells, but as a whole I just don't see how he is leaps and bounds of a better player. Trammell has a career average of 5.3 RC/Game while Ripken has 5.2
Again, I am not saying Alan Trammell is better than Ripken. Ripken just seems to get more credit as a baseball players because of a lucky record.

[Yoda]

lucky record.

Define luck. Staying healthy is a skill and he was the most durable athlete in history of the game while being a plus player at his position.

[j24jags]

Some of his statistics dwarf Trammells, but as a whole I just don't see how he is leaps and bounds of a better player. Trammell has a career average of 5.3 RC/Game while Ripken has 5.2
Again, I am not saying Alan Trammell is better than Ripken. Ripken just seems to get more credit as a baseball players because of a lucky record.

In stats 101 you learn that statistics are the easiest way to back up a lie. There are so many statistics that no matter who you compare (even Jamie Moyer vs Johan Santana) you can find some "meaningful" stats to show one player is better than the other.

Moyer has more CG/Gs than Johan. Moyer has more SHO/IPs than Johan. Any two players, anyway you spin it, you can show one player is "better" than the other.

The fact is that in the vast majority of categories, Ripken blows Trammel away...

[Ender]

Some of his statistics dwarf Trammells, but as a whole I just don't see how he is leaps and bounds of a better player. Trammell has a career average of 5.3 RC/Game while Ripken has 5.2

Yeah but this is because he barely played after he turned 30. You are comparing Trammell's mostly peak years to Ripkens entire career.

Ripken had 5.0 RC/G or more 8 of his first 10 seasons. He had 5.0 RC/G or more only 3 of his last 10. Ripken had 5791 PAs after the age of 30.

Trammell had 2594 PA after the age of 30. You are basically trying to penalize Ripken for playing a lot past his prime years by trying to do a rate comparison and ignoring the counting part.

If Pujols were to retire today his final stat line will be MUCH better than when he actually retires, it wouldn't make him a better player for skipping his age 30+ seasons. Just one that retired too early.

[RAmst23]

If two players have nearly identical rate stats, but one played about 800 more games than the other, than I'm going with the longevity guy.

From 1982 to 1991 Ripken didn't have an OPS+ of less than 105, winning ROY and 2 MVP awards. I don't think Ripken is one of the all time greatest, but he had a great peak and certainly has longevity. Not sure what more you would ask from a HOFer.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

If two players have nearly identical rate stats, but one played about 800 more games than the other, than I'm going with the longevity guy.

From 1982 to 1991 Ripken didn't have an OPS+ of less than 105, winning ROY and 2 MVP awards. I don't think Ripken is one of the all time greatest, but he had a great peak and certainly has longevity. Not sure what more you would ask from a HOFer.

And, he played the most difficult defensive position at an extremely high rate. I think one of the issues missed here is that Trammel was an outstanding player, a borderline HoFamer himself, who has never gotten the respect he deserved.

Ripken ranks 2nd among all ss to ever play the game in win shares. Pick pretty much any measure you want and he ranks in the top 10 of all ss to ever player the game.

What's not to like?

[jlm53089]

Didn't Cal Ripken Jr. hit a home run in his last All Star game?

Yea, he is better, but only because of that otherwise Alan Trammel is better.

[auclairkeithbc]

The title of this thread should be "Why Cal Ripken Jr. is consider great."

I would have also accepted "Why Alan Trammell is very underappreciated."

[ukrneal]

Trammel was a very good player. I don't think anyone is denying that. But we do not have to bring Ripkin down to bring Trammel up. I think one thing you need to keep in mind was that Ripkin was a HR hitter in his position. He pre-dates the following generation where a SS hitting 20+ or 30+ HR was common. look at others who play the position when he does - you'll find the likes of Templeton, Smith, Larkin, etc. Most of them are small guys who can run. Some had power: Trammel hit 20+ twice, Larkin 30+ once, etc. But there is no other SS from the 80's and early 90's that had 20+ HR year in and year out (and for multiple years). In addition, Ripkin still hit lots of doubles too.

So when we compare him against that group, he stands out. He was driving in runs at a position that for years didn't really have anyone like that.

Trammel's achilles heal, in my opinion, was his consistency. He'd have a great year and follow it with a lousy one.

Keep in mind there are three things that get you in to the HOF (simplifying things): peak, longevity, and hardware. If you don't have one, you need the others. Trammel didn't really have longevity (too many injuries) and he doesn't really have peak to compensate (liek a Kiner or Koufax). He certainly doesn't have the hardware.

[mkultra]

I believe he is a really good player, but the reason people consider him "great" is because he holds probably the luckiest record in sports.

This statement, IMO, embodies a common failing of fantasy managers. HEALTH IS A SKILL. But because it's not a stat on a spreadsheet, so many people pretend like it doesn't matter.