jake_harv88 wrote: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.
Yoda wrote: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.