19Skins72 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Dibble was a good player, as are the other players he references as having toughed it out by playing with injuries, but the problem is he is comparing those good players to a potential superstar that is playing on a bad team. Superstars (even potential ones) play by different rules, particularly on bad teams like the Nationals. This isn't Strasburg's fault, it's simply the way sports work. I also can't fault the Nationals for wanting it this way (and don't fool yourself, they def. want it this way) because it would be idiotic of them to expect him to be a tough guy at the expense of his long term productivity. If this team was in the middle of a pennant race then maybe I'd feel differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 But Ripken's accomplishments weren't just all hitting. He was one of the best defensive SS in the history or the game. His fielding percentage is better than Ozzie Smith's. I hate to do this to you Matt, but I just checked Baseball Reference. Ripken's career fielding percentage was .977. Ozzie Smiths was .978. And Ozzie had something like 2000 more career chances than Ripken. Now I'll be the first to state that I don't know fielding stats that well. I know hitting and pitching, but I can't quantify fielding the same way. When Ripken was young, he had a string of 5 seasons out of six where he committed 20 errors or more. I don't know if that is considered a lot, but it translates to about 1 every 7-8 games, which seems like a lot. It's worth noting that his fielding at 3B in later years was worse (percentage wise) than at his prime at SS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 I hate to do this to you Matt, but I just checked Baseball Reference. Ripken's career fielding percentage was .977. Ozzie Smiths was .978. And Ozzie had something like 2000 more career chances than Ripken. If you go by Ripken's fielding percentage at SS it was .979, so its better than Ozzie's. Not by much, but better. But when people talk about great defensive SS Ozzie Smith is always a name that comes up. Yet statistically, Ripken was right there with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 See, the 3,000 hits thing I respect, but it's more of a product of longevity than anything. Ripken was in the league for 21 seasons. Now being brought up late his first year, and a strike, and at the end when he didn't play every day, we'll say just 20 seasons, since we're still crediting him for the hits he got during those periods. That's 160 hits per season, hardly a daunting figure.200 hit seasons are considered a fine hitting benchmark. Ripken produced two of them in, and came close one other time. 431 homers divided by about 20 season is 21 homers a year. Solid for a SS at the time, but in the grand scheme of things...please. His numbers were nice overall, hardly great, and his career BA (including inexplicably having many of his worst .avg seasons in his prime) drags him down. Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron, etc., can we say they "Only" acheived their stats because they played 20-25 years? We'll have to if you say Ripken did. And 3,000 hits no matter who you are is nothing to sneeze at. You also have to look at how consistent his stats are. Sure he only had 2 season over 200 hits, but if he average between 160 and 180 every season, I'll take that all day, every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Brett SLG: .487Ripken SLG: .447 Anyway' date=' Ripken checked every box you need to check to get into the Hall of Fame. He's clearly a Hall of Fame player. And he re-invented the shortstop position. And he holds what is simultaneously the most impressive and pointless record in sports.[/quote'] I don't equate Slugging Percentage to power. You can hit doubles and triples all day long and that increases the slugging percentage. Bretts batting average with his singles also increased his slugging percentage. Try 431 to 317. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullnelson9999 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 1) You don't get in the HOF for being good.2) I don't know how anyone could call him "overated" with a straight face with the things he did for baseball and how he transcended the position of SS 3) Streak or no streak, Ripken has more knowledge of the game of baseball than all of us combined. One of the most cerebrial players of all time. And his stats back up him being great. You also dont get a standing ovation at Yankee Stadium for just being "good." G819yl5-srY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron, etc., can we say they "Only" acheived their stats because they played 20-25 years? We'll have to if you say Ripken did. And 3,000 hits no matter who you are is nothing to sneeze at. You also have to look at how consistent his stats are. Sure he only had 2 season over 200 hits, but if he average between 160 and 180 every season, I'll take that all day, every day. Which is why he was a very very good ballplayer. Also, Ruth essentially reached his career numbers in 15 years. He only become a position player at age 24 and was done more or less at 38. Ruth was kind of awesome. Aaron's lifetime OPS+ was 155. If Aaron had only played 10 years, he would be a Hall of Famer. That's the point. The only truly truly great numbers Ripken put up were cumulative. Any given season, he was 10 to 15 percent better than average. Aaron was sometimes 80 or 90 percent better than average. Ruth was literally twice the player as most of his contemporaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 You also dont get a standing ovation at Yankee Stadium for just being "good." G819yl5-srY Yes, you do. Yankee fans think Thurman Munson is the best catcher ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 If you go by Ripken's fielding percentage at SS it was .979, so its better than Ozzie's. Not by much, but better. But when people talk about great defensive SS Ozzie Smith is always a name that comes up. Yet statistically, Ripken was right there with him. I'm not a defensive stat guy either...however you have to assume (based on just watching the two guys) that Ozzie took away many more base hits than Ripken did just due to his range. To add that AND not suffer any more errors (as we've seen, their fielding stats are virtually identical), I'd have to give Ozzie the nod as the better defensive SS. Obviously, Rip is the much better overall hitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I don't equate Slugging Percentage to power. You can hit doubles and triples all day long and that increases the slugging percentage. Bretts batting average with his singles also increased his slugging percentage. Try 431 to 317. Ripken average 5 more home runs a year (and it should be pointed out that he played a large part of his career in a hitter-friendly parks in an era where home runs were flying out all over the place). At Camden Yards, he was aiming at a left field that ranged from 333 to 364. At Memorial Stadium, left-field was 309 to 360. Kaufmann Stadium has notoriously deep power alleys, which ranged from 375 to 385 in Brett's career. Seriously, you are talking about Ripken like he was Mickey Mantle. Ripken hit 20 home runs a year. He was a power hitter for a shortstop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 If you go by Ripken's fielding percentage at SS it was .979, so its better than Ozzie's. Not by much, but better. But when people talk about great defensive SS Ozzie Smith is always a name that comes up. Yet statistically, Ripken was right there with him. No, he wasn't. Fielding percentage (like RBIs) is a horrible, horrible stat. Why? If I hit a ground ball three feet to your left, and you don't reach it, it is a hit. Your fielding percentage is unchanged. Ozzie had 2000 more chances than Ripken, because Ozzie reached everything. It was hit to the left side, Ozzie would get a glove on it. Ripken - like Jeter - fields everything cleanly that he can reach. Ripken - like Jeter - only had good range for about four years. For years, idiot sportscaster thought Jim Edmunds was the best fielding centerfielder in baseball. Why? Because he made a lot of diving catches. What no one realized is that Andruw Jones caught those same exact balls. Except that they were lazy fly balls when he caught them, because his range was so so much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron, etc., can we say they "Only" acheived their stats because they played 20-25 years? We'll have to if you say Ripken did. And 3,000 hits no matter who you are is nothing to sneeze at. You also have to look at how consistent his stats are. Sure he only had 2 season over 200 hits, but if he average between 160 and 180 every season, I'll take that all day, every day. Well, considering Gehrig only played about 14 full seasons, Ruth had a number of seasons where he was a pitcher and didn't bat every day...I'd say it's a little different. Hank Aaron has a similar amount of longevity, about two season more, but his number dwarf Ripken's. As far as the average, it's not 160-180 hits per season, I calculated Ripken to be at 160 hits per season, 159 to be exact. Not a 160-180 range, don't give him the extra 20 per season he didn't earn. Even if you drop him to 19 full seasons, it's still only 167 per year. And like I said, he had an abysmal .AVG during many of his prime years. Look, don't get me wrong, I like and respect Ripken, and I think he deserves his place in Cooperstown. But I vote for overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Ripken hit 20 home runs a year. He was a power hitter for a shortstop. And that is what makes him great for his position and in his era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Good debate going here. I've enjoyed it, but nothing you say will convince me he was overated or not great. It might be the bias (not len) in me, but growing up and watching him convinced me he is a great player. I'd take him over almost any player in the last 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Which is why he was a very very good ballplayer. You're coming around. First he was a very good player. Now he's a VERY, VERY good player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Good debate going here. I've enjoyed it, but nothing you say will convince me he was overated or not great. It might be the bias (not len) in me, but growing up and watching him convinced me he is a great player. I'd take him over almost any player in the last 30 years. Well, we needed something else to argue about....it was pretty roundly agreed that Dibble was a bum early on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Good debate going here. I've enjoyed it, but nothing you say will convince me he was overated or not great. It might be the bias (not len) in me, but growing up and watching him convinced me he is a great player. I'd take him over almost any player in the last 30 years. Last 30 years? Who would you rather have? Manny or Ripken? ARod or Ripken? Pujols or Ripken? Bonds or Ripken? Brett or Ripken? Clemens or Ripken? Maddux or Ripken? Henderson or Ripken? Griffey, Jr or Ripken? Gwynn or Ripken? Boggs or Ripken? Pedro or Ripken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 Well, we needed something else to argue about....it was pretty roundly agreed that Dibble was a bum early on. It was nice having an intelligent debate. You don't get that with many people on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 It was nice having an intelligent debate. You don't get that with many people on here I hope you're not talking about me! Punk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 I hope you're not talking about me! Punk! Lol I think you know who I'm talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Lol I think you know who I'm talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Last 30 years?Who would you rather have? Manny or Ripken? ARod or Ripken? Pujols or Ripken? Bonds or Ripken? Brett or Ripken? Clemens or Ripken? Maddux or Ripken? Henderson or Ripken? Griffey' date=' Jr or Ripken? Gwynn or Ripken? Boggs or Ripken? Pedro or Ripken?[/quote'] Factor in all the intangibles, Ripken. Not just baseball ability. Ripken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Lol I think you know who I'm talking about We all know you guys are talking about Johnny Unitas! :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Factor in all the intangibles, Ripken. Not just baseball ability. Ripken. I would also pick Ripken, but only because he's my favorite player. He's not as good a ballplayer as most/all on that list though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplashHit25 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 The smartest thing anyone can do right now is to shut him down. This kid's not had a break in some time if I remember correctly. College ball, summer ball, A ball, bigs....no breaks. Keep the big picture in mind if I'm Nats mgmt, and Dibble's an idiot unlike most others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.