During the streak, how many games did Ripkin play in and only have one at bat before coming out?
For the first six years of The Streak, Ripken played in every inning of every game.
From the beginning until 1995 (the year he broke Gehrig’s record), he played in 99.2% of all of the innings he could play.
You just can’t know how taking some rest would have affected how he played, and consequently how the team would have benefited.
Go to the Ripken page at baseball-ref and scroll down to the “appearances on leaderboards” section.
Forget about “all star” and “plate appearances” and “games”. Everything GOOD to lead in – average, slugging, OPS, runs created etc – dropped off the lists in 1991.
Everything BAD to lead in – GIDP, at bats per strike out – he gets rolling on those lists around 1993 or so.
What else does is he top ten in '93-97? Salary.
Sure, he’s getting older and that’s going to happen, but when you’re not performing at the level you wre performing at before, AND you’re 35+ years old, you can’t tell me a few days off every season wouldn’t have been a good idea.
And now we’re back to the question of just who the Orioles would have replaced him with. In the mid-90s that person would have been Manny Alexander.
As you can see, he’s another career minor leaguer who didn’t belong in the starting lineup of any major league team.
There’s also the very real question of what it would have done to Ripken mentally to force him to sit out a game. Personally, I think that would have done much more harm than the day off would have helped.
We’re not talking about REPLACING him.
Yeah, I think that resting Rip might have been worth giving up a little at shortstop for ONE single game.
That’s the reason that Jeter takes days off. That A-Rod takes days off. That Pujols takes days off.
If it’s a good baseball decision to sit him for a game, but he can’t take it MENTALLY, then he still constitutes a detriment to the team.
Perhaps the reason they wouldn’t bring a shortstop along (or 3rd base at the end. Bordick was their shortstop starting in 97 – Rip was becoming such a liability in the field, they replaced him with a career .260 hitter. ) is that they knew that Ripken would have pitched a hissy if the O’s tried calling someone else up in September one year. That’s exactly the kind of baseball decision that should have been made if Ripken didn’t make the Streak more important than the game.
I don’t mean replacing him permanently, I just mean that on any given day the person who would have played for Ripken during a dayoff wouldn’t have been any better than Ripken at less than 100%.
And yes, I think playing everyday was an important part of the game to him and taking that from him would have been bad for him, his replacement and the team.
Let’s crunch some numbers. Let’s take the 1997 season, which is a late in the streak season, when you would think that he would probably be affected by his decision to grind it out and play all the games.
In 1997, he had 615 AB, with 166 hits, 79 runs scored, 84 RBI, for a batting average of .270.
Assume that by sitting 10 games, he could raise his batting average 20 points. That’s a pretty long assumption; indeed, I doubt highly it would have that much affect, but let’s go with that.
Take away 10 games at 3.8 AB per game, and you have 38 fewer at bats.
So the hypothetical season would be: 152 games, 577 AB. With a batting average of .290, that would be a total of 167 hits.
Wow. One additional hit. Oh boy, would he have been SOOOOOOOOOOO much more productive for sitting. :rolleyes:
Cut the time on the bench in half. 157 games, 173 hits (do the math yourself 
). Ok, now we have him sitting for five games all year, and he ends up with an added seven hits. At his rate of production, that’s an added 3 runs per game. Taking away his RBI’s from driving himself in, he had 67 others batted in, so for 173 hits, that would be an added 2 runs batted in. So, for the five games on the bench, you get a total of an added 5 runs all year out of Cal Ripken. Oh, yeah, that’s sooooo gonna help the O’s.
Now, by comparison, look at the money side. In 1995, when he broke the streak, the O’s weren’t in playoff contention. If Ripken hadn’t had the streak on the line, how many fewer fans would have gone to their games? And in 1998, when the streak eventually ended, the O’s weren’t in contention for anything; so how many people would have come to the park if it hadn’t been for Ripken and his notoriety? Maybe the O’s took a financial loss on paying to have Ripken in their lineup, and maybe they got trapped by the Streak and should have dealt him off long before in order to obtain a better shortstop. But the numbers make it clear: making Ripken sit wouldn’t have done JACK for the team as a whole, in terms of making him any more “productive” in any valid sense.
Well, you can’t assume ZERO production out of his replacement. A .250 hitter in 10 games, 38 at bats would average about 10 hits. Not a big difference, but still… I think the biggest problem with the streak was that Ripken played through, because of the streak, several nagging injuries that other players would have taken a couple games off to heal. There is no way to quantify it, but I can’t believe this didn’t hamper his power production in a more significant way than a few runs. I think it probably cost him a handful of home runs a year, probably 15 hits, and 10 RBI or so. But on the other hand, the O’s certainly wouldn’t have won more pennants with that added production, and if Ripken had sat even 1 game during the streak, he wouldn’t have been half the icon he became. If I was an O’s fan, I’d have more fun rooting for a 82-80 team with a legend than a 84-78 team with just a solid shortstop.
I know nothing at all about baseball, I just had to say …
Iron Man Streak? There’s got to be a “Tony Stark” joke in there somewhere.
Dude, after that “analysis”, you should be a* little more careful *about rolling your eyes.
I swear I came in here wondering if there was an event where you ran, swam, and bicycled naked…
The argument turns on whether or not “great” can refer both to “contribued substantially to the success of the team” and “remarkable as an example of individual talent, regardless of team results.”
I hope the following example crystalizes the point. In 1985, Bob Horner of the Atlanta Braves hit four home runs in a game, one of only 15 players ever to do it. That is a great accomplishment in any book, yet the Braves lost the game in which he did it. Clearly, then, the accomplishment did not contribute to team success. Therefore, by adopting only the first definition of “great”, one can argue “what’s so great” about Horner’s feat, and by extension could argue “what’s so great about hitting 4HR in any game”?
Such an argument would be silly because (1) it is possible to recognize the individual achievement separate from team success, and (2) it is an achievement everyone who played/plays the game at the MLB level would like to have. I think the same can be said for Ripken’s streak.
As to the question of whether or not more rest would have helped team production, it’s a moot point. Horner “only” had 6 RBI’s and went 4-5 in that incredible game; one might similarly argue–by going for HR’s all the time–he eliminated the chance of hitting fewer homers but going 5-5 with more RBI’s.
It’s impossible, however, to know if that was even a possibility. Many players do benefit from periodic rest, but many players also get themselves injured to the point that the club needs to set aside a roster spot for a few days (while they recover on the bench) or put the player on the DL (where, quite often, they recover a few games prior to when they’re eligible to play again, a potential loss of team-contribution). Unless you’re arguing Cal Ripken was a below-average SS (compared to what the Orioles could have put in his place from the minors, i.e. his VORP), the fact that he never went on the DL during his streak is a net plus to the team, perhaps enough of one to offset whatever extra contributions he could have made by periodically resting.
Again, we can never know, so I have no problem celebrating his streak for the great accomplishment it is.
True Meaning of Iron Man Streak? I know what I thought of when I saw the thread title. From here:
and at his retirement ceremony:
I know that watching records get broken can be inspirational to those of us who enjoy professional sports, but I think this record should have been left standing. Had Cal Ripken played 2130 games and then taken a ceremonial game off out of respect for Gehrig and his record I believe that would have been more moving, better for baseball, and better for Ripken’s reputation.
Why? I am genuinely curious as to why you hold this belief.
Records are made to be broken.
What makes one record more sacred than another? The fact that it endured longer? That just makes it more special when it’s broken.
No record is sacred. That’s what they’re for- to inspire us to perform greater feats.
Yeah, the analysis was so poor, that you were able to offer just tons of cogent responses to show how wrong it was… :rolleyes:
Oh, wait, there’s that rolling of the eyes thing again…
The night Ripken broke the streak I felt exactly the same way Quint does. As a lifelong Baltimore Orioles fan I would have loved for him to go for the tie. Gehrig did not end his streak because he was hurt or tired, he ended it because he was dieing. Ripkin stopping at the tie, with everybody knowing he could have continued, but stopped out of respect for Gehrig’s memory would have been a true moment for the ages.
Yes, records are meant to be broken, and if it’s a real competition record, say hits in consecutive games, I’ll cheer for whoever takes down Joltin’ Joe (as if that will happen.) But the playing in consecutive games record was sort of sacred. Have you never seen Pride of the Yankees, man? There was a mythos about that coming together of man and destiny that should have stood forever. A tie would have celebrated that, beating it showed we have better medicine now.
I think brownie55 pretty much summed up my feelings. If nothing else, Ripken stopping for the tie would have ensured that this thread wouldn’t exist. Cal Ripken would have a lot more fans if he had made this noble gesture, and would have inexorably linked his name to Gehrig’s in the most positive possible light. I don’t hold it against him that he didn’t but as brownie55 so aptly put it, taking the tie would have been a “moment for the ages”. As always, YMMV.