Cal Ripken, Ten Years Later

Cal Ripken Jr. played 21 seasons in the major leagues. Well, really, just one major league: the American League. And he only played for one team, the Baltimore Orioles. The Orioles were his home team. Ripken was born in Havre De Grace, Maryland, less than an hour from Baltimore. His father spent 36 years in the Orioles organization; his brother Billy played for the Orioles.

It's easy to root for a guy like that: a hometown kid made good. He was a shortstop, and a good one. He was a terrific hitter. He broke Lou Gehrig's unbreakable streak of consecutive games played. The 2001 season was like a retirement tour for Ripken; a decade past his prime, he was cheered in every stadium. A 19-time all-star, he is easily one of the most beloved players in baseball history.

This will be our 10th season without him. How do you evaluate a player like Ripken, separate the man from the myth? He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2007, his first year of eligibility, but that doesn't tell us anything — it had been obvious for years that Ripken was a Hall of Famer. How do you separate him from other great shortstops? Now that we've had some time to put things in context, how does he compare?

Almost 10 years later, it is my assessment that Cal Ripken ranks as the third-best shortstop in major league history. Almost all knowledgeable fans identify Honus Wagner as the greatest shortstop in history. Alex Rodriguez is the obvious choice for second-best, provided that you can get past three things: (1) PEDs, (2) he's played about a thousand games at third base, (3) you don't count Pop Lloyd, a Negro Leagues star who never played in the majors. I'm willing to look past all those things right now, so A-Rod is second on my list. Ripken is third.

What about Ozzie Smith? What about Robin Yount? Hey, what about Derek Jeter? Funny you should ask.

Cal Ripken and Ozzie Smith

Ozzie and Ripken were contemporaries. Smith holds a unique distinction, as probably the greatest defensive shortstop in history. If he's not the best, he's close. Ripken was also a great fielder, a two-time Gold Glove winner. He wasn't Ozzie.

But Ozzie couldn't hit. He was a singles hitter with a .262 average. Ripken hit as many home runs as a rookie (28) as Smith did in his whole career. Ozzie's OPS was .666, OPS+ of 87. He was a good baserunner, but it hardly mattered because he was never on base. Ripken, in contrast, was a great hitter. He's one of only eight players with both 3,000 hits and 400 home runs. Six of the other seven were first basemen or corner outfielders, guys you try to hide defensively. The seventh is Willie Mays. So in the 3000/400/decent fielding club, you've got Ripken and Mays.

No one disputes that Smith was a better fielder than Ripken, even a much better fielder. But Ripken's offensive advantages are staggering. Compared to Ozzie Smith, Ripken hit 400 more home runs and 200 more doubles. Ripken scored 400 more runs and had 900 more RBI. He had more singles, more walks, a better batting average, better OBP, better slugging percentage by over 100 points. Ripken had 2,084 total bases more than Smith.

I love Ozzie. We all love Ozzie. There's no way that the defensive difference between him and Ripken was 2,000 bases, or 1,300 runs + RBI, or 122 points of OPS. I'm not trying to disparage Ozzie Smith. He was a great player: a magnificent fielder and a good baserunner, wholly deserving of his first-ballot ticket to Cooperstown. Did Ozzie's glove win as many games as Ripken's bat? Absolutely not.

Cal Ripken and Robin Yount

Ripken and Yount were similar players. Yount, like the Iron Man, collected 3,000 hits in the majors. Like Ripken, he had some power, and he won a Gold Glove at shortstop. Like Ripken, he won two AL MVP awards.

I rate Ripken ahead for two reasons: consistency and defense. Yount was not a good defensive shortstop. He wasn't terrible, but he was a below-average fielder for his position. In fact, for about half of Yount's career, shortstop wasn't his position. He played over 10,000 innings in the outfield, and he was used as a designated hitter as early as 1980, when he was 25. By the time he was 28, Yount was DH-ing regularly. He played 120 games at short, and 39 as a DH. He moved to the outfield the next season.

At the same age, Ripken led the majors in assists (531), with a .990 fielding percentage. He won two Gold Gloves in his thirties. In his career, Ripken played over 20,000 innings at shortstop, compared to about 13,000 for Yount. Looking only at their shortstop years, Ripken has a huge advantage in fielding percentage (.979 to .964), and advanced defensive metrics like Total Zone and Ultimate Zone Rating also show Ripken far ahead. Ripken led all AL shortstops in assists seven times, in putouts six times, and in fielding percentage four times. Yount led once each in assists and putouts. He was more successful as a center fielder.

If you have two great hitters — and they were both great hitters — but one holds a significant fielding advantage, that alone should make it clear who rates ahead. But Ripken is also distinguished by his consistency: he had more productive years than Yount did. Yount, from 1980-84, was otherworldly. Over those five seasons, his line was .303/.355/.498. He averaged 101 runs and 36 doubles per year, and he stole 64 bases. His OPS+ was 139, and his defense was decent, even garnering a Gold Glove in '82, when he was named AL MVP.

Ripken, from 1982-86, was pretty spectacular himself: .291/.353/.487, 106 runs and 94 RBI per year, 68 extra-base hits per season, 131 OPS+, and better defense than Yount. Ripken was also great from 1987-91, and in the 1994-95 strike years. He received MVP votes in 10 different seasons and made 19 all-star teams. Yount, after his magical five-year run, had two more great seasons, 1988 and '89. He received MVP votes in seven seasons and played in three all-star games.

Again, I'm not trying to bash Robin Yount. He was a sensational hitter, and he provided adequate defense at demanding positions. Ripken was better.

Cal Ripken and Derek Jeter

First, let's acknowledge that Derek Jeter's career is not yet over. He did not have a particularly good season in 2010, and appears to be slowing down, but it is entirely possible that he has a couple more big years in him, and the man's intangibles are through the roof. He probably helps his team just by being in the locker room or sitting on the bench.

Even with the possibility of more good years ahead of him, Jeter already has an impressive résumé. He has 1,685 runs and almost 3,000 hits, including seven 200-hit seasons. Throw in five Gold Gloves, 11 all-star appearances, seven years among the top 10 in MVP voting, and 1996 AL Rookie of the Year, and we've got someone who can compete with Ripken.

Offensively, it's harder to compare Ripken with Jeter than with Smith or Yount, because Jeter has played in the offensive explosion of the Selig Era, whereas Ripken was years past his prime when the home run era came in. The raw numbers favor Ripken because he played longer, but the averages go to Jeter.

Ripken: 3184 H, 1078 XBH, 5168 TB, 1647 R, 1695 RBI, 1129 BB, 36 SB
Jeter: 2926 H, 763 XBH, 4218 TB, 1685 R, 1135 RBI, 948 BB, 323 SB

Ripken: .276/.340/.447, 112 OPS+
Jeter: .314/.385/.452, 119 OPS+

It's not apparent to me that either player has a decisive batting edge. Jeter's best years are in the past, and his averages will drop even as he catches up in the other statistics. Forced to rate one ahead of the other, I'd probably go with Jeter, but it's close: 300 extra-base hits, 550 RBI, 950 total bases ... these aren't small things.

Ripken rates as the superior player because of his fielding — because of Jeter's, really. Gold Gloves notwithstanding, Jeter is a subpar defensive shortstop. His fielding percentages are pretty good, league-leading in 2009 and 2010. It's his range that is problematic. He led the AL in putouts and assists once each, but his career Total Zone rating is -129. Ripken's is +176. That's a difference of about 31 wins based on their defense. Call me crazy, but I didn't see 31 wins of difference in their offense.

Cal Ripken and Arky Vaughan

This is just to appease the statheads. Vaughan, ever since Bill James declared him the second-best shortstop in major league history, has become acknowledged as not just a Hall of Famer, but as one of the finest players ever at his position. Vaughan was a fantastic offensive player, a .318 hitter who walked, ran the bases well, and had some power. As a defensive shortstop, he was okay: better than Jeter and Yount, not as good as Ripken.

According to the Win Shares system, developed by James, Vaughan's 1935 season was the best ever by a shortstop other than Honus Wagner. Certainly it was a phenomenal season. Vaughan led the majors in batting average (.385), on-base percentage (.491), OPS (1.098), and OPS+ (190). He led the AL in walks (97) and slugging (.607), scored 108 runs and drove in 99. Hell of a year.

However, according to both Baseball-Reference and FanGraphs, Ripken had two seasons better than that, his MVP campaigns in 1983 and '91. In '91, Ripken hit .323 with 85 extra-base hits, led the majors in total bases (368), and was the best fielder in the league. Is that better than Vaughan's season? I don't think it's any worse. Vaughan probably did have more great seasons than Ripken, but his career was not long: 14 seasons, 1,817 games. Ripken played 21 seasons, 3,001 games. How much better would Vaughan have to be to make up for 1,200 games? Vaughan has a huge advantage in OBP (66 points), but Ripken had more hits (3,184) than Vaughan had total bases (3,003), and he was a better fielder.

Cal Ripken and Everyone Else

Ernie Banks? Joe Cronin? Barry Larkin? I just don't see it, and I think any rigorous analysis makes that clear, so I won't go into depth on the comparisons. Banks was overmatched in the field as a shortstop, actually played more games and more innings at first base. Larkin and Cronin weren't quite as good in the field as Ripken, didn't have quite as much power, and didn't play nearly as many games, 1,000 fewer.

The Streak

Cal Ripken played in 2,632 consecutive games, breaking Lou Gehrig's legendary record. It sometimes seems like this is all anyone wants to talk about with Cal Ripken. In the '90s, it was popular to say that Ripken didn't get enough credit for his consecutive games streak. More recently, it's in vogue to claim that Ripken is overrated because of the streak. Perversely, many fans hold this remarkable accomplishment against him.

If you've made it this far in the column, I'm sure you're smart enough to dismiss out of hand the foolish claim that Ripken is only famous because of the streak. A 19-time all-star, 2-time AL MVP, multiple Gold Glove shortstop, Rookie of the Year, World Series champ, with 3,000 hits, 400 homers, 1,500 runs, 1,500 RBI, 1,000 extra-base hits, and 5,000 total bases — yeah, I think that might be a Hall of Famer regardless.

I don't believe Ripken deserves extra credit for the streak, per sé. But he did play more games because of it, and he deserves credit for what he did in those games. The really ugly accusation that has gotten popular in some quarters is that the streak was selfish, that it should be held against Ripken. Maybe I'm missing something, but this line of thinking strikes me not only as idiotic, but as unforgivably cynical and troublingly mean-spirited. Other players with long consecutive games streaks include Lou Gehrig, Billy Williams, Stan Musial, Nellie Fox, Pete Rose, Richie Ashburn ... Were those selfish players, seeking personal glory at the expense of the team? When you think Ripken, Gehrig, and Musial, is "selfish" the first word that comes to mind? Are these guys that hurt the team?

The argument is that if Ripken and Gehrig and company had taken a day off once in a while, they would have been more effective when they were in the lineup. I don't know if that's true, and you don't, either. But put yourself in Ripken's shoes, or Gehrig's. You're the best player in the world at your position, and it doesn't take a big head to recognize that. If you feel like you can play, don't you owe it to your coaches and teammates to take the field? How much better was Ripken than the Orioles' backup shortstop? How far ahead of the backup first baseman was Gehrig? The streak would have had to really diminish these guys' play to hurt their teams rather than helping.

The numbers, such as they are, would not lead you to believe that Ripken's performance suffered because of the streak. His best season probably was 1991, when Ripken was more than 30 years old and had played in about 1,500 straight games. He won a Gold Glove at age 32, hit .315 when he was 34, 40 doubles and 100 RBI at 36 years and 2,300 games, hit .340 and slugged .584 in 86 games when he was 39. If his performance suffered because he was too hard on his body, I hate to think what he might have accomplished without the streak. When you're playing at that level, you don't think to yourself, "Gee, I'm not playing as well as I could be."

The other popular line of attack, equally unfounded, is that Ripken's numbers are only big because he never missed a game. This doesn't require any complicated math. If you passed fifth grade, you should be able to figure out that this is false. Let's say Ripken had taken off one game every month, plus one extra game a year: that's about 140 games, a little less than a season. Per 162 games, Ripken averaged 172 hits, 33 doubles, 23 homers, 89 runs, and 91 RBI. Let's take all of that away from Ripken, and what we're left with is: 3012 H, 570 2B, 408 HR, 1558 R, 1604 RBI. Man, he barely makes it to 3,000 hits and 400 homers.

If you are capable of even the most basic arithmetic, this argument obviously doesn't hold water. Ripken's batting accomplishments are all the more remarkable because he was an exceptional fielder at the most challenging defensive position in baseball. He had more hits than any other middle infielder since World War II, and hit more home runs as a shortstop than any player in history. Furthermore, modern defensive metrics indicate that his fielding, although highly regarded, actually was underrated.

He inspired a generation of fans, recorded unique accomplishments at his position, and at 6'4", paved the way for today's big shortstops. And if A-Rod plays a few more seasons at third, Ripken just might be the best shortstop since Wagner.