Cal Ripken’s WSAA
January 09, 2007
Bah, humbug.
Please forgive me, but I’m a Cal Ripken cynic. I don’t know why the record for consecutive games played is so important. Durability is nice, yes, but Ripken’s consecutive games played streak was obviously engineered; his managers wrote his name in the lineup regardless of how he felt, or how well he was playing at the time. It wasn’t a question of performance.
I don’t mean to denigrate the guy on his big day, but I do want to point out that his Hall of Fame credentials, without that consecutive-game streak halo, might be a bit more debatable than you’ve been hearing lately.
I’m not going to go into a long, winding statistical explanation of why I think so. I did one thing: I calculated Win Shares Above Average (WSAA) for his career. There are two basic reasons I think this is a good approach:
- While Win Shares may be flawed, they at least do all the things I would try to do on my own: they adjust for league and park, they include fielding prowess, and they consider the player’s position. They also attempt to truly quantify a player’s concrete contribution to his team’s wins.
- When evaluating a player for the Hall, I think a comparison to an average player is appropriate. I could compare him to a “replacement player,” but why should someone be elected to the Hall based on that? I prefer a higher standard, and I think average is appropriate.
So I concocted a quick and dirty way to calculate Win Shares Above Average based on games played (works for everyday players only; and assumes players played entire games). Babe Ruth, of course, is first in WSAA, followed by Ty Cobb, Barry Bonds and Honus Wagner. Cal Ripken is 136th, tied with Scott Rolen. Now, Scott Rolen may well deserve to be inducted into the Hall. But I’ll bet a lot more people will debate his candidacy than have debated Ripken’s.
I understand that Ripken meant something special to people. But if you’re like me, and you don’t get all that excited about a consecutive-games record, you may feel a little less overwhelmed by his Hall qualifications.
Ripken did have several great MVP-type years. Here’s a chart of his Runs Created per Game each year, as provided by Fangraphs:
While Ripken had three or four great years, many of his seasons were in the average range. For comparison: here’s a graph of Derek Jeter’s Runs Created Per Game:
Jeter, a certain Hall of Famer who currently ranks 124th in WSAA, has sustained excellence throughout most of his career.
Well, you know what they say about statistics? But since you brought up stats, lets look a few you chose not to include.
3184 hits
438 HR’s
1695 RBI’s
1305 BB (a # three hitter, unbelievable)
2632 consecutive games
Yes, durable, but did he not play thru pain, injuires, sickness, etc. Did other players need a day off because they just couldn’t handle the grind of a 162 game schedule. This guy could, and did it for over 14 straight years. Plus, you have to be consistent enough not to be pulled from a game, not to be traded to another team, Leaders lead certain ways, he did it by not only playing the game but respecting the game.
Of course, something statistics don’t show is a requirement for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. THe other requirements beside player ability are: sportsmanship and integrity.
We can certainly argue about stats all day, and I’m sure neither of us would change our minds. But in this day and age, is there really someone more deserving than Ripken when it comes to sportsmanship and integrity. Played the game like it was supposed to play.
No demand for a trade.
No demand for more money.
No demand for team to get better players
No DUI’s
No wife beatings
No gun charges
No bar room brawls
No wife cheating
No trash talking
No drug problems ( he admits he took Tylenol a few times during his streak)
Absolutely not a one disparaging thing can be said about this guy.
Posted by RJ on 01/11 at 10:01 AM
Good points, obviously, though I have to ask how you know he was such an upstanding character. How about his demand that he stay at shortstop, past his prime for fielding there? Or the headache he gave Davey Johnson when Johnson thought a day off would be good for the team? What about respect for the manager?
Beware of counting stats. Yes, he accumulated a lot of them (though I’m not sure why you think that 1,305 BB’s is unbelievable for a number three hitter), but he is also fourth in major league history in outs made.
I’m not saying he doesn’t belong in the Hall, that he didn’t accumulate a lot of stats or that he isn’t a fine guy. All I’m saying is that he’s not close to being the third-best player of all time (which is what his voting percentage would imply). He’s not even the 34th best (which is what his Win Share total would imply).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/11 at 01:18 PM
Ripken’s graph confirms what anyone who followed his career already knew—that his latter years (1992-2001) were nothing special offensively except for his injury-shortened ‘99. Jeter’s graph, to me, shows how valuable his OBPs have been despite his somewhat less impressive power numbers.
Caveats: the graphs do not show Jeter’s decline years—he’s probably about to begin them now—and they do not include defense. Now, I know there are no foolproof defensive stats, but if you compare Fielding Win Shares or FRAA, Ripken has a clear advantage over the first half of their careers.
A-Rod smokes ‘em both, though. He’s in another category as a hitter, and his fielding wasn’t as bad as Jeter’s. It’s too bad he wasn’t able to stay at shortstop a few years longer, for historical comparison’s sake.
Posted by
tbw on 01/13 at 02:33 AM
Good piece Studes. I should come to this blog more often.
My take is that Ripken is hall-worthy. Given the postion he played he certainly racked up some pretty impressive count stats. However, you bring up some good points ... he certainly had his fare share of mediocre years. The consecutive streak is the icing on the cake. Is it hall worthy? In itself probably not, but combined with everything else I don’t have a problem with him making it.
Had he been in the game 20 years later I’m sure he’d have mashed over 500 homers.
Posted by John Beamer on 01/14 at 02:03 PM
I should qualify my “20 years later” point as it looks stupid and wrong. I meant had he been at his peak in the late 90s rather than the mid-late 80s. League SLG was 40 points better when he finished his careers that he when he started it.
Posted by John Beamer on 01/14 at 09:59 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
