Settle my Hall of Fame argument

castiglionefan · 04-27-2007, 09:35 PM

Who would you take to start your franchise; Tony Gwynn or Cal Ripken, jr.

I say Tony Gwynn. You know the eight batting titles and the .338 batting average. Plus, he won five Gold Gloves.

My buddy would Cal Ripken, jr. He is won over by his durability and the fact that he won two Gold Gloves at baseball's toughest position. He also likes his 400-plus home runs and all-around better power numbers.

Help us settle this thing!

JoseA · 04-27-2007, 10:45 PM

Tony Gwynn hands down. His batting average was over 60 points higher than Ripken's and he was a all around better player.

Sure Ripken had more power, but that doesn't mean that much. In his hay day Gwynn could steal bases too, and was a complete baseball player. His work ethic is amazing. Ripken was good, but he gained most of his fame because of being the "Iron Man"

bedir than average · 04-27-2007, 10:54 PM

One would actually have to go with Ripken. He was the reason that it is acceptable for a power hitter to be a SS. Plus defense up the middle is worth so much more than defense in RF.

In judging baseball talent, power is the most important tool. Cal had it, Gwynn didn't.

JoseA · 04-27-2007, 11:17 PM

So people like Ty Cobb and Ichiro aren't that important.....Hate to tell you power is hardly anything, in fact close to nothing at all when evaluating a player

If you bat for a high average and have other skills it makes up for power....Pure hitting is the most important skill....

Didn't Cal Ripken ground into the most double plays in MLB history? That is an inning killer, Gwynn has so much more to offer. He was a way more versitile player and a better one hands down.

jtur88 · 04-29-2007, 01:34 PM

To start a franchise, I'd take Ripken---he has better trade value. Then, I'd trade Ripken for Gwynn. a decent pitcher and several prospects.

Zen653 · 04-29-2007, 11:40 PM

I'd go with Ripken because he played a more valuable defensive position. There are always going to be a lot of great outfielders around, in any era, but shortstop is a much harder position to fill. Ripken might be a top 5 shortstop in the history of the game, whereas Gwynn probably ranks somewhere in the 20s, at best, for all-time outfielders. It's important to look at a player within the context of his position.

JMUplayer · 05-19-2007, 01:54 AM

You take Ripken for ONE reason... he's more marketable.
more money = better team (usually)
Ripken is a GOD on the east coast...
Tony Gwynn is a Hall of Famer but he's not a beloved. He's extremely well liked but not beloved.

WilsonC · 05-24-2007, 12:47 PM

I would agree that Gwynn was the better hitter of the two, but if I were to pick one or the other, it would be Ripken easily.

While not quite on Gwynn's level offensively, Ripken was nonetheless a really good hitter. He had more power and was still a legitamate middle of the order hitter, while playing a far more crucial defensive position, and playing it well. When viewed symbolically as his claim to fame, it's easy to forget what Ripken's Iron Man streak really meant in baseball terms. The fact that he was so ridiculously durable as a very good hitting shortstop meant that his teams never had to plug a weak-hitting utility infielder in his place. Durability is an important skill, especially at a position where it's hard to find a suitable replacement.

The combination of defensive value and durability easily outweight Gwynn's pure offensive advantages.

04-27-2007, 09:35 PM	#1 (permalink)
castiglionefan Rookie Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5	Settle my Hall of Fame argument Who would you take to start your franchise; Tony Gwynn or Cal Ripken, jr. I say Tony Gwynn. You know the eight batting titles and the .338 batting average. Plus, he won five Gold Gloves. My buddy would Cal Ripken, jr. He is won over by his durability and the fact that he won two Gold Gloves at baseball's toughest position. He also likes his 400-plus home runs and all-around better power numbers. Help us settle this thing!

04-27-2007, 10:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
JoseA Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: USA Posts: 2,097	Tony Gwynn hands down. His batting average was over 60 points higher than Ripken's and he was a all around better player. Sure Ripken had more power, but that doesn't mean that much. In his hay day Gwynn could steal bases too, and was a complete baseball player. His work ethic is amazing. Ripken was good, but he gained most of his fame because of being the "Iron Man" __________________ Register here and join the discussion

04-27-2007, 10:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
bedir than average Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Starbucks Posts: 8,256	One would actually have to go with Ripken. He was the reason that it is acceptable for a power hitter to be a SS. Plus defense up the middle is worth so much more than defense in RF. In judging baseball talent, power is the most important tool. Cal had it, Gwynn didn't. __________________ US Men's National Team World Cup Qualifying \| Democracy in Sports Meets My First Campaign "You're only so sure you're right because they're so sure you're wrong." Orson Scott Card in Xenocide

04-27-2007, 11:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
JoseA Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: USA Posts: 2,097	So people like Ty Cobb and Ichiro aren't that important.....Hate to tell you power is hardly anything, in fact close to nothing at all when evaluating a player If you bat for a high average and have other skills it makes up for power....Pure hitting is the most important skill.... Didn't Cal Ripken ground into the most double plays in MLB history? That is an inning killer, Gwynn has so much more to offer. He was a way more versitile player and a better one hands down. __________________ Register here and join the discussion

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.fanhome.com/forums/baseball-history-trivia/6653-settle-my-hall-fame-argument.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
trivia: Blogs, Photos, Videos and more on Technorati	This thread	Refback	04-27-2007 10:35 PM

04-29-2007, 01:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,701	To start a franchise, I'd take Ripken---he has better trade value. Then, I'd trade Ripken for Gwynn. a decent pitcher and several prospects.

04-29-2007, 11:40 PM	#6 (permalink)
Zen653 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,726	I'd go with Ripken because he played a more valuable defensive position. There are always going to be a lot of great outfielders around, in any era, but shortstop is a much harder position to fill. Ripken might be a top 5 shortstop in the history of the game, whereas Gwynn probably ranks somewhere in the 20s, at best, for all-time outfielders. It's important to look at a player within the context of his position.

05-19-2007, 01:54 AM	#7 (permalink)
JMUplayer Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 204	You take Ripken for ONE reason... he's more marketable. more money = better team (usually) Ripken is a GOD on the east coast... Tony Gwynn is a Hall of Famer but he's not a beloved. He's extremely well liked but not beloved.

05-24-2007, 12:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 121	I would agree that Gwynn was the better hitter of the two, but if I were to pick one or the other, it would be Ripken easily. While not quite on Gwynn's level offensively, Ripken was nonetheless a really good hitter. He had more power and was still a legitamate middle of the order hitter, while playing a far more crucial defensive position, and playing it well. When viewed symbolically as his claim to fame, it's easy to forget what Ripken's Iron Man streak really meant in baseball terms. The fact that he was so ridiculously durable as a very good hitting shortstop meant that his teams never had to plug a weak-hitting utility infielder in his place. Durability is an important skill, especially at a position where it's hard to find a suitable replacement. The combination of defensive value and durability easily outweight Gwynn's pure offensive advantages.