Randal, your presence is required in this thread.

AO

Well, it's not the Badwater Ultramarathon, that's for sure. But the danger is not that baseball players get absolutely fatigued; it's that they might get more fatigued than their opponents.

It must fatigue the brain, though. That's why Riggleman sent Wil Nieves up to bat in a key spot yesterday on purpose.

you ought to be ashamed of yourself if you get physically tired of playing baseball because it shouldn’t be that physically taxing. I could point to Lou Gehrig and Cal Ripken, Jr.

I think greenies must be legal on Daxam.

Regardless of whether or not he is correct it is rather silly to point to the two biggest freaks when it comes to appearing in baseball games. That is like saying it really isn't that hard to hit home runs. Just look at Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds. Record holders are the last guys you want to turn to as shining examples of what we could all do if we just decided to do it.

Well, I've played pro ball before, and although we didn't have the schedule like the MLB guys, the traveling is tirying and you do play 3-5 times a week instead of 1-3 times a week like football or basketball.
It's not as phisically taxing as a football game of course, but playing 162 games in roughly 180 days is.

It's not as phisically taxing as a football game of course, but playing 162 games in roughly 180 days is.

bingo.

i remember reading somebody -- was it charles einstein? -- telling about how after some games willie mays would just be sitting in front of his locker glassy eyed from fatigue. maybe it was late in the season but geez if even willie mays gets gassed, its gotta be a hard game.

Regardless of whether or not he is correct it is rather silly to point to the two biggest freaks when it comes to appearing in baseball games.

I don't know about Gehrig, but Ripken wasn't a physical freak though. I think it only strengthens his point that these guys had no better natural ability than others to stay in shape, so most players should be able to go out there every day.

The question isn't so much can they go out there every day, but should they? Will you get more production out of playing your regular 162 times, or out of playing him in 152 games and his backup in 10 games? I tend to think it's the latter.

I don't know about Gehrig, but Ripken wasn't a physical freak though. I think it only strengthens his point that these guys had no better natural ability than others to stay in shape, so most players should be able to go out there every day.

The fact that he was able to play 2,632 consecutive games suggests he was a physical freak. Some people just naturally have a higher tolerance for pain or fatigue than others and I think there is at least some evidence that Ripken was one of those.

I could point to Lou Gehrig and Cal Ripken, Jr.

So could I. As in plenty of people felt they were hurting their teams by never taking a day off (Babe Ruth said this of Gehrig. Oddly, he had no position on Ripken's streak) . And Ripken did seem to run down quite frequently. His career stats from August on are a fair mount worse than from April to July. (and August was a fair amount better than September on)

And since we've got splits for some of Gehrig's career now:

April..... .328/.434/.614
May...... .336/.450/.641
June..... .385/.475/.763
July...... .339/.440/.641
August.. .354/.441/.617
Sept/Oct .303/.418/.566

Now I'll take Gehrig's post-August stats cheerfully but he did play a fair amount worse late in the season.

The fact that he was able to play 2,632 consecutive games suggests he was a physical freak. Some people just naturally have a higher tolerance for pain or fatigue than others and I think there is at least some evidence that Ripken was one of those.

I think Ripken would have been a better ballplayer if he had taken a day off now and again. Now, obviously what he did got him into the Hall, so it worked for him, but man, some of those long slumps were brutal.

I don't know about Gehrig, but Ripken wasn't a physical freak though.

Yes he was. Physical freaks aren't just Arnold Schwarzenegger types.


Well, I've played pro ball before, and although we didn't have the schedule like the MLB guys, the traveling is tirying and you do play 3-5 times a week instead of 1-3 times a week like football or basketball.
It's not as phisically taxing as a football game of course, but playing 162 games in roughly 180 days is.

I've never played pro ball before but baseball can be very exerting and I would think the majors do a better job of actually doing what you are supposed to do on plays than a softball league. Running around backing up bases and stations, running on contact, running on hits and so on. Do that every day and it starts to wear on you. You can never heal properly so what starts out as a mild tweek stays that way for weeks or gets even worse instead of just merely going away with a couple of days of rest. Yeah, professional athletes are supposed to be in shape but without steroids we all largely heal the same.

The fact that he was able to play 2,632 consecutive games suggests he was a physical freak. Some people just naturally have a higher tolerance for pain or fatigue than others and I think there is at least some evidence that Ripken was one of those.

Sure. But nobody's asking them to even come close to him. The point is that if someone who doesn't seem to have a much different physical makeup than other players can do it for years and years, more than a small fraction of players should be able to string a few months together.

The point is that if someone who doesn't seem to have a much different physical makeup than other players can do it for years and years, more than a small fraction of players should be able to string a few months together.
Page 1 of 1 pages

The thing is that Cal did have a different physical makeup than other players.

Plus let us not forget that while Cal wasn't some muscle freak he was a big guy. He was 6'4" and 200+ pounds. In his prime he was physically bigger and probably stronger than most MLB players.

Try telling some 170 pound 5'10" SS that he shouldn't need a rest during the season after Cal or Albert Belle collides with him while trying to breakup a doubleplay.

I'm with Riggleman to a point. In an age when MLB players make enough money not to need a second job and can access the best training and health care in the world, there is absolutely no reason for any of them to become physically fatigued by the season. Eat right, get your sleep after the game and go into the season in good cardiovascular shape and you'll be fine.


Where the day in day out grind gets you is mental fatigue and I think it is generally underappreciated what mental fatigue gets you. There is also a macho BS bit of being tough enough such that instead of admit that they need a mental break, they chalk it up to a physical cause. Mental and emotional fatigue can manifest as physical fatigue, of course. But that blank look on Willie's face was, IMO, not so much from being tired of running around but from the mental stress of being "on" for such long, unbroken periods.

The thing is that Cal did have a different physical makeup than other players.

I didn't know that - in which way? I knew he was really big for a SS.

i remember reading somebody -- was it charles einstein? -- telling about how after some games willie mays would just be sitting in front of his locker glassy eyed from fatigue. maybe it was late in the season but geez if even willie mays gets gassed, its gotta be a hard game.

I'd just like to throw in that I love Charles Einstein's writing, fiction and non-fiction. A wonderful, perceptive writer.

there is absolutely no reason for any of them to become physically fatigued by the season.

Well, they do, though. There isn't a position on the field where you won't get tired & beat-up doing it every day for months.
Like a lot of things in life, it's harder than it looks.

I was just looking up Riggleman's stats from when he was a player. There aren't any.

There is a combined mental and physical fatigue. A player has to be ready to respond in 0.25 seconds to hit a 95mph fastball (or get the hell out of the way), get a quick first step on a grounder, fly ball or good jump to the next base. Being wired for 250 pitches per game to respond in an instant does tend to wear out the brain and body.

I'm with Riggleman to a point. In an age when MLB players make enough money not to need a second job and can access the best training and health care in the world, there is absolutely no reason for any of them to become physically fatigued by the season. Eat right, get your sleep after the game and go into the season in good cardiovascular shape and you'll be fine.

When I think of physical fatigue for ballplayers, I'm not thinking of guys being winded or out of shape, but rather the accumulation of countless minor dings, tweaks and bruises that never fully get a chance to heal up over the course of the season. Essentially what McCoy says in #13.

Also, I definitely think people underestimate the mental fatigue. These guys have a tremendous amount of pressure on them... they have massive amounts of money at stake or massive contracts to live up to, the expectations of management, teammates, the media and fans, plus most of them tend to be extremely competitive guys who are used to succeeding. For all that the media likes to bash lazy players, I'm pretty confident most MLB players bust their ass the majority of the time and are probably their own worst critic.

Eat right, get your sleep after the game and go into the season in good cardiovascular shape and you'll be fine.

Of course, getting sleep after the game can be tough if you have to hustle out to the airport, fly across the country, take a taxi/bus to the hotel and then check in, and try to crash on a strange bed, all after a game ends at 10:30pm on the east coast.

I didn't know that - in which way? I knew he was really big for a SS.

He was really big for a MLB player too. Plus the guy was a lot tougher than 99.99999% of the players in the history of the game. That is pretty close to being a freak as one can get if not downright being a freak.

double post

Plus let us not forget that while Cal wasn't some muscle freak he was a big guy. He was 6'4" and 200+ pounds. In his prime he was physically bigger and probably stronger than most MLB players.

Where does this idea come from in baseball that bigger guys are more durable? It really seems to come up in the pitching talk, regarding guys like Oswalt and Lincecum.

For all that the media likes to bash lazy players, I'm pretty confident most MLB players bust their ass the majority of the time and are probably their own worst critic.

I don't know why you would be confident of that. Surely, players don't exert equal effort on the field, so I'm not sure why they would all be putting in the requisite time off it.

I do believe that a season is long and a grind and that time off is wise, even for the Ripken and Gehrig types. That there is both a physical and mental toll taken.

I also suspect that some not-insignificant percentage of players are not maximizing their conditioning to best handle the haul of a long season.

i can believe the mental aspect. i trained for the LA marathon this year and used a training schedule i found on the internet that was very useful ... but jeez by the time you are in full training mode you are working out 5 days a week and running 30-45 miles a week. aside from the chronic soreness the idea of having to run 8 miles the day after you ran 6 miles and realizing you have a workout the next day plus a double-digit run on the weekend ... it gets inside your head.

Plus the guy was a lot tougher than 99.99999% of the players in the history of the game.
I was talking about biological disposition though. This comment seems to support Riggleman's argument.

Baseball isn't physically taxing.

signed,
Gil Meche, Carlos Febles, the New York Mets, Rocco Baldelli, and Mike Hampton

I was just looking up Riggleman's stats from when he was a player. There aren't any.

Are you suggesting that someone who has spent many years as a MLB manager isn't qualified to give an opinion on this issue?

Though looking at his myspace, I think I agree with you: http://www.myspace.com/bigjim1368

I was talking about biological disposition though. This comment seems to support Riggleman's argument.

I am talking biologically. There are some people that can take more than others and isn't because some people are lolligagging.

I had a friend who ended groing to about 6'10". He was a couple years younger than me but even before he hit puberty he managed to match my height and build and then surpass. Athletically he was much better than me but he was much more fragile than me. Always tearing, snapping, or breaking something. Consequently he spent most of his childhood on crutches, in a cast, or in a doctor's office while I spent most my childhood playing sports and not getting injured.

I'm having a hard time with this argument because it seems like you guys are begging the question. I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing it (please correct me if I'm wrong): "Ripken's not a good example b/c he had such an amazing streak. He had this streak b/c he's a physical freak. We know he's a physical freak b/c otherwise, this streak wouldn't have been possible." In other words, it seems like circular reasoning.

I don't know why you would be confident of that. Surely, players don't exert equal effort on the field, so I'm not sure why they would all be putting in the requisite time off it.

They don't all exert equal effort because they're not all capable of exerting the same amount of effort. But I do believe that most players play up to their capabilities the vast majority of the time. I also believe that most players do work hard on their conditioning... for all the jokes about C.C. Sabathia being a fatty, he's also clearly strong and has more endurance than the vast majority of pitchers. Again, some work harder than others, but there are very few MLB players I think you could definitively say are "out of shape". We're not selling jeans here... it's impossible to even say what ideal conditioning is for these guys, let alone tell if they've achieved it by looking at them in uniform.

We're not selling jeans here... it's impossible to even say what ideal conditioning is for these guys, let alone tell if they've achieved it by looking at them in uniform.

True, which makes it surprising to me that you're confident that the vast majority of them have actually achieved it.

To me, it's not about how they look (your CC example is a good one). But whether they're actually doing what is necessary to give them the best chance of avoiding, or minimizing, late-season fatigue. Human nature would suggest to me that a sizable number really aren't.

In my wildest fantasies about being a pro athlete (I'll not describe any others), I always conclude that there is no ####### way that I would be able to last more than a few years having to travel once a week, on average, for 6 months of the year. Not just because I don't like the travel part, but all that comes with it, as others have described earlier in the thread. Strange bed, weird hours, boredom...I'd have retired young.

After reading Jose Canseco's Juiced, I have come to the conclusion that it is possible to work very hard on your conditioning but also be a lackadaisacal lollygagger with a very short attention span.

I'm having a hard time with this argument because it seems like you guys are begging the question. I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing it (please correct me if I'm wrong): "Ripken's not a good example b/c he had such an amazing streak. He had this streak b/c he's a physical freak. We know he's a physical freak b/c otherwise, this streak wouldn't have been possible." In other words, it seems like circular reasoning.

How was Ripken not a physical freak? How many 6'4" 200 pound men are there in this world? How many of them are as athletically gifted as Ripken was? Just because he didn't look like Arnold doesn't mean he wasn't a freak.

What's relevant isn't Ripken's size, but his healing ability. As others have noted, playing baseball may not be as intense as basketball or football on a per game basis - but there are bumps, bruises, slight strains, contusions, etc happening all the time (leaving out more serious injuries). Unlike basketball and football, there isn't days or a week for those injuries to heal - players go out there six or seven times most weeks, sometimes worsening those minor injuries. Playing 162 games means that there are periods that minor injuries make it difficult to play at 100%. Ripken's freakish nature was that he either was able to avoid many of those minor injuries, or was able to play through them, or was able to heal more rapidly than average - or most likely, a combination of those. Most players would end up with a minor ankle twist that would get worse until it could be rested for a day or two - early in his career Ripken was able to avoid the effects of those. Later in his career not so much, but by then the streak was in full effect.

Cal Ripken Career OPS by Months

April/March .790
May .792
June .812
July .819
August .766
Sept/Oct .748

OPS+ by age
20-23 132
24-27 124
28-32 114
33-36 98

Cal wasn't a physical freak, he was a mental freak. He had a condition, the technical term is called "Ego-Mania" or more commonly known as selfishness, that made it easier to put individual goals ahead of team achievements in a team sport.

He wore down. At the end of every season. Prematurely as his career went on, his monster 162 OPS+ season at age 30 seemed to say, he's still got it, if he's not as tired or nicked up for one full season he can still amaze you.

And he even refused to move positions to make it easier for him.

Yep, he's one to emulate.

Cal wasn't a physical freak, he was a mental freak.

Really? So Cals are a dime a dozen are they?

I find it fascinating that the year after Ripken's streak ended, when he went from a literally everyday player to a half-time player, he also went from .271/.331/.389 to .340/.368/.584. Kind of makes you wonder what he might have done at 145 games a year rather than 162.

In my wildest fantasies about being a pro athlete (I'll not describe any others), I always conclude that there is no ####### way that I would be able to last more than a few years having to travel once a week, on average, for 6 months of the year. Not just because I don't like the travel part, but all that comes with it, as others have described earlier in the thread. Strange bed, weird hours, boredom...I'd have retired young.

The constant servicing by the groupies would have done you in.

I find it fascinating that the year after Ripken's streak ended, when he went from a literally everyday player to a half-time player, he also went from .271/.331/.389 to .340/.368/.584. Kind of makes you wonder what he might have done at 145 games a year rather than 162.

Cal was hurt at the beginning (back injury) of 1999. When he was healthy he played almost everyday. For instance in June when he really started hitting he missed one game. In July he missed a game at the beginning and then got injured in the middle of July (deep bone bruise in wrist) in a game that had him miss 5 games and then he missed all of August as well with a back injury and finally he missed out on the last 13 games of the season with an injury.

Ripken in 1999 wasn't taking the occasional day off to stay refreshed. He wanted to be in the lineup everyday but his body wouldn't let him.

While Cal Ripken was genetically gifted in terms of healing and not getting injured, Eric Davis seemed to be on the other side on the spectrum. Remember when Davis suffered a lacerated kidney making a diving catch? I thought that only happened if you had the misfortune to be stabbed.

I find it fascinating that the year after Ripken's streak ended, when he went from a literally everyday player to a half-time player, he also went from .271/.331/.389 to .340/.368/.584. Kind of makes you wonder what he might have done at 145 games a year rather than 162.

It does?

Cal wasn't a physical freak, he was a mental freak. He had a condition, the technical term is called "Ego-Mania" or more commonly known as selfishness, that made it easier to put individual goals ahead of team achievements in a team sport.

While this may be true, I've never faulted Ripken for it. His job was to play baseball, and he showed up for work ready and eager to do it every day.

To the extent that The Streak got in the way of Ripken performing his best, and the Orioles maximizing their wins -- and I think that certainly did become the case -- the party to be blamed isn't Ripken. It's his management. Somebody in that organization, either the manager or the GM or the owner or somebody, needed to have the gonads to not be intimidated by Ripken, and make the executive decision to do what was best for the organization. In other words, do their job, just as Ripken was doing his.

They didn't, and that's to their detriment, not to Ripken's.

True, which makes it surprising to me that you're confident that the vast majority of them have actually achieved it.

To me, it's not about how they look (your CC example is a good one). But whether they're actually doing what is necessary to give them the best chance of avoiding, or minimizing, late-season fatigue. Human nature would suggest to me that a sizable number really aren't.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I've never said all or most players are in ideal physical condition (since we don't necessarily even know what that is for baseball purposes), only that I believe the vast majority work hard on their fitness. For most players, you can tell by looking at them. They're buff and have the sort of physiques that are impossible to get without regular vigorous exercise. Others, like C.C., look like fat bastards, but have the kind of stamina and endurance that can only come with serious training. I recall C.C. once challenging some media guys to try to keep up with him in his workouts if they thought he was such a fatass. Nobody volunteered.

Throw in the vast financial incentives and the competitive drive that is almost ubiquitous among top level athletes and it's easy to see why lazy guys who can't be bothered to make an effort keeping in shape are strongly selected against in MLB. Although we don't know exactly what ideal baseball shape is, we know it doesn't involve being weak and tiring easily.

Somebody in that organization, either the manager or the GM or the owner or somebody, needed to have the gonads to not be intimidated by Ripken, and make the executive decision to do what was best for the organization. In other words, do their job, just as Ripken was doing his.

They didn't, and that's to their detriment, not to Ripken's.

I'm pretty sure that Orioles ownership decided at some point that The Streak was too valuable a commodity to throw away, regardless of how it affected their on-field success. It was made abundantly clear that deferring to Cal was a condition of being an Orioles GM or field manager.

#42...I like the way you think. Although that circumstance would have made the decision to retire more difficult.

I guess Riggleman's already tired of managing the Nats but just doesn't like to use that word.

I'm pretty sure that Orioles ownership decided at some point that The Streak was too valuable a commodity to throw away, regardless of how it affected their on-field success. It was made abundantly clear that deferring to Cal was a condition of being an Orioles GM or field manager.

Oh, no doubt. But if I was an Orioles' fan, I'd be a bit disgusted by it.

Of course, once Ripken was within hailing distance of 2,130, then The Streak had become something seriously valuable as a marketing asset, though of no value whatsoever (indeed, negative value) to the goal of winning games. Which is why the organization should have cut it off long before then, as, for instance, the Cubs did when they sat Billy Williams down for a game in 1970, just to get the monkey off of everyone's back.

Of course, once Ripken was within hailing distance of 2,130, then The Streak had become something seriously valuable as a marketing asset, though of no value whatsoever (indeed, negative value) to the goal of winning games. Which is why the organization should have cut it off long before then, as, for instance, the Cubs did when they sat Billy Williams down for a game in 1970, just to get the monkey off of everyone's back.

You might could argue, though, that the extra money that the Going Nowhere Orioles brought in with that streak was more useful to an intelligent management*** than an extra win or two for what was nearly always a non-contending team. This wasn't like the despicable decision by the Braves to sit down Hank Aaron at the start of the 1974 season, just to ensure that he didn't break Ruth's record on the road. Keeping Cal in the lineup at that point wasn't much different than bringing up a minor leaguer on a semi-experimental basis, even though you knew he wasn't likely to produce better than the player he was replacing in the lineup.

Now if you'd argue that in 1996 or 1997 he should have been rested, that's a much easier case to make, since the streak record was already his and the Orioles were in the thick of a division race all year.

***Talk about a gold-plated straight line, but nevertheless....

Now if you'd argue that in 1996 or 1997 he should have been rested, that's a much easier case to make, since the streak record was already his and the Orioles were in the thick of a division race all year.

Yes, but I'm not even arguing that. I'm arguing that they should have sat him down to kill the streak, and from that point on enacted a reasonable resting protocol for him, many years before that, probably some time in the late 1980s.

I was at the game where he finally sat out, and he sure got a big hand for doing it. Not that anyone sitting around me seemed to notice it when the LINEUPS were on the scoreboard. I hope I still have that scorecard, even though Ryan Minor truly was minor.

When did the streak become to big for Ripken or the Orioles to effectively deal with it? My recollection is that as early as '87/'88 people were talking about the issue and his MVP year of '91 eliminated any question. Is my timeline wrong?

When did the streak become to big for Ripken or the Orioles to effectively deal with it? My recollection is that as early as '87/'88 people were talking about the issue and his MVP year of '91 eliminated any question. Is my timeline wrong?

I think your timeline is right, but I take issue with the notion that as early as '87/'88 the point had been reached that the Orioles could no longer "effectively deal with it". Of course people were talking about it, but he was barely halfway to 2,130 in that period. That would have been the best time to kill the streak, and make sure the Orioles as an organization were focused on winning games and not on lionizing their superstar.

Nobody has pointed out yet that being a catcher is pretty darned physically taxing.

Neither here nor there, but SP is obviously the MOST physically taxing position, isn't it?

People were talking about the Streak, believe it or not, as early as 1983, because Ripken played every inning of every game that year. He didn't miss another inning, if my glance at B-Ref is accurate, until 1987. Of course it was absurd to extrapolate him to Gehrig's record in his second year as a regular, but the consecutive-inning thing was so extreme (no pinch runners, no caddies, nothing) that he showed that early that the streak was in his sights.

As to when it got too big, I wonder. IIRC Steve Garvey, the inhuman monster, also really wanted to match Gehrig, but had to end his streak when a HBP broke his wrist or some other vital joint. That could have happened to Ripken any time without the world stopping on its axis, so I agree with Steve that it shouldn't have been that hard to stop him voluntarily. The closest anyone came IIRC was the moron who broke his nose during the All-Star team picture (who was that?)

The closest anyone came IIRC was the moron who broke his nose during the All-Star team picture (who was that?)

Roberto Hernandez

Now if you'd argue that in 1996 or 1997 he should have been rested, that's a much easier case to make, since the streak record was already his and the Orioles were in the thick of a division race all year.

Yes, but I'm not even arguing that. I'm arguing that they should have sat him down to kill the streak, and from that point on enacted a reasonable resting protocol for him, many years before that, probably some time in the late 1980s.

I agree you could make a pretty good case for that, though it's not a foregone conclusion that it would have done much good. First, the O's shortstop replacements prior to Bordick were just dreadful; second, Cal's fielding never seemed to suffer; and third, Cal was such a completely streaky hitter to begin with that I'm not all that sure it had that much to do with a lack of rest. He was the weirdest combination of extreme athleticism and godawful swing mechanics. Except for his handful of relatively high average years, it seemed as if he were changing his stance about every half dozen games, and for a player with relatively good productivity, he was the worst looking hitter I've ever seen. I'm not sure just how much rest would have helped that. A psychiatrist, maybe.

I agree you could make a pretty good case for that, though it's not a foregone conclusion that it would have done much good. First, the O's shortstop replacements prior to Bordick were just dreadful; second, Cal's fielding never seemed to suffer; and third, Cal was such a completely streaky hitter to begin with that I'm not all that sure it had that much to do with a lack of rest.

Well, obviously no one can know for sure. But as far as the SS replacements issue goes, that's kind of a moot point; all I'm suggesting is sitting him down for a few games a year, not a significant portion. Every team has somebody who can play backup SS.

As for the degree that getting an occasional rest would have helped his hitting, while of course we don't know, I think it's at least fair to say that sitting down once in a while wouldn't have hurt his hitting. And given what we know about all other ballplayers, it's simply logical to imagine that he'd have been a bit stronger late in the season, and thus less prone to display the Aug/Sept slumps that are evident in #39.

While he was obviously an extraordinarily durable athlete (an understatement), I'm unconvinced that Ripken was fundamentally different from everyone else. It's essentially taken for granted that position players, perhaps especially middle infielders, stand to benefit from the occasional rest. I see no reason to conclude that Ripken would be uniquely distinct in this regard.

You're probably right, Steve, but I'm still glad he hung in there. It's one of the handful of individual records that I really paid much attention to or cared about, even though I know that in truth it was far more symbolic than anything else.

It's one of the handful of individual records that I really paid much attention to or cared about, even though I know that in truth it was far more symbolic than anything else.

It was an awesome achievement, no question about it. Ripken deserves all respect for it. It's just an interesting irony that this record, broadly understood to represent the epitome of selflessness and dedication to team, was likely in fact not in the best interests of the team (insofar as winning games), and thus the optimal competitive move from the team's point of view would have been to deliberately avert The Streak rather than enable it.