Print is dead.

- Egon

Egon is dead.

-- Print

Good for the Sporting News. I always thought that record was wildly overpraised.

This off-field error ranks right down there with one perpetrated awhile back by members of the Society For American Baseball Research (SABR) who voted Ty Cobb (lifetime B.A.: .366) the seventh-best player in history. What fools these mortals be!


You tell em!

I've never understood the fascination with the games played streak. I'm impressed that a shortstop was able to set the record, but beyond that, I don't think it has any real 'value'. I applaud players who play everyday, I think it's one of the most underrated skills in the game, but it's not a venerable record to me, not close to a dozen plus other records in MLB.

Agreed, especially, iirc, if his Sept stats suffered.

Seemed kind of OCD - and no one filled a stadium for the hands-washing champ...

Yet another list that never gets around to defining "greatest". I kind of like Joe Sewell's 114 strikeouts in 8329 PA's myself, or 10 K's per 162 games. Break that, David Eckstein.

I don't quite understand the fascination with the games played streak -- 162 games played is only marginally more valuable than 161 -- but I understand the love for guys who play close to every day, and don't miss 20+ games each season. Over the course of a long career, that's an extra 2 or 3 seasons worth of games that guy like Ripken plays, which a guy like Larry Walker doesn't.

Do they think that Cobb ranking is too high, or too low?

Based on the mention of the batting average, I'm guessing he thinks he's top 3.

It's pretty much the epitome of a me-before-team record, and Ripken, though obviously overall great, would have been benched and rested at various points in the streak when he was totally sucking and hurting the team if not for the fact that the manager's head would have rolled. Good on Sporting News for downplaying this overrated, artificial, and self-centered accomplishment.

I've always admired the record. In a world where modern players are criticized for a lack of dedication I think Ripken deserves accolades for showing up and playing everyday. To answer cfb I think a reduced version of a star like Ripken has tremendous value over whatever his backup might produce.

I hear the arguments about Ripken being selfish but for me a guy showing up to play is a positive, not a negative.

I think it has a lot to do with context.

There's a narrative that Ripken "saved" baseball after the strike with his streak. And since the other saviour narratives (McGwire, Sosa) are now problematic for some, Ripken stands as the one record from that era that we can all still feel good about. Also I think the fact that Gehrig was who he was lent some importance to the record. I could be wrong on this but I'm not sure the "iron man" records in NFL, NBA, or NHL have ever been quite as hallowed as in MLB.

For people who venerate the Ripken record I don't think it's about "value" at all.

#12 There was at least one stretch that Ripken played every day while producing far less than a backup would have given.

First one that comes to mind is July-August 1992 where he hit .178/.286/.215 and .218/.267/.255 -- playing while believed to be injured (it's an awfully long stretch of terrible play from somebody that good if he wasn't hurt) And he had plenty of other long stretches of terrible play. To an extent that's what separates his best years from the rest. The down points of the year aren't a long stretch of hitting like a backup SS.

Worth noting that he isn't the first player that this criticism was applied to. Babe Ruth claimed that Gehrig's streak hurt Gehrig (and presumably the Yankees too). And Gehrig really did play worse after August 31. That said, we are talking about .308/.429/.566 then (and for what it's worth he hit .318/.431/.560 before May 1. Warm weather hitter?) -- I know I'd settle.

I can find only one stretch where it looks like the Yankees would have been better off to sit Gehrig. July 1933 when he hit .259/.322/.398. I thought that was the stretch when he was battling a terrible cold and had that game where he was listed as the SS, batted leadoff and then was lifted but that was July 1934. (He had a 1 AB game the previous day too, but played fine before and after this and went 2 for 2 in those two 1 AB games) I'm not aware of any particular incident in 1933. He just didn't hit for a month. It happens to everybody but I'm sure it stuck in Ruth's mind.

I don't think Ripken's record is all that unbreakable. It just takes a combination of talent (to play that long), luck (to not get injured), and desire to break it (probably the easiest of the three to find). This could be done under the current conditions.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone will ever hit over .400 or win 30 games in a season.

I don't think Ripken's record is all that unbreakable. It just takes a combination of talent (to play that long), luck (to not get injured), and desire to break it (probably the easiest of the three to find). This could be done under the current conditions.

It would also take a manager who assigned importance to that streak even before it got long enough to be noticed, and never suggested taking off a day game following a night game while the player was in a slump.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone will ever hit over .400 or win 30 games in a season.

Both Brett and Gwynn flirted with that mark long enough to make me think that .400 isn't out of the question, especially in some hypothetical future "offensive era".

And while 30 games would be tough with today's max of 35 games started, a combination of a Halladay level talent, a lot of run support, a bit of luck (in avoiding Chris Carpenter in heat) and a shutdown bullpen might put that mark within reach. In any case, I'd be surprised if Ripken's streak doesn't outlive everyone posting these comments.

Yeah, if Bob Welch could win 27 games in 35 starts and 238 innings, 30 could happen for a truly elite pitcher given the right breaks.

I could be wrong on this but I'm not sure the "iron man" records in NFL, NBA, or NHL have ever been quite as hallowed as in MLB.

there was a lot of Farve-llatio by the media regarding his consecutive start streak

Agreed with Gotham.

You get a good or better pitcher having a good year on a really good team with a fine bullpen and yes, 30 wins is possible.

You take Verlander having his 2011, maybe he gets another start or two, the Tigers score 850 runs or more by having better hitting outfielders, they replace Coke with someone more capable, things fall in place and yeah, I could see a 30-3 type season.

Mitt Romney points out that when Dizzy Dean won 30 games in 1934, he only had 33 starts.

no one filled a stadium for the hands-washing champ...

Moises Alou had no impact on attendance totals?

Boggs hit .400 during one calendar year, but it was June-June. It could be done.

30 wins? Sure. Take your starting pitchers out after they reach 4 IP, and let one rubber-armd guy rack up 180 IP in relief over 80 games. He'll get credit for 30 double yous with the right club.

Johnny Vander Meer's record will never be broken. At least until Matt Wieters takes up pitching.

I've always admired the record. In a world where modern players are criticized for a lack of dedication I think Ripken deserves accolades for showing up and playing everyday. To answer cfb I think a reduced version of a star like Ripken has tremendous value over whatever his backup might produce.

I hear the arguments about Ripken being selfish but for me a guy showing up to play is a positive, not a negative.

I've never agreed with the theory that he was a reduced player because he played everyday. I always thought that was just plain stupid. It's baseball, it's three hours a day, if his body needed rest, he could take practice off a couple times a week. Players are streaky no matter what, I find it hard to believe that his performance suffered because he was playing for a streak.

Heck I don't even think the record is an example of a greed, and agree it's a positive thing. I just think it's a dumb record to care about. The homerun, total bases, times on base, hits, triple, double, obp, slg, iso, avg, runs, ops, ops+ are all more impressive records for a player to have. I might rank the games played record as important as the rbi, wpa, or stolen base record I guess...otherwords nothing of true importance.

Mitt Romney points out that when Dizzy Dean won 30 games in 1934, he only had 33 starts.

And I see that as a distinct future possibility. It seems that recently every year someone is talking about using your best starting pitcher as a reliever on his 'throw' day. There is no real reason why this hasn't been used so far, and I can see that as an eventuality.

I don't think Ripken's record is all that unbreakable. It just takes a combination of talent (to play that long), luck (to not get injured), and desire to break it (probably the easiest of the three to find). This could be done under the current conditions.

It would also take a manager who assigned importance to that streak even before it got long enough to be noticed, and never suggested taking off a day game following a night game while the player was in a slump.

I've always wondered if one reason these iron man streaks only happen once a generation or so is because of how their viewed by other managers. If the other skippers in the game look at Cal's position in Baltimore and say, "there's no way in hell I'm letting one of my players have control over whether he's in the lineup every day."

Mitt Romney points out that when Dizzy Dean won 30 games in 1934, he only had 33 starts.

And I see that as a distinct future possibility. It seems that recently every year someone is talking about using your best starting pitcher as a reliever on his 'throw' day. There is no real reason why this hasn't been used so far, and I can see that as an eventuality.

Of course what Mitt didn't add was that Dean pitched an additional 17 games in relief that year, and won 4 of his 30 games in that role. But as to your specific point, I think it'd be an interesting experiment, and maybe it's one of those market inefficiencies that could be exploited by a manager with enough guts to risk the inevitable charges that he was burning out his ace.

Seemed kind of OCD - and no one filled a stadium for the hands-washing champ...

Meanwhile the urinating-on-hands champs Alou and Posada have legions of fans.

But as to your specific point, I think it'd be an interesting experiment, and maybe it's one of those market inefficiencies that could be exploited by a manager with enough guts to risk the inevitable charges that he was burning out his ace.

Not likely to happen. The trend in baseball - as in most sports - is to go the other way, toward more specialization of pitching roles and less cross-role assignment.

-- MWE

Not likely to happen. The trend in baseball - as in most sports - is to go the other way, toward more specialization of pitching roles and less cross-role assignment.

You are probably right, but it seems each year you hear a few people talking about the possibility. I mean if you are the Phillies and you have Halladay available to pitch an inning because he hasn't thrown his side session, what is the real harm in using him?

Of course I think if this happens it would start with a young team with a veteran arm or two and lack of bullpen depth that has nothing to lose.

Not likely to happen. The trend in baseball - as in most sports - is to go the other way, toward more specialization of pitching roles and less cross-role assignment.

I don't think Andy's suggestion is likely but I would not be surprised if we see a day where a star pitcher pitches 150 IP as a reliever. Rather than using him as a starter or a closer we see a more generic reliever who pitches the middle innings in a shutdown role. Rather than 6-7 IP/start every fifth day he pitches 2-4 innings every 3 days or so with 130-160 high leverage innings making 45-50 appearances.

A pitcher used in this manner could put up a 30 win season without making a start. Think of a guy like Pedro. He becomes pointless when your team scores 7-8 runs for him but bring him into 3-2, 2-1, 2-2 games consistently in the 4th/5th inning and you win a very high percentage of those games. Not sure it works perfectly but you get more leverage out of this type of pitcher rather than a true starter and more innings than out of a true closer.

Think of a guy like Pedro. He becomes pointless when your team scores 7-8 runs for him but bring him into 3-2, 2-1, 2-2 games consistently in the 4th/5th inning and you win a very high percentage of those games.

I find it difficult to imagine the circumstances that would allow this to happen.

A pitcher used in this manner could put up a 30 win season without making a start.

I suppose this is possible, but only because you are consistently poaching wins from the starting pitcher who, for unknown reasons, and despite his strong performance, you have not allowed to complete 5 innings. And hell, they might change the rules if you do that. Also, the manager might be murdered by the good starting pitcher that can only rack up a handful of wins and 160 IP despite starting 35 games.

I suspect 30 wins will be done by a star quality pitcher on a team with no pitching outside of him and a solid closer (say a flame throwing rookie who has everything going right). So a club scoring 5+ a game but allowing 5+ a game when their ace doesn't pitch. The manager would be determined to keep that ace in for 8-9 IP whenever possible, would also do everything to get him extra starts thus pushing it to 35/36 starts.

Another option would be a knuckleballer who gets a shot with a team to start more often than normal. Pittsburgh in 1992 talked about using Tim Wakefield like this - I remember a lot of talk of putting him on 2 days rest into the playoffs but it never happened (might have helped though). Ideally you'd get a knuckleballer who has a great 2nd pitch (say, a 95 MPH fastball or killer curve or something) but odds are a guy with that great #2 would not be a knuckleballer anyways.

I have wondered about horrible teams who don't try something like this though. If you are going to finish last and have no staff why not sign a knuckleball pitcher and give him starts every 2-3 days instead? If he gets hot/lucky you might get a great story going that draws more fans to the park/TV at least while letting your prospects work out their issues in the minors (ie: not have their confidence go down a hole).

Pittsburgh in 1992 talked about using Tim Wakefield like this - I remember a lot of talk of putting him on 2 days rest into the playoffs but it never happened (might have helped though).

Wakefield instead of Stan Belinda and you possibly change the last 20 years of baseball in Pittsburgh. Talk about a critical decision.

The only problem is that Marsh's strike zone was so tight that Wakefield may have been in trouble from the get-go. And they did tag Wakefield for four runs in Game 6, so it wasn't a slam dunk that Wakefield would have gotten out of Drabek's jam.... but at least Pirate fans would not have been left wondering "what if" with respect to the WTF for bringing in Belinda.

Mitt Romney points out that when Dizzy Dean won 30 games in 1934, he only had 33 starts.

Dean wouldn't have gotten to 30 wins that year if the win rule was applied the same way as it is today, though the overall point still stands.

I mean if you are the Phillies and you have Halladay available to pitch an inning because he hasn't thrown his side session, what is the real harm in using him?

If Halladay hurts himself - and it doesn't even need to be in this particular appearance - this way hell come.

Wakefield instead of Stan Belinda and you possibly change the last 20 years of baseball in Pittsburgh. Talk about a critical decision.

Tough call to bring in a knuckleballer with the bases loaded. Sure, in retrospect, they'd have done no worse to bring in Jim Leyland, let alone Wakefield (on no days rest). But I doubt any manager makes that call with 8-9 pitchers available in relief.

If you're there to get the team wins and to win championships, why would you use your best pitcher in a situation where you can safely use someone else? What is to be gained? Halladay achieves an individual record? Who cares, when all is said and done?

...but at least Pirate fans would not have been left wondering "what if" with respect to the WTF for bringing in Belinda.

The time Wakefield WAS brought into a LCS Game 7 instead of a reliever did leave lots of us wondering "what if".....