People will forever be comparing these two greats. they played at the same time, both got 3000 hits, and both modeled consistency.
Ripken Jr. won 2 mvp awards (Gwynn didn't win any), was named to 3 more all-star games, hit many more homeruns (almost 500 for his career, 431 to be exact), won 1 more silver slugger award, had 500 more RBI's, had more runs, and holds the record for most consecutive games played.
Tony Gwynn has a career batting average over 60 points higher, has a higher onbase percentage, has a higher slugging percentage, won over twice as many gold gloves, and stole more bases
I suppose conventional wisdom would say that ripken is gwynn's superior however i would have to disagree. the rbi is so arbitrary. The all-star game is a popularity contest and ripken was on better teams which is why he won mvp awards. there is nothing bias about a 60 point higher batting average or the fact that he had a higher obp and sluging percantage.
Who do you believe was better and why?
2007-07-01 10:26:26 · 12 answers · asked by everett k 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I'M FROM BALTIMORE SO I BELIEVE CAL RIPKEN IS BETTER BUT TONY GWYNN WAS ALSO A GREAT PLAYER AND THEY IN A CLASS OF THERE OWN!!!!!!!
mas
2007-07-01 10:39:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If we were having a pick-up game tomorrow and you gave me first choice, I'd take Tony Gwynn. But if I were a GM and looking to build a team, I'd take Cal Ripken.
Gwynn was clearly a better offensive player; people tend to forget how fast he was when he was younger (he stole 56 bases one year). However, I disagree with the idea that Ripken benefited from being on better teams. Can you say 1988 Orioles (21 straight losses to begin the season)? Out of Gwynn's 20 seasons, the Padres had a losing record 10 times (and a .500 record two other times). Of Ripken's 21 seasons, the Orioles had a losing record 10 times. In fact, when Ripken won the MVP in 1991, the Orioles went 67-95.
The reason Ripken was voted to so many All-Star games is more than just popularity. He was also the dominant shortstop in the American League for many years. It's easy to forget now, but when Ripken came up, the idea of a 6'4" power-hitting shortstop was consider madness. He redefined the position and opened the door for the A-Rods, Jeters, Tejadas, and Hanley Ramirezes of today.
That's the key reason I'd take Ripken to start a franchise: he played a much more important defensive position, and he played it extremely well (one year he had more assists at SS than any other TEAM in the AL).
Of course if I lost the coin toss and had to "settle" for Tony Gwynn, I wouldn't exactly be crying in my Natty Bo, either.
2007-07-01 11:37:18 · answer #2 · answered by Cruiser 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's always a close call when choosing between two such obviously great players. You might add that both gave to the game a positive attitude. They were good with the fans and didn't act like prima donnas. Ultimately, I would put it this way: Tony Gwynn was obviously the better hitter. Cal Ripken, Jr. was the better all round player (two positions, both infield) and no one would say, "Shoot! I got stuck with. . ."
2007-07-01 10:35:18 · answer #3 · answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Take it from a lifelong Orioles fan - Ripken was an exceptional player, but no way was he better than Willie Mays. Mays had lots more power, hit for a better average, and had speed. Willie Mays is probably a top 5 all-time player. No disrespect intended, but Ripken MIGHT be a top 100.
2016-05-20 22:05:53 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both are great, but I would have to go with Tony Gwynn. Anyone who can pile up batting titles like so much cord wood deserves special mention. You are right about Cal hitting for more power(by far), and his reliability and durability-which is more important than most people realize-was unmatched. Tony also stole plenty of bases when he was a younger player, which would be a point in his column. Its a tough call, but all those batting titles tip the scales ever so slightly in Gwynns favor.
2007-07-01 11:39:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
As hitters:
career - Gwynn
peak - Ripken
As fielders: Ripken. A great shortstop is harder to find than a great right fielder
Overall: mmm... I'd take Ripken at peak. When he falls into a slump, he gets some rest, Streak be damned. That thing got in the way of too much Orioles baseball and held the team hostage.
On an entire career, Gwynn.
Both quite worthy of the plaques they get later this summer.
2007-07-01 11:50:07 · answer #6 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Both where awesome players but if i had to pick one it would have to be ripken by a small margin just for the consecutive game streak alone. That is such an amazing accomplishment.
2007-07-01 10:42:07 · answer #7 · answered by Scooter_loves_his_dad 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, I think their styles of play were very different so it's not really fair to compare one to the other. Both were great players on their own merit and deserved HOF induction (though I'm not sure about 1st ballot). If I had to pick one, I'd go for Gwynn.
2007-07-01 11:08:44 · answer #8 · answered by hulidoshi 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Gwynn. If it were not for the strike in 1994 he would have hit .400.
2007-07-01 11:51:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think gwynn was better. he didnt play so many consecutive games like ripken did but he still put up great numbers
2007-07-01 10:30:33 · answer #10 · answered by ike 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋