who do you think had a better career tony gwinn or cal ripken jr.?

Answer 1

Gwynn, hands down....338 lifetime average, 8 batting titles, 15 All-Star games, 5 Gold Gloves, 319 SB's (not bad for a big man) in 2,440 games only 434 strike outs

Ripken - Had more homers and as many all-star games than Gwynn. But was only a career .276 hitter, 2 Gold Gloves, 36 SBs (for a SS, that's not a lot) in the 3,001 games he played in he had 1,305 strike outs. Ripken did get the ROY, MVP and a ring, which is great and obviously had a fantastic career.

But I would still rather hit .338 and not strike out as much and arguably the best hitter ever to play behind Ted Williams. I take Gwynn

Answer 2

Offensively, I'd give a slight edge to Gwynn in productivity. But in the scope of a team it is sometimes important to compare how a player compares to whoever would replace him. Without doing the analysis, I'd have to guess that Ripkens offensive contributions were much more of an improvement over what a team would get from an average SS or 3B, than Gwynn's were compared to an average RF. So, Ripken could be said to have had a better career as a SS than Gwynn had as a RF.

Defensively, they were both solid. But, a shortstop is more important defensively than a RF.

So, I'd take Ripken by a small margin.

I'd take either one as a role model for my kids.

Answer 3

Two great careers but I give the nod to Ripken. His consecutive games record is one of the game's elite records. He also had much better power numbers and a WS ring and two MVP awards. He was also arguabley a better SS than Gwynn was an outfielder on defense.

Ripken was undoubtedly considered the best at his position in his era. Gwynn, though an outfielder who obviously had more competition, was considered one of the best. I think there is a difference.

Good question.

Answer 4

Man, that's tough. I think Ripken was better all around, but in the scope of a career it's hard to argue with, was it, 8 batting titles and it's forgotten that he wasn't so bad in the field himself.
I'll take Gwynn, but man that's a tough question.

Answer 5

Definately Cal

Answer 6

I'd say they had equally terrific careers. To pick one between those two isn't fair because they were in different leagues and they played different positions. Cal's longevity record may never be broken and Gywnn was a better hit man. Take your pick you won't lose either way.

Answer 7

I think both where great but if i had to pick one i would say Ripken by a small margin.

Answer 8

Gwynn Because all Cal Did was just showing Up for Work, He's wasn't as Productive as Gwynn, But Ripkin won out of Luck, not Hard Work like Gwynn.

Answer 9

Cal has a ring. Ask Tony Gwinn how much that matters.

Answer 10

Ricky Henderson was better than either