Been two weeks since I posted those and jtp has been conveniently ignoring them while continuing to scream from his soapbox about how Ripken was better than his backups even when he was tired/hurt and now about how he was contributing value in the field. Which makes sense if you ignore the fact that Ripken alone could likely produce more value in 156 games than he could in 162 as he got deeper into his 30s.
Also, Ripken added value in the field relative to what? You think starting Major League shortstops are the best defensive shortstops out there? What defines Major League players is overwhelmingly based on their offensive contributions. There are probably literally hundreds of guys in high school, college, the minors, semi-pro leagues, and independent pro leagues with better gloves than guys like Derek Jeter or Jhonny Peralta. But most of them would hit somewhere between .100 and .150 in the bigs with no pop and not a lot of walks, so they'll never sniff the Major Leagues. I mean honestly, outside of maybe Andrelton Simmons and Jose Iglesias, none of the best defensive shortstops in the world are probably anywhere near starting in the Major Leagues. Most of them we haven't heard of and never will. But they could easily sign a 1-day contract with a Major League team, go 0-4, and contribute more with the glove than Ripken ever could. Is Ripken going 0-4 still more valuable than Jeter going 0-4? Probably. Although Jeter probably saw a lot more pitches in the process, which is generally still more helpful offensively to his teammates. But it's still a weak argument, because there are guys who could be much more useful than either of them while having an 0fer and playing SS.