Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2014 4:32:00 PM (view original):
This is what I've been referring to:

"That's probably why teams shouldn't leave it up to their stars to decide when they aren't good enough to be the starting shortstop on the New York Yankees anymore."


So far, you've stated that your scenario did not happen.    What was your point?

Yeah, I was referring to your post here:

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2014 11:23:00 AM (view original):
It's a confidence thing.   Even if you've failed the last 10 times, you think you deserve one more shot at it because you've been so successful and you know, deep down, that you'll do it better than that other schlub they think has surpassed you.  

I imagine a lot of professional athletes, several years after it's over, look back at the last few years of their careers and say "Wow.  The haters were right.  I really couldn't do the job at the end."

OK.   But Jeter didn't decide anything beyond accepting the player option.    He isn't deciding who is the starting shortshop on the New York Yankees.

So.........your point?

But I'll rephrase my earlier question, since you're so "simple": give me one example when a manager writing Ripken's name in the lineup BEFORE THE GAME STARTED was a bad decision for the team given who they had on the bench to take his place.

Virtually every game from game 40 on any season, especially after ~'92ish?  Somehow you've massively oversimplified this in your head.  You're just asking the question "is there some guy on the bench who could be better than Ripken for any one game," to which the answer was almost certainly "no" at least nearly all the time.  But it's not that simple.  Most players perform better when they're getting some rest.  1996 was Cal's last season as primarily a SS.  He hit .278/.341/.466 - just above league average for a hitter.  The backup was Manny Alexander, who barely hit over .100.  But what if, in 154 games, Ripken would have hit .285/.350/.475?  Even with Alexander's .103/.141/.103 line, you come up with just a few less hits, possibly a few less total bases, and a better net OBP.  And in 1995, Ripken OPSed only .745, while Alexander OPSed .617 and Jeff Huson .631.  At that point you don't need to see a very substantial improvement in Ripken's rested performance relative to his streak performance at all to wind up with a better net output for the season.

Of course, that still assumes Ripken would hit better if he took some days off.  I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption, though.  Over the last 7 years of the streak (1992-1998, ages 31-37) Ripken had a net OPS+ of only 96.  In his last 3 seasons as a part-time player from ages 38-40 he had an OPS+ of 99.

Also worth pointing out that between his career year in 1991 and the streak ending at the end of 1998, 1994 was by far Ripken's best season.  Maybe it's a total coincidence that he hit the best in a season shortened by 50 games.  Maybe it's a coincidence that for his career his OPS+ in every month through July is over 100, in August it drops to 95, and in September/October it drops to 90.  But I doubt it.  I think it's pretty clear that, like most other mortal beings, Ripken got tired playing every day over a 162 game schedule.  In fact, in several seasons Ripken's numbers over the last month of the season aren't substantively better than the backup's season stats.  Still probably true even at that point that for any one game Ripken might have been the best guy to send out there, but it seems very hard for me to believe that if he were given a few days off over the course of the season he wouldn't have come up with better numbers to cancel out the difference.

As a CONSUMATE TEAM PLAYER, he must not have had access to those stats.  Otherwise, without question, he'd have asked for a few days off every season. 

Cal didn't have time to look at those stats because he was too busy being on the field for every ******* inning of every ******* game.

That's not true.  In the last 2 years of the streak alone he was replaced in 53 games.

I would assume that he spent that extra time mentally preparing for tomorrow's game.

162 games is a grind, you know.

All joking aside, you don't think Ripken would make a great manager?  Probably Jeter too, for that matter...

Just curious . . . why do you think that?  What managerial qualities do you think either of them have that would result in great success in that role?

People management is the first thing that comes to mind.   Both knew the right thing to say at the right time.   Joe Torre-ish.   And I don't think there's any question that both of them know the game of baseball. 

That said, I don't think either of them would want to manage.   Seems to me that today's managers will never be the guys who made a bunch of money and have successful ventures outside of baseball(i.e. they're not broke). 

I don't know that either of them would necessarily want to manage either, but I do think both would be good managers.  Mattingly is managing, so you never know.  I think both of those guys would command immediate respect from their players.  They both know the game better than almost any of their contemporaries, at least those who didn't catch.  And as you alluded to, both guys were always good at dealing with the media.  Ripken has stated on multiple occasions he'd be interested in working with the Orioles in an advisorial position, so he's interested in being around the team.  So you never know.  I don't think Ripken will ever fully walk away from baseball, Jeter I'd be a little less sure about, but I still very much tend to doubt it....

I'm just curious here, not trying to pick a fight, but why do you think they "know the game better than almost any of their contemporaries" - because of their success?

I think "as an advisor" is the key.    I could imagine both wanting to be around baseball, not in full view but not out of sight either.   Show up at spring training occassionally.   Sit with the GM/owner at some home games.   Shake a few hands every now and then.

But I can't think of any reason either would want to take the beating that comes with managing.  You have to do all the travel and then take the heat when the team doesn't win even though you're just writing down names and making the occassional call to the pen.   For half a season last year, Mattingly was getting fired every day.  Before that, he wasn't ready to manage because he make the unpardonable mistake of stepping off the mound and then turning around to add one more thing.  And I won't even mention having to deal with the occassional A-Rod or Bonds or highly strung RP.