I love these Hall of Fame debates. 

Putting Cal Ripken, Jr.’s career in proper perspective.  Cal Ripken, Jr. played a position (most of his career) which has throughout the course of history been viewed as a “defensive” position – shortshop.  He won 2 gold gloves and was a sure-handed, intelligent defensive player.  Although not blessed with the range, or acrobatic gifts of an Ozzie Smith (and this is not to suggest Ozzie was not an intelligent player because he was), Ripken compensated those shortcomings with his knowledge of hitters and the pitching sequence to be used in order to position himself properly.  When I watched Ripken, I was amazed at how he would oftentimes be waiting for the ball, not because players necessarily hit it to him, but because he anticipated so well.  Although his arm strength was sometimes betrayed by a lack of accuracy, Ripken was a gold glove caliber shortstop for most of his career.  Keep in mind he had good contemporaries too: Tony Fernandez, Alan Trammel, Ozzie Guillen and later Omar Vizquel.  

Ripken, who was bigger than your average shortshop, excelled at the position and demonstrated more power than his contemporaries as well.  He hit over 350 HRs as a SS.  And remember, offensively he is judged a bit differently just as second baseman are.  He was a rookie of the year, two time MVP (at different points of his career, one early, the other later). 

Some of the criticsms are valid.  Once he became “bigger than life” he didn’t handle it well.  Jim Rice was a defensive liability and did not play as demanding a defensive position as Ripken.  Rice, was scarier offensively, no doubt.  As far as Mattingly goes, if you were to judge both players at the height of their performance, Mattingly is the better player.  They were contemporaries and played in the same league, and during 1984-1988, Mattingly was the best player in the American League (even though he stole no bases) and Ripken was behind him.  But, this is judged on the record, not on what might have been.  And even though I agree that Mattingly at the height of his career was HOF worthy and better than Ripken, unfortunately, it did not last long enough.  But that does not diminish Ripken’s candidacy any, in my judgment.   Â