Favre or Ripkin ?

[rdkraus]

They were discussing on the radio today - which is more impressive. Favre playing 14 years without missing a start, or Ripkin 16 years without missing a start.

Obviously, football is far more dangerous, expecially for any one game, but in baseball they play SO MANY games, it is remarkable not to miss one - any reason - injury, freak accident/injury, funeral, sick, arrest (haha), etc.

[ElPietro]

I'd still have to say football. And I would have to say Favre, considering the injuries he's played with to keep his streak going, and performed amazingly well with injuries that would have kept others out for months.

[gator]

good question...allthough i would definatly have to say Farve. Especially due to the rate at which quarterbacks get hurt, looks at the jets this year, 3 of them have allready gone down. The streak farve has right now is amazing

[BilltheButcher]

I think pain is relative. We had a saying if you can run, you can play. I think injuries that keep most people out are hamstring stuff, but most everyone plays with everthing else. If you can't run you can't play.

Ripkin would have it in my book. So many games in one season, granted I think a few times they wheeled him out to short and propped him up to keep the streak alive. However, I think that many games in a row is more impressive then Favre's.

[razorcut]

Great question. Reasonable arguments exist on each side.

Ripkin has my vote. There are so many games & opportunities in MLB over the course of a season to get injured.

[gator]

To anyone who votes for Ripkin have you guys played baseball and football? I played baseball for about 8 years and not one injury. One year in football alone I fractured my ribs and ankle. The major factor in baseball would be sickness, i bet more people in the MLB sit out due to sickness or just needing rest than injury. so in reality those baseball players are wimps, sickness wont keep a football player out of the lineup...no way.

[BigRic]

Although I play football, I'll post a side of baseball to that argument, the reason they can sit out with a cold is because each game isn't as an important as a football game, one game in baseball is what 1/160 of a season one game in football is 1/11th or 1/17th? that means not every game is as important as every game in football.

[TheGame]

To anyone who votes for Ripkin have you guys played baseball and football? I played baseball for about 8 years and not one injury. One year in football alone I fractured my ribs and ankle. The major factor in baseball would be sickness, i bet more people in the MLB sit out due to sickness or just needing rest than injury. so in reality those baseball players are wimps, sickness wont keep a football player out of the lineup...no way.

So your telling me that no football player ever sat out a game because he was sick...........

[MM]

RIPKEN, has my vote.

[gator]

I'm saying most dont, partly because you only play once a week. Some do but those are usually due to bacterial infections.

[RBB]

i'd say favre's streak is far more impressive. his chance of being injured over the course of a season is much higher than ripken's ever was.

[rdkraus]

The thread has gone alot like the ESPN radio show. They couldn't decide themselves which was more impressive.

They are both mind-boggling.

When you think about how Favre plays, it's amazing he doesn't get hurt EVERY game. But with Ripken, so many games. Put aside injuries, it's like never missing a day of school all the way through college. I mean, "stuff happens" to everyone, except, apparently, Cal and Bret.

[MM]

I don't see how people are picking Favre. Certainly his streak is impressive, but do the numbers:

Favre: 224 Games (may be slightly more; all I did was multiply 16x14).

Cal Ripken: 2131 Games

That's ridiculous. And he was playing a demanding position for a lot of that time (short stop). I agree that -- game for game -- Favre had a much better chance of getting hurt. But it's not a game for game scenario, and more importantly, it's not even close to being game for game. Ripken played somethinig like ~1000% more games.

[Y2A]

Both are amazing, but I have to vote for Favre due to football being so damn rough. The length of a baseball career is so much more than that of a football player, to even be in the league for 14 years is an accomplishment, nevermind starting every game for that span.

[Skinny Fat]

In my mind, it's commitment vs. tough guy/determination. If you guys remember, Favre played almost an entire season with a broken thumb. We're talking about a guy who has to have his hands on the ball every play from scrimmage, and his chances of being tackled are very, very good. He probably gets blindsided twice a game on average. On the other hand, Ripken's sheer volume is staggering.

Ripken = going 50 rounds with a rotation of Tyson, Ali, Frazier, and Robinson.
Favre = getting hit in the head once with a sledge hammer.

Either way, the odds of surviving are very slim - both guys are amazing.

[MixmasterNash]

I've been to Lambeau in mid-December. One game there in winter is tougher than a few hundred games of baseball combined.

[Meat_Head]

Farve by FAR. Baseball is a picnic for the body compared to football.

[gator]

You can compare baseball to someone going to work everyday for 18 years or however long Ripken did it for. I've had many teachers who have never missed a day of work in that kind of time span. While it's pretty amazing not nearly as amazing as Farve. I'm so impressed by Farve that I would say he's the best QB ever. I'm saying that as a Dolphins fan, who should think Marino would be the best ever.

[-TIM-]

Ripkin.

Cal played 2,632 games. That's a much bigger feat than playing maybe 250 games. Yes, football is much more physical, but it's not like Farve is getting hit every play. He's on the field maybe 20-30 minutes a game, and is only touched maybe 10-15 times a game on average. If he were a running back or linebacker, then I might be inclined to lean towards Farve. In that position, he's getting hit every play he's on the field. But not as a QB. Don't get me wrong, Farve is a tough, but his record is not as impressive as Cal's.

[Meat_Head]

Even without hits football requires WAY more athleticism than baseball, I mean how often does a pitcher move from the mound? Even a pocket passer in football has to hop around, position his feet, avoid defenders, find a reciever(who's on the move, not a sitting catcher like baseball), and throw the ball with the right direction and force.

[Paul Stagg]

Favre, no doubt.

Ripken took part of a year off to go on strike.

[-TIM-]

Even without hits football requires WAY more athleticism than baseball, I mean how often does a pitcher move from the mound? Even a pocket passer in football has to hop around, position his feet, avoid defenders, find a reciever(who's on the move, not a sitting catcher like baseball), and throw the ball with the right direction and force.So you're saying that playing shortstop or second base requires no athleticism? Have you ever watched baseball? Chasing down a sharply hit ground ball requires explosiveness, body control, quick feet, and then they have to throw the ball with as much direction and force as a QB does a football. And what does pitching or playing catcher have to do with anything? Neither person in question plays either position.

I'm not denying that football is a more physical sport as a whole than baseball, but you have to look at the positions these two played when making your selection. I think 2,632 games in an infield position is much more of an accomplishment.

[WBBIRL]

Has ripkin ever taken a hit from a 300+lb Defensive Linemen? Has ripken ever thrown that ball with a fractured right thumb??? Has he ever got a concussion, came back into the game anyhow and thrown a touchdown pass?

Its not even a question, I've seen Favre play through things most players couldnt have. He can get hit, and HARD, on any play. Did anyone watch the steeler game when Favre got jackhammered by Troy Polamalue (SP?). Baseball is no where near the contact sport that football is, by any stretch of immagination.

Both are superb athletes and both will be remeberd for a long time to come, but Favre gets my vote here. Nothing more to say.

[-TIM-]

I'm a Bears fan, and generally we hate the Packers. But I can't because I have a lot of respect for Brett Farve. He's probably the toughest QB ever to play the game. I will give him that.

But a QB only gets hit a handful of times a game. I know they can be huge hits by 300 lb guys at full speed, but it's usually something they shake off and get up from.

What about the number of games and hours played by Cal over Brett?

- Baseball -
162 games per year (preseason and post excluded).
4 hours of playing time per game.
Infielders have about 2 hours of playing time.

- Football -
20-24 games per year (preseason and post included).
3 hours of playing time per game.
QB's are only on the field 20-30 minutes a game.

The playing time alone and number of games over an entire season for an infielder dwarfs a QB's time. There are very few baseball players who even play every game of a single season because of injuries. And you're looking at a player who played every regular season game for something like 11 years in a row. That's a tremendous feat.

[MixmasterNash]

- Baseball -
162 games per year (preseason and post excluded).
4 hours of playing time per game.
Infielders have about 2 hours of playing time.

Most of that 2 hours is spent standing. I bet an average in fielder moves at full speed for a total of 2 minutes a game. The only strenuous positions in baseball are pitcher and catcher.

[-TIM-]

Most of that 2 hours is spent standing. I bet an average in fielder moves at full speed for a total of 2 minutes a game. The only strenuous positions in baseball are pitcher and catcher.Well a third of a QB's time is spent handing the ball off and watching everyone else play. The other two thirds is spent maybe scrambling and not even getting hit. They might get drug down a handful of times, but they're only hit hard maybe 2 or 3 times a game. Which is almost always shaken off. The offense has the ball 20-30 minutes a game. Half of that time is spent in the huddle while the clock is winding away. They're only in motion for a very short amount of time too.

[BilltheButcher]

Football you get an entire week to rest, rehab and get treatment and then roll out Sunday. Baseball is 3-4-5 games a week.

Favre addicted to pain pills, which may be able to explain how he would get over his pain. I played football all the way from pop warner, HS and college. Have the knee surgeries to prove it. Shooting up is what you do if you want to play and unless your hamstring is rolled up into your crotch or your ankle is to sprained to run you go out there. Favre's record is no joke, but IMO Ripken for longevity, just the sheer number of games he played in a row while still being productive is amazing.

[-sin-]

Favre.

[Paul Stagg]

Comparing the athleticism required to play professional football to that required to play profressional baseball is like comparing driving a Formula 1 car to walking.

Virtually anyone with reasonable fitness can hang playing pro baseball (I'm not taling about the skill required to play, which is an entirely different thing - I think hitting a major league fastball is probably the hardest thing to do in sport). Virtually anyone with a high level of fitness and significant size and strength would last about one play on an NFL field.

There is simply no comparison.

[gator]

Virtually anyone with a high level of fitness and significant size and strength would last about one play on an NFL field.


You have never played football then, it really is 50% mental. I was never the biggest or strongest linebacker but I was one of the biggest hitters. Determination has a lot to do with football not just size and strength. I could run over guys that weighed 80+ lbs more than me and were stronger.

[Paul Stagg]

I dont think you understood my post.

[gator]

I understood your post and i agree it's hard to compare the two sports especially because of the difference in games in the season. However I was just pointing out something in your post that I thought was very misleading.

[BilltheButcher]

Comparing the athleticism required to play professional football to that required to play profressional baseball is like comparing driving a Formula 1 car to walking.

Virtually anyone with reasonable fitness can hang playing pro baseball (I'm not taling about the skill required to play, which is an entirely different thing - I think hitting a major league fastball is probably the hardest thing to do in sport). Virtually anyone with a high level of fitness and significant size and strength would last about one play on an NFL field.

There is simply no comparison.

I think endurance would be a better way to put it. I believe football is a much easier game to play, but just more painful.

[gator]

Haha that makes me laugh, there is more strategy in football than any other sport.

[-TIM-]

Virtually anyone with reasonable fitness can hang playing pro baseball...Maybe they can hang for a few games here or there, but not an entire season, playing 3-5 games per week. You seem to think baseball is a cake walk because players aren't being slammed into by one another. The length of the season alone takes a huge toll on players bodies.

Football is a physical sport, but QB is the most protected position in the game. If we were talking about 200+ consecutive games for a starting running back, who's either blocking or running the ball full speed up the middle every offensive play, then I might be able to agree.

[MM]

I agree with everything Tim has said. You could make a good argument if Favre played nearly any other position; instead, he plays the most protected position on the field, sans the kicker. I believe that Jerry Rice's streak of 189 was more impressive than Favre's streak, because the position of wideout is so much more demanding. I don't really think either streak compares to Ripken's.

[MixmasterNash]

Skills aside, perhaps the question is, could Farve play two thousand games or could Ripkin take a blind side tackle from a lineman?

[MM]

That's a silly analogy; neither would be capable of doing either, because they would not have the skill to start and play in all those games. If they did have the skill -- who knows, perhaps they would. That's simply something we could never know.

What we need is a list of the top 30 consecutive games streak for both baseball and football; then I'll plug it into a spreadsheet and run a little distribution and see who is furthest from their league's respective mean. If anyone can find the lists I'll do it tomorrow. Obviously it won't convince everyone, but I think it would be interesting.

[gator]

How about this, we end all this debate and say Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hit streak is the best streak out there.

[WBBIRL]

The thing about professional athelets are that they are pros. Every 330lb Defensive linemen thats running a 4.9 40 yard dash is determined. Every 170lb saftey thats gunning you down at 4.3 seconds is to.

[gator]

I dont agree, I believe some people just have natural god given physical talent. Like Warren Sapp, that man runs like a 4.7 or something

[razorcut]

Haha that makes me laugh, there is more strategy in football than any other sport.
That ^^^ makes me laugh. Baseball is the epitome of strategy.

[MixmasterNash]

That ^^^ makes me laugh. Baseball is the epitome of strategy.
I would say football is many times more complex than baseball. Offensive strategy is certainly far more complex in football. And, uh, so is defense. And the game itself is far more complicated. And there are a lot more people on the field. And many more positions. Etc.

American football is probably the most complex sport ever invented.

[gator]

American football is probably the most complex sport ever invented.

Amen Brother, football is extremly complex, something you dont realize untill you either play it or watch it religiously. How many times have you seen the manager get thrown out of a baseball game and the team is still able to function. If that happend in football, it would be different story, each coach on the team is vital during the game. Baseball players can just use scouting reports instead of watching film, football players do that too but they also watch for small details such as some olineman having a bigger stance than normal, knowing he is now going to pass block. Or seeing an O lineman use a different hand in his 3 point stance knowing he is going to pull the other way on the run block. These little things are what teams of coaches and players do all the time.

[BilltheButcher]

Haha that makes me laugh, there is more strategy in football than any other sport.

I wasn't arguing strategy. I was meaning the skill set needed to play the actual game.

[razorcut]

American football is probably the most complex sport ever invented.We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Far more games are won (and lost for that matter) by managing moves in BB than coaching moves in FB, IMO.

[MixmasterNash]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Far more games are won (and lost for that matter) by managing moves in BB than coaching moves in FB, IMO.

Ha! This is so absolutely and laughable wrong for so many reasons, but I'll give you two:
Two-point conversions and the game clock.

[Vita]

Although I play football, I'll post a side of baseball to that argument, the reason they can sit out with a cold is because each game isn't as an important as a football game, one game in baseball is what 1/160 of a season one game in football is 1/11th or 1/17th? that means not every game is as important as every game in football.

which is why i give it to Favre.

not to mention i'm from milwaukee and have been brainwashed into my love for the packers, regardless of how horrible they play.

[MM]

I think it's clearly wrong to say that baseball is more complex than football; there are infinitely more things happening on the football field at any given moment than on the baseball field, and communication is far more important on both offense and defense.

As usual, the topic begins to degenerate. I think football is more complex, but Favre can't hold a candle to Ripken's streak.

[Vita]

Skills aside, perhaps the question is, could Farve play two thousand games or could Ripkin take a blind side tackle from a lineman?

excellent point, but i'd think favre could play 2000 games of baseball if he loved it like he does football, easily. records aside, love for the game is likely the only reason he hasn't missed a game. though i'm sure the same goes for Ripkin.

i don't think you can really compare the two, it's not apples to apples...

[MM]

which is why i give it to Favre.

not to mention i'm from milwaukee and have been brainwashed into my love for the packers, regardless of how horrible they play.

I think you're misunderstanding his point. Each game is very important to Favre, ergo he has a greater incentive to play in each game -- as does any football player. Each game is not as important in baseball -- so big deal if you miss one. Ripken played in all those games, even though many people would have sat out.

Which leads me to perhaps the most convincing argument for Favre that I can think of. Ripken was often accused of placing the streak ahead of his team; while people may not remember it, he was injured and sick and slumping numerous times during that streak, but kept playinig. I think there's a significantly good argument that Favre played and always gave his team the best chance at winning, which was why he played injured/sick/grieving, whereas Ripken sometimes played just for the sake of the streak.

[Y2A]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Far more games are won (and lost for that matter) by managing moves in BB than coaching moves in FB, IMO.

Are you joking? Lol, every single play called is a coaching move in football. Managers do what... steal, hit and run, pitching change?

[Vita]

I think you're misunderstanding his point. Each game is very important to Favre, ergo he has a greater incentive to play in each game -- as does any football player. Each game is not as important in baseball -- so big deal if you miss one. Ripken played in all those games, even though many people would have sat out.

Which leads me to perhaps the most convincing argument for Favre that I can think of. Ripken was often accused of placing the streak ahead of his team; while people may not remember it, he was injured and sick and slumping numerous times during that streak, but kept playinig. I think there's a significantly good argument that Favre played and always gave his team the best chance at winning, which was why he played injured/sick/grieving, whereas Ripken sometimes played just for the sake of the streak.

though i know almost nothing of Ripken, i agree that would definitely give it to favre. even when he is injured, it seems like he gives some of his best games, which gets to my point of love for the game. i think he could care less about a record. it's kind of shady that Ripken would play just to keep a record, not giving it his all. if it's true, that's pure lack of respect for his team, and the guy who'd have the chance to give it his all in his place, regardless of how much skill he has...

[MixmasterNash]

though i know almost nothing of Ripken, i agree that would definitely give it to favre. even when he is injured, it seems like he gives some of his best games, which gets to my point of love for the game. i think he could care less about a record. it's kind of shady that Ripken would play just to keep a record, not giving it his all. if it's true, that's pure lack of respect for his team, and the guy who'd have the chance to give it his all in his place, regardless of how much skill he has...

To defend Ripkin, who I followed growing up, I don't think he was doing it just to keep his streak going. He definately thought he was the best guy for the job, and eventually, moved to 3B because he was less mobile, which was a significant sacrifice in perceived prestige.

Similarly, Farve got (gets) a ton of criticism for playing too long, when he's performing poorly.

However, the same fundamental fact is true for both players: The mere presence of each is more important to the fans than the win-loss record of the team. Both are GODS in their cities. It is a simple business proposition as well: people came to games because of Ripkin and Farve, they were both excellent roll models and could be held out as such by team ownership, and both were nationally famous.

[razorcut]

Are you joking? Lol, every single play called is a coaching move in football. Managers do what... steal, hit and run, pitching change?There's a little more that goes into baseball than hitting & pitching. I realize every play is technically a "coaching" move in FB. However, I think the far majority of games in football are won by the team with the superior physical talent on the field. I'm not so sure that's the case (as often) in baseball. There are a lot of subtleties in BB on which a cerebral manager can capitalize.

[gator]

I think the fact that one touchdown in football is more important than 1 run in baseball, and that one play from scrimiage is more important than each pitch in baseball says that each little decision a baseball manager has to make is therefor less important in the big picture.

[MrWebb78]

I will remember both of them as guys who played too long and robbed some young star of play time. Both great in their prime, both have sucked at the end.

I say baseball. Football has it's arguments, and is much more physical. But playing 5-6 baseball games a week, for 6 months(not counting spring training), is pretty goddamn impressive. Ripken played at top level for many years but at the end he just played to break the record which was wrong. He should have quit about 2 years before he broke the record and let some rookie play, he hurt the Orioles for that.

[-TIM-]

I think Brett still has talent, it's the supporting cast that's hurting him.

Both are impressive streaks, and I think it's amazing for an athlete, in any sport, to go as long as either of them did without missing a day at the office. I know I miss 1 or 2 days of work per year, and all I have to worry about is Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

[BilltheButcher]

Getting an entire week to rehab, get treatments and therapy, and then roll out on Sunday to play. Baseball you have to go every other day, the daily grind.

I don't even know why I am arguing for baseball, a sport I don't even really like, hell football paid for my education, but I really think if you have a high pain threshold playing f-ball is easier to have a streak in. You have an entire week to get yourself back into playing shape.

[gator]

It takes more than an entire week to heal bones...usually a seaon.

[BilltheButcher]

It takes more than an entire week to heal bones...usually a seaon.

You sprain an ankle on Sunday, you get all week to treat it. Sprain an ankle in baseball you may have to go the next day.

Hey, Favre probably won't be able to get out of bed when he hits 40, his body has gotten destroyed and Ripkin probably won't have any thing wrong with him physically. Two different style games, but the chances of something like a pulled hamstring or sprained ankle happening and Ripkin having to play the next day. Favre gets all week to treat it.

[gator]

It would be interesting if someone could look up how many QB's last year started every game, and how many positional players in the MLB started every game in proportion to the total players. I bet the MLB players win that by at least 5 fold, which would mean that MLB players have a higher chance of playing in every game each year.

[lilmase1153]

I've played both and both can be physically demanding, But I would have to give it to favre..

Ripken's record is just crazy with how many games straight, But I remember quite a few times where he would start and play 2-3 Innings and than leave. That to me kinda taints his record . not taking anything away from him he was a tremendous hitter, But he was not the athletic type of player, he was a very intelligent player. If he were a base stealer or even running down first baseline like shortstops of today I would give it to him hands down.

Favre is athletic and also intelligent in the way he plays, I never played QB but for someone to think a QB only gets hit 2-3 times a game and drug down the rest is just ignorant. The defense is trained to hit and hit hard even if they know there not getting a sack. Most QB injuries are not from them being sacked but more from blind sided hits after a throw or during a throw. It takes more mental toughness to make a perfect pass knowing your gonna get your clocked cleaned as soon as it leaves your hand., than it takes to run down a ground ball at short stop..

But like always this is just my OPINION..

[-TIM-]

...I never played QB but for someone to think a QB only gets hit 2-3 times a game and drug down the rest is just ignorant.So you're saying that the offensive line allows the QB to turn into a sitting duck more than 2 or 3 times a game? Hardly. He wouldn't be alive if that were the case. And maybe I wasn't clear on how I phrased "2-3" times a game. The QB gets knocked down plenty, but that's about it, getting knocked down. Most sacks come from the pocket collapsing or someone chasing him down and dragging him to the ground. There are usually only a few hits to the QB where he's blind sided or somebody runs him over at full speed. And even then they usually get up and run the next play.

[lilmase1153]

So you're saying that the offensive line allows the QB to turn into a sitting duck more than 2 or 3 times a game? Hardly. He wouldn't be alive if that were the case. And maybe I wasn't clear on how I phrased "2-3" times a game. The QB gets knocked down plenty, but that's about it, getting knocked down. Most sacks come from the pocket collapsing or someone chasing him down and dragging him to the ground. There are usually only a few hits to the QB where he's blind sided or somebody runs him over at full speed. And even then they usually get up and run the next play.
No the Oline deff does not allow it, but when you have 8 in the box they dont have a choice. I'm not saying every time they get hit its a crippling hit taht would leave your average human paralized but even being dragged down the way they do. A lot of QBs get concussions(sp) from hitting there head on the ground From being drug down rather than an actual hit. All Im saying is its kinda hard to lightly tackle someone when the one thats dragging you down is usually 220lbs + Maybe thats just me though

Yeah most QBs will get up and run the very next play but thats whats called being a gamer and not showing weakness. Could you imagine if there were a QB out there where everyitme he got hit he would wince and grab parts of his body showing he was in pain. That would make the defense salavate

[-TIM-]

No the Oline deff does not allow it, but when you have 8 in the box they dont have a choice.Oh yeah. A lot of hits to the QB by an untouched man are on a safety blitz by a guy running full speed.


I'm not saying every time they get hit its a crippling hit taht would leave your average human paralized but even being dragged down the way they do. A lot of QBs get concussions(sp) from hitting there head on the ground From being drug down rather than an actual hit. All Im saying is its kinda hard to lightly tackle someone when the one thats dragging you down is usually 220lbs + Maybe thats just me thoughWell I'm not trying to say that QBs are getting tackled lightly, just that they're not hit squarely at full speed every other snap. If they were, they wouldn't make it more than half a season.

[lilmase1153]

Originally posted by Tim Nissen
Oh yeah. A lot of hits to the QB by an untouched man are on a safety blitz by a guy running full speed.

Ok. Am I missing the point here? Or are you saying that its as common as 8 men in the box? Sorry I just wanna clarify


Originall posted by Tim Nissen
Well I'm not trying to say that QBs are getting tackled lightly, just that they're not hit squarely at full speed every other snap. If they were, they wouldn't make it more than half a season.

I agree with you here. I know they are not being smashed on every play, But saying being drug down by someone 220+ is like saying I only got hit by a Geo metro.. It still hurts

Ya know I was once told by a pro Baseball player, "You have to be great in most sports to make millions", "But you can make that same ammount of money being average in Baseball". I found that very funny how a pro ball player would say that, To be honest I would have to agree..

[HoTShoT_KiD]

It would be interesting if someone could look up how many QB's last year started every game, and how many positional players in the MLB started every game in proportion to the total players. I bet the MLB players win that by at least 5 fold, which would mean that MLB players have a higher chance of playing in every game each year.

Just looked it up, no player from this past baseball season started every single game......check it out.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=9&season=2005&seasonType=2&split=79&sortColumn=gamesPlayed

In fact, no player even played in every single game, yet alone started.

[MM]

Can anyone find the list of most games played consecutively for both sports? I can't. I'd like to see them and fool around with them.

[-TIM-]

Just looked it up, no player from this past baseball season started every single game......check it out.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=9&season=2005&seasonType=2&split=79&sortColumn=gamesPlayed

In fact, no player even played in every single game, yet alone started.Yeah, I didn't think there would be many, if any, that started or played every game. Baseball players are bound to be injured due to the amount of games they play in a season.

[-TIM-]

Ok. Am I missing the point here? Or are you saying that its as common as 8 men in the box? Sorry I just wanna clarifyI was agreeing with you that you can't always cover every man at the line when there are 8 coming at you.

But I really can't agree with you that being drug down, or a shoe string tackle hurts, or is enough to cause a concussion. Falling to the ground, even when pulled down, doesn't really hurt, no matter what the size of the person on the other end is. What hurts players the most are the actual collisions. Such as being blind sided.

[gator]

according to that link you posted only about 20 guys played over 100 games, thats obviously inaccurate...there must be some type of filter on that is filtering out certain players. Because I thought Miguel Tehada (messed up the name badly) had some 3+ season streak going into this year.

[MM]

Tejada did have that streak going, but I believe he had to sit out a few games due to an injury or something. I remember reading an article about it; not sure if the article said he did sit them out, or just that it was a possibility.

[HoTShoT_KiD]

according to that link you posted only about 20 guys played over 100 games, thats obviously inaccurate...there must be some type of filter on that is filtering out certain players. Because I thought Miguel Tehada (messed up the name badly) had some 3+ season streak going into this year.

I'm actually not sure how the site is sorting the players, now that I look at it more closely, these statistics do not make sense. There obviously are a lot more people with over 100 games played. However, if you go through the actually teams themselves, few, if any, have actually started in the field or actually been put into the game for every game of the season.

[Gyno Rhino]

They're both examples of how athletes SHOULD act.

These cats are getting paid insane amounts of money to play something that millions out there dream of doing for a job.

I think Favre's physical contribution is more impressive - but would say that Cal's is more mentally challenging. It's got to be MIND NUMBING to do what he did.

[gator]

I think you contradicted yourself in there. I dont know how it could be that mind numbing if you really love the game.

[Meat_Head]

Its mind numbing because baseball is a slow, skill based game with almost NO action. The only time anything happens is once every few minutes when someone get a hit, and even then the action is over within seconds - either the ball is caught, the ball is thrown to the baseman before the runner gets there, or the runner is safe. The apex of baseball is a grand slam offensively, and a double/triple play defensively, and you have to watch hours of slow game time before seeing something like that.

With football, every play is a blur of action and strategy. Each player has a specific purposes and skills for his position, and every player on the field has the potential to do something great(with the exception of blockers). Think about playing the quarterback position in the NFL. Regardless of the physical/fitness aspect, being a QB requires WAY more skill than any baseball position.

So football is more physical than baseball without a doubt. It also requires more skill, although its somewhat dependent on position. That is why Farve is obviously the more impressive of the two.

[Dirt]

I will remember both of them as guys who played too long and robbed some young star of play time. Both great in their prime, both have sucked at the end.


I'm sure Brett would've retired last season had he known the Packers weren't re-signing any of their team and those they did would end up injurred. I have more respect for him than any other professional athelete in any sport. He's a true competitor and he doesn't know the meaning of the word quit, but there's not much he can do when he has no O-line anymore.

As far as the Brett vs Cal debate, I have to say Brett and it isn't even close. Lasting that long in the NFL is hard enough to do, let alone starting every game. Look at his position. No team is going to keep starting an ineffective and past his prime quarterback season after season. One year they may let it slide, but that's it. The fact is, he's been competitive every year he has played and you can't argue that. IMO Cal's record is pretty bloated. It's impressive, but bloated. Both are great atheletes though who love their sport and I wouldn't ever argue against that.