Ripken: 2,632 games over 16 years.
Favre: Has played in 232 games over 14 years.

-----

I say Ripken easy. Ripken played SS (which most people don't realize is the most physically intensive position outside of Catcher) and didn't have the benefit of having off days in the week. Yes, football is the more physically demanding sport as awhole obviously but 16 games over one year in a position that doesn't get hit every play or close to it. Also factor in that Favre had 6 days every week in which he could either sit out to rest up dings or practice with the red jersey and not ever get hit.

Ripken.

12/1/2006 1:08:25 PM

Favre - he has the highest tolerance to opiates of anyone in professional sports.

12/1/2006 1:10:18 PM

im not quite sure who you picked, can you clarify?

12/1/2006 1:10:20 PM

Farve

12/1/2006 1:13:01 PM

lets see... standing around a field, scratching your balls vs. get blindsided by 300lb beasts? favre. no question about it.

12/1/2006 1:16:16 PM

Baseball doesn't rely on the one player to carry its offense.

Favre by about 12 million miles times seven.

12/1/2006 1:17:21 PM

^ that is a good point.

^^ that isn't.

V that was my first too but then I thought about it. Especially at QB you NEVER get hit in practice so it's not as simple as saying you get blindsided by 300 lb beasts (when that happens MAYBE once or twice every few weeks if you have a good line).

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 1:20 PM. Reason : x]

12/1/2006 1:19:03 PM

My first instinct is to say Favre......but He just has to show up once a week.

12/1/2006 1:19:44 PM

Quote :

"Baseball doesn't rely on the one player to carry its offense."

That is not what is being asked.

12/1/2006 1:20:01 PM

No but it makes sense when you think about it. Ripken wasn't the focal point of the offense on every play obviously so obviously being the QB is far more physically demanding on the game by game basis then anything in baseball.. However, if you know ANYTHING about sports you also realize that there are physical day to day demands simply by playing 162 times in a 185 day span far greater then anything the NFL has to offer as well...

12/1/2006 1:23:09 PM

so you're saying ripken has a healthy amphetamine addiction. good point.

12/1/2006 1:28:06 PM

its one of those incomparable things

12/1/2006 1:28:18 PM

Cal, but he was my baseball hero growing up

12/1/2006 1:28:56 PM

Quote :

"My first instinct is to say Favre......but He just has to show up once a week."

You don't give nearly enough credit to an NFL practice/tape session regimen.

12/1/2006 1:29:30 PM

it seems like half the injuries that ever take place happen during the week too

12/1/2006 1:32:08 PM

I'm gonna say Ripken.

12/1/2006 1:32:39 PM

Ripken has the more impressive number, but baseball isn't a sport that produces that many injuries. I mean, just look how many big stars in football have been out this season: Portis, McNabb, Steve Smith, Hasselback, Alexander, Trent Green, Strahan, Roethlisberger, Dan Morgan, etc. And these are just the big name guys that you hear about all the time. The fact that he has been through that many games without some kind of injury serious enough to keep him from starting is insane.

I mean shit, Aaron Rogers couldn't even make it through one game without getting injured.

Both are very impressive, but I give the nod to Favre.

Plus neither of them will be broken for a LONG while.

12/1/2006 1:33:40 PM

Quote :

"I say Ripken easy. Ripken played SS (which most people don't realize is the most physically intensive position outside of Catcher) and didn't have the benefit of having off days in the week. Yes, football is the more physically demanding sport as awhole obviously but 16 games over one year in a position that doesn't get hit every play or close to it. Also factor in that Favre had 6 days every week in which he could either sit out to rest up dings or practice with the red jersey and not ever get hit. Ripken."

Ahhhh, I love your insight as to why Brett Favre's streak is more impressive.



not only is Favre in a much more physically demanding sport, he is one of the most active participants in EVERY single game (meaning he is involved in all offensive plays, not just some), the outcome of every game is determined largely in part by his performance, he has won MVP's, League Championships, and led the league in yards, completions, and TD's in some seasons during this active streak.

When was Cal a home run champ? batting champ? RBI champ? stolen base champ? World Champion? I am really asking, I dont know.

Not that Cal did, but he could have had his worst game ever, struck out every at bat, and never had a ball hit his way, and his team could win by 10 runs on any given night.

There is no question.

FAVRE

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 1:37 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/1/2006 1:35:08 PM

Brett Favre plays half of his games in frigid temperatures. you trying getting blindsided by a 300lb gorilla when it's that cold outside and see if you don't hear something snap inside your body.

12/1/2006 1:37:43 PM

i think its like comparing apples to oranges. both are impressive and neither one should overshadow the other.

12/1/2006 1:38:54 PM

are you serious? this isnt even a comparison- favre by a mile

12/1/2006 1:39:08 PM

^^^^

Quote :

"1983 Ripken hit .318 and led the AL with 211 hits, 47 doubles, 76 extra-base hits, 121 runs, 162 games played and 663 at bats. He helped lead the Baltimore Orioles to a 98-64 record and a World Series title. At the end of the season, Cal beat out teammate Eddie Murray in the AL MVP voting, the final tally being 322-290. Cal became the first player in MLB history to win Rookie of the Year honors and be named the MVP the following year. (Fred Lynn had previously won both honors in 1975, as would Ichiro Suzuki in 2001.)"

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 1:41 PM. Reason : So basically most of that all in one year, pretty impressive]

12/1/2006 1:39:47 PM

favre and it's not even close. ripken's streak is amazing in it's own right and i don't see it being broken, but to do what favre has done in the NFL is even more amazing.

12/1/2006 1:40:14 PM

^^wow.

the sad thing is that was ~20 years before he retired.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 1:41 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/1/2006 1:41:20 PM

he only played 16 years.

12/1/2006 1:42:12 PM

FUCK BASEBALL

12/1/2006 1:43:25 PM

I actually didn't even consider Favre's in the same class as Ripken's until I really thought about it.

A lot of people will just denigrate this down to a 'fuck baseball, football rules!!!' pissfest but as someone said it is comparing apples to oranges, but still something fun to argue about. As someone who never played football but played baseball year round I think a lot of people underestimate the toll the sport takes on your body day in and day out. I can't lift anything with my right arm after playing SS for more then 2 games.. I couldn't imagine the beating it takes 162 games a season...

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ^ ahah.. and i didn't even see that post before mine..]

12/1/2006 1:47:05 PM

fuck baseball, football rules!!!

12/1/2006 1:49:57 PM

O'doyel rules!

12/1/2006 1:51:21 PM

Another thing to consider is..
Baseball players can be in pretty shitty condition (e.g. sick... something's hurting them) and still give 75-80%, since one game isn't that important. One game in football is very important.

12/1/2006 1:52:29 PM

Handling the ball every offensive play and physically being hit vs. being involved in 1 out of 9 offensive plays, and a fraction of defensive plays.

Favre

12/1/2006 1:52:58 PM

ahahaa.


NyM410 gets pwned again!!

12/1/2006 1:56:57 PM

Ripken, they don't call him Ironman for nothing. I respect Favre and his streak, don't get me wrong, but it's 16 years! of over 100 games per year! There should be a ratio: 4 MLB baseball games = 1 football game physically....now who wins?

12/1/2006 1:57:15 PM

^^^ Personally I think handing the ball off to a RB is akin to any ball being put in play in baseball. If you've played before you realize an infielder will be in constant motion on nearly every play, whether it be actively going after a ground/fly ball, backing up, covering a base, etc, etc. It's not like he stands around 'scratching his nuts' like someone said... I'm actually starting to lean a bit towards Favre right now...

^^ No, I'm not. I'm open to listen to other peoples arguments and change my opinion. It's not like I said I'm right and no one elses opinion can affect me...

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 2:00 PM. Reason : work to do now ]

12/1/2006 1:59:26 PM

Favre, all the reasons have been given, not repeating shit

12/1/2006 1:59:31 PM

concidering how injury prone QBs are and for Favre to have went this long with out being knocked out bad enough to miss a game, he wins hands down

12/1/2006 1:59:50 PM

FAVRE

12/1/2006 2:08:41 PM

Not even close....Favre.

I played about every sport when I was young, and baseball is the least "taxing" (I think that's the right word) sport out of all of them. Not a lot of running and not a lot of contact. The comparison between Favre and Ripken isn't about physical longevity, it's about avoiding and dealing with injuries.

And I think a good test would be if you put Ripken in Favre's position...would he miss a game?? And vice versa. Favre could play a million baseball games in a row, I doubt Ripken could get through a football season.

12/1/2006 2:15:18 PM

Quote :

"I doubt Ripken could get through a football season."

i'll bet you he could. (back when he was still playing, obviously)

12/1/2006 2:17:05 PM

cal

12/1/2006 2:17:24 PM

Quote :

"And I think a good test would be if you put Ripken in Favre's position...would he miss a game?? And vice versa. Favre could play a million baseball games in a row, I doubt Ripken could get through a football season."

You were good up until here.

12/1/2006 2:18:15 PM

Quote :

"Personally I think handing the ball off to a RB is akin to any ball being put in play in baseball. If you've played before you realize an infielder will be in constant motion on nearly every play, whether it be actively going after a ground/fly ball, backing up, covering a base, etc, etc. It's not like he stands around 'scratching his nuts' like someone said... "

even on running plays, the QB is going to deal with contact. in baseball, you don't have to worry about a 300lb offensive lineman and a 300lb defensive tackle falling to the ground and rolling up the back of your leg. there have been plenty of season ending injuries to other quarterbacks stemming from after the play was a second or two beyond the line of scrimmage.

12/1/2006 2:23:28 PM

^^Yeah...that just popped into my head.

Meh.

12/1/2006 2:24:12 PM

I lived in DC during Cal Jr.'s streak and was at the tie and breaking games in Camden Yards...and I think Farve is 1000% more impressive.

There is very little physical contact in baseball but what Farve has achieved is amazing! Cal is/was a tough guy but he would sub out late in games and never once was hit by a 300lb+ guy.

12/1/2006 2:25:45 PM

For the record, and for what it's worth... baseball players don't wear pads.

12/1/2006 2:26:36 PM

^^ but he also never got a week's rest between every game.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 2:27 PM. Reason : ^]

12/1/2006 2:26:51 PM

Quote :

"even on running plays, the QB is going to deal with contact. in baseball, you don't have to worry about a 300lb offensive lineman and a 300lb defensive tackle falling to the ground and rolling up the back of your leg. "

That is true. I'm trying to look at this from both sides fairly. Conversely in football you don't have to worry about getting hit with a 95 mph fastball 20 times a game. There are risks that differ from sport to sport.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 2:28 PM. Reason : ^^ unless you're barry bonds]

12/1/2006 2:27:17 PM

Quote :

"For the record, and for what it's worth... baseball players don't wear pads."

BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO. Baseball is not a physical sport. The chance of an injury compared to football is not even close.

12/1/2006 2:29:42 PM

12/1/2006 2:30:08 PM

no. baseball players wouldn't be able to do SHIT if they had to wear pads.

12/1/2006 2:33:27 PM