Favre's streak vs Ripken's streak

[jdoggivjc]

That's assuming that all else is being equal, which it obviously is not. Padding, recovery time, etc. You're also assuming that HBP is the only case in which a baseball player can get hurt. The majority of baseball injuries don't come from a HBP.

My argument was countering someone who said that it was rougher getting hit by a pitch compared to taking a sack.

I've already said that I think both feats are impressive.

That being said, I've been hit playing tackle football in High School and I've been drilled by a line drive in softball. I know it's not exactly fair comparison, but if I had to do both over again, I'd rather be drilled by the softball (but not in the shin this time - that really sucked)

 

[ISUFan22]

Ahhh...momentum formulas have been brought into this. :biglaugh:

I'm out...

 

[mwitt]

My argument was countering someone who said that it was rougher getting hit by a pitch compared to taking a sack.

I've already said that I think both feats are impressive.

That being said, I've been hit playing tackle football in High School and I've been drilled by a line drive in softball. I know it's not exactly fair comparison, but if I had to do both over again, I'd rather be drilled by the softball (but not in the shin this time - that really sucked)

Fair enough, I agree with all of that.

 

[Flag Guy]

You REALLY don't want to get into this comparison...

Let's compare the amount of momentum that Ripken has to take from a beanball compared to the amount of momentum that Favre has to take from a rushing lineman.

Using the standard p=mv formula (p=momentum, m=mass, v=velocity) for momentum:

1lb baseball (and that's generous) x 95 mph = 95 lb mph of momentum Ripken absorbs when he gets hit wit a fastball..

315 lb lineman (on average) x 10 mph (if a girl on The Biggest Loser can sprint to over 10 mph I'm sure a d lineman can at least do that much) = 3,150 lb mph of momentum that Favre has to absorb when taking a sack, knockdown, etc.

Something tells me I'd rather take a Randy Johnson fastball (in his prime) to my back than giving any one of the Baltimore Ravens' linemen a chance to square up and run me over on my blind side.

Not to say this doesn't change you point but you DO have to take the area over which that impact is spread into account

Or where that force is applied (Legs/waist can take more impact than fingers can, if he were hit in the hands. Yes he's more likely to be hit in the back but a hit to the hands could be rather damaging to a short stop...)


Food for thought

 

[CloneFan65]

And you think Favre is not playing to keep the streak alive?

No I don't. It's already a very impressive streak, but it's a long way from the record. I don't think he has any chance of setting the record.

You make the hypothetical statement that Ripken may have been more productive had he taken some days off but this is purely a hypothetical on your part...and by the way, Ripken's stats were pretty damned impressive...with no days off.

Of course it's hypothetical, but I don't think there are many that would argue that taking a few days off during the season for players in their 30's is necessary to play at a peak level.

As for Favre taking a day off and it hurting the team...I think if you look back to the past 2 or 3 seasons...there were more than a few people (including Packer fans) that thought Favre should "hang 'em up"...precisely because his production was falling.

There were many who said this exact same thing about Ripken at the end of his streak.

Clearly he has rebounded this year with a nice season but I thought the Packers may have looked the best they have all season when Aaron Rodgers went in to replace Favre a couple of weeks ago. Maybe I should make the hypothetical that the Packers would be better with Rodgers starting at QB to match your hypothetical.

So by your logic, if Ripken had a couple 0 for 4 days in a row they should have benched him? If you want to make the argument that the Packers are better with Rodgers in there, go ahead, but if Rodgers gave the Packers a better chance to win, I think he'd be playing now.

 

[Flag Guy]

Ahhh...momentum formulas have been brought into this. :biglaugh:

I'm out...

I really should be studying debt ratios rather than dredging up physics right now :no:

 

[CloneFan65]

Ripken got hit by about four pitches a year, where Favre gets hit by four 300 lb lineman each game.

 

[bandit]

As a Bears fan, it kills me to admit this, but Favre easily. Yes, Ripken might have gotten dinged once or twice a week covering 2nd or the occasional hit by pitch, but to get flattened dozens of times a week on 'frozen tundra' by 300+ linemen and not miss a start (not including the hits in preseason games)? Favre gets my vote

 

[ISUFan22]

The question really should be...

Which guy could take a bullet and still play?

Because it seems that's going to be part of the screening process when looking at new players for your team.

 

[Steve]

You REALLY don't want to get into this comparison...

Let's compare the amount of momentum that Ripken has to take from a beanball compared to the amount of momentum that Favre has to take from a rushing lineman.

Using the standard p=mv formula (p=momentum, m=mass, v=velocity) for momentum:

1lb baseball (and that's generous) x 95 mph = 95 lb mph of momentum Ripken absorbs when he gets hit wit a fastball..

315 lb lineman (on average) x 10 mph (if a girl on The Biggest Loser can sprint to over 10 mph I'm sure a d lineman can at least do that much) = 3,150 lb mph of momentum that Favre has to absorb when taking a sack, knockdown, etc.

Something tells me I'd rather take a Randy Johnson fastball (in his prime) to my back than giving any one of the Baltimore Ravens' linemen a chance to square up and run me over on my blind side.

So are you trying to say that it would be better to be hit by a 1/4 oz bullet fired at 1000 mph from a hunting rifle? I don't think so.

Also guys can catch a softball line drive barehanded. 95 mph baseball break hands. No comparison between the two.

There are probably 6 or more collisions between guys who average 260 lbs on every football play. Very few result in an injury that sidelines a guy for the next contest. Getting hit by a baseball is certainly more rare, but the results are more traumatic.

 

[cyclonenum1]

No I don't. It's already a very impressive streak, but it's a long way from the record. I don't think he has any chance of setting the record.



Of course it's hypothetical, but I don't think there are many that would argue that taking a few days off during the season for players in their 30's is necessary to play at a peak level.



There were many who said this exact same thing about Ripken at the end of his streak.



So by your logic, if Ripken had a couple 0 for 4 days in a row they should have benched him? If you want to make the argument that the Packers are better with Rodgers in there, go ahead, but if Rodgers gave the Packers a better chance to win, I think he'd be playing now.

You believe Ripken was playing just to keep the streak alive and I believe Favre is doing the very same thing. As the stats I gave indicate...Favre clearly could have been benched in either 05 and 06 and many wanted it to happen so the Pack could get on with their future. The reality is that both Ripken and Favre are granted the privilege of ending their streaks on their own because of what they have meant to their teams and their leagues.

By the way...Favre is only sacked about 1.6 times per game...many of you make the "leap of faith" that he is getting blasted all the time...that is just not the case. Jim Marshall's 282 game streak is much more impressive than Favres due to his position (d-line=contact on every play) and due to the fact that they played only 14 games per year back then. He never missed a game in 20 years.

 

[wonkadog]

What exactly are we talking about? Sorry, I'm still trying to dry my tears from that horribly emotional game last year in Chicago where somehow Favre played in his last ever game against all odds. Oh wait, what the heck, he's still playing?? Imagine that!!!

 

[ISUFan22]

But look at all those Lambeau leaps he takes (not much of a leap anymore though). That can be a tough collision.

Ripken never did anything like that...:nah:

 

[Flag Guy]

Don't make me send The Bird in here... oliceman:

 

[Iastfan112]

You believe Ripken was playing just to keep the streak alive and I believe Favre is doing the very same thing. As the stats I gave indicate...Favre clearly could have been benched in either 05 and 06 and many wanted it to happen so the Pack could get on with their future. The reality is that both Ripken and Favre are granted the privilege of ending their streaks on their own because of what they have meant to their teams and their leagues.

By the way...Favre is only sacked about 1.6 times per game...many of you make the "leap of faith" that he is getting blasted all the time...that is just not the case. Jim Marshall's 282 game streak is much more impressive than Favres due to his position (d-line=contact on every play) and due to the fact that they played only 14 games per year back then. He never missed a game in 20 years.

your discounting a very important additional thing in addition to how many times farve is sacked, how many times he's hit after he's thrown the ball, which I'm willing to bet is a lot more. Farve is a smart guy, he'll throw the ball rather than take a sack(in some cases make a stupid throw) but he gets hit all the time after he's thrown. In additon you have the couple of times he runs the ball a game

 

[Flag Guy]

By the way ISUfan22 I love the avatar

And the "I state" christmas tree topper is a nice touch!

 

[Sousaclone]

Like someone said earlier, it's like comparing apples to oranges. They are both incredible streaks. From a daily grind standpoint, it's clearly Ripken. Baseball plays day in and day out. However it's not nearly as physical as football, yeah getting spiked, getting beaned, colliding with the catcher, etc are not pleasant events but if compare the number of times that happens to the number of times a QB gets hit per game the roughness factor goes to Favre.

Then of course there is the question which one has a greater impact on his team by not being in the game?

 

[superfan]

So are you trying to say that it would be better to be hit by a 1/4 oz bullet fired at 1000 mph from a hunting rifle? I don't think so.

Also guys can catch a softball line drive barehanded. 95 mph baseball break hands. No comparison between the two.

There are probably 6 or more collisions between guys who average 260 lbs on every football play. Very few result in an injury that sidelines a guy for the next contest. Getting hit by a baseball is certainly more rare, but the results are more traumatic.

From a momentum standpoint, yes, it is better to get hit by the bullet. From a kinetic energy standpoint, however, the bullet is going to be much more damaging since the energy is proportional to the velocity squared. However, the analogy holds up for energy, as well.

E = 0.5*m*v^2:

Baseball: E = 0.5*1*(95)^2 = 4512.5 (lb*miles^2)/hr^2
Lineman: E = 0.5*315*(10)^2 = 15,750 (lb*miles^2)/hr^2

I'm biased, but I've gotta go with Favre. I don't know Cal's injury history, but remember Favre played the better part of a season with a broken thumb on his throwing hand.

 

[Steve]

From a momentum standpoint, yes, it is better to get hit by the bullet. From a kinetic energy standpoint, however, the bullet is going to be much more damaging since the energy is proportional to the velocity squared. However, the analogy holds up for energy, as well.

E = 0.5*m*v^2:

Baseball: E = 0.5*1*(95)^2 = 4512.5 (lb*miles^2)/hr^2
Lineman: E = 0.5*315*(10)^2 = 15,750 (lb*miles^2)/hr^2

I'm biased, but I've gotta go with Favre. I don't know Cal's injury history, but remember Favre played the better part of a season with a broken thumb on his throwing hand.

Good point about the velocity squared factor. It's why hs guys facing 75 are encouraged to "take one for the team" while pros facing 95 know that they better try to get out of the way. Nearly twice the energy to be absorbed at impact.

This leads to another point. While some incidents of HBP can be a glancing blow, many are direct impacts where the batter absorbs all of the kinetic energy in the ball. I really believe that it's a different situation when hitting the QB. Despite being encouraged to "accelerate through the tackle", the opposite usually occurs. The defender anticipates contact, braces for it, and actually ends up decelerating at the moment of contact.

There are other issues that diminish the effect of the collision in both cases. One is that an official baseball is between 5 and 5 1/4 oz rather than 1 lb. At the same time, there are not many 315 lbers that actually get to the QB. Most pass rushers are LBs or DEs in the 220 - 270 lb range. In addition, often a good portion of this mass does not impact the QB. Most tackles involve the defender supporting a portion of his own weight in a type of controlled fall. In many cases a OL is still hanging on to the defender and trying to impede his progress.

There are a whole host of kinesiology factors related to body movements that reduce the impact of the collision. QBs routinely bounce back up from a tackle from a 250 lb defender. You would have to pick up the pieces if they were hit with a 250 lb steel ball traveling the same speed.

It certainly wouldn't be fun to be the target of either a NFL tackler or an errant fast ball from someone like CC Sabathia. My choice would be to don pads and take on the hit, but others may certainly choose the other option.

 

[Flag Guy]

We should have Dr. Atwood assign this problem to his physics class next semester... :biggrin: