You know the origin of the term "devil's advocate"? When the Catholic Church is considering someone for sainthood, the "devil's advocate" is the cardinal appointed to trash talk the possible saint. While I'm no cardinal, I am a Cardinals' fan (I love me some Albert Pujols, that's for sure). Allow me to serve as devil's advocate for the canonization of the Holy Saint Cal, the patron saint of immobile, but hard-hitting, middle infielders.

Ripken is a Hall of Famer, isn't he?

I concede that Ripken is a Hall of Famer. Reluctantly. Over the years, fans will not remember Ripken for his hitting or defense. He'll be remembered solely for the fact that he showed up for work every day. Day. After day. After day. After day. After day.

A commendable trait. Perfect attendance. Worth a gold star if you work on the loading dock. Something along the lines of: "Hey, Cal, report to personnel. You're getting some award for not missing any time." In the entire history of baseball, there's never been anyone better at showing up for work than Our Man Cal.

But is he a sure thing first ballot Hall of Famer?

Definitely. The Streak, combined with the two MVP Awards, and a ROY, assure that.

Should he be a unanimous first ballot Hall of Famer?

He's not even the best player who will become Hall of Fame eligible this season. That honor belongs to the immortal Rickey Henderson.

Rickey is the player you will tell future generations of baseball fans about. He was the greatest lead-off hitter in baseball history. Bar none. A legend who still walks (and singles and steals) among us. Rickey was the most exciting player of his generation. On base constantly. The greatest command of the strike zone in the modern era. Pure magic on the base paths. The most prolific base stealer in history. And if home runs are your definition of excitement, Rickey hit for power, too. Most home runs from the lead-off position in baseball history. Whatever you considered to be excitement, Rickey brought it on.

I never heard anyone call Ripken "exciting." He hit for power, playing a position that had not been considered an offensive position. He drove in a respectable number of runs. He made very few errors; his fielding percentages were consistently magnificent. Given the length of time that he performed at this "very good" level, he's a Hall of Famer. Probably first ballot. Definitely not the all-time greatest.

Isn't he the greatest shortstop of all time?

No. Maybe you could argue that he was maybe the greatest "hitting" shortstop of all time, but he definitely is not even the greatest shortstop of any decade he played in, let alone the entire history of the game.

To me, shortstop is primarily a defensive position. Offense is a bonus. It's almost like the pitcher. Mike Hampton's power hitting is wonderful, but when he's on the mound, he still better get Luis Gonzalez out when he comes up with men on base.

There is no doubt as to who is the greatest shortstop of all time: the one and only Wizard of Oz. Ozzie Smith made plays at short that no other human being could ever make. Over his career, he also progressively became a better and better hitter (just ask Tommy Lasorda about his home run in the 1985 NLCS). In the 1980's, if you could have any shortstop in the majors, you would have picked Ozzie.

In the 1990's, the choice would have been equally easy: Omar Vizquel. Another spectacular defensive shortstop, he made plays that only prime Ozzie could've made. In his best years, Vizquel was probably slightly better offensively than Ozzie, but a little weaker on defense (which would make him the second best defensive shortstop of all time).

How can Cal be the greatest shortstop of all time, when he was not even the greatest shortstop in either decade he played.

What about Cal's unbelievable fielding percentage?

Fielding percentage is useless for judging a player's defensive abilities. It measures the ability to cleanly handle balls hit to the player. It does not measure the number of balls in play he scoops up.

I've seen Ozzie and Omar be called for errors on balls that no other human could even reach. They would use superhuman effort to knock the ball down and keep it in the infield, but not be able to throw the runner out at first. But under the scoring rules, they'd get charged for an error.

Ripken had no range. Throughout his career, he showed the mobility of a fossil from the Paleozoic Era. I'm not saying the guy was Howard Johnson, but he was not Ozzie or Omar caliber either. When Cal played alongside a great defensive third baseman (like Craig Worthington) or second baseman (like Robbie Alomar, or even baby brother Billy), Ripken's defensive limitations were not much of a problem. But those late '80's teams, managed at one point by Daddy Ripken, with guys like Jackie Gutierrez, or the remnants of Rick Burleson, beside him, oh man, it was ugly. Ugly.

Won't you at least concede that he's the greatest offensive shortstop of all time?

I'll concede that he sustained a very good level of offensive production over a long period of time.

Some baseball writers are now comparing him with Honus Wagner. I'm not going to go there. I'm old, but I'm not that old. Never saw Wagner play, not even on tape. Different era. No comparison.

Shouldn't he be voted in unanimously because of the intangibles he brought to the game?

And what would those intangibles be?

Leadership?

Ripken was never a leader. He always remained aloof and apart from his teammates.

Baseball writers say that when a team is showing no unity, it's "25 cabs for 25 players." Cal showed no leadership in the mid to late '90's when the Angelos-owned O's degenerated into a "26 cabs for 25 players" disharmony. (The 26th cab would be for Brady's secret date.) He demanded - and got - the right to stay in a separate hotel. Sounds almost Bondsian, doesn't it? (And lots of folks probably consider Barry to be the anti-Cal.)

He led by example, not by words.

As the once proud Orioles franchise deteriorated in the last few years, Cal's example has not been enough to save the team, that's for sure.

You want someone who was a leader? Kirby Puckett, first ballot Hall of Famer. He single-handedly won Game 6 of the 1991 World Series with his words, his glove and his bat. It was the best display of one player single-handedly willing his team to victory I have ever seen. You ever see Cal dominate and win an important game with both great defensive play and clutch hitting? I haven't.

He saved baseball after the 1994 Strike.

I actually read some baseball writer try to make that argument. I have two words: Puh. Leeze.

The night he broke Gehrig's record was an event. But it did not compare with the great McGwire/Sosa home run showdown in 1998. There was electricity in the air all summer and fall whenever either were at any ballpark. I'm sorry, but I did not notice big crowds at all ballparks in which Ripken played in the months and weeks leading up the breaking of the record. Ripken's record-breaking was strictly a one-night event.

Didn't he save baseball in Baltimore?

No on that one, too. Larry Lucchino and Bob Irsay saved baseball in Baltimore, not Cal.

Baltimore was a lousy baseball town in the '60's and '70's. No one came out to see those Great Earl Weaver teams, playing in an ugly, inaccessible multi-purpose monstrosity, where every seat had an obstructed view.

Then, in the middle of the night, Bob Irsay and the Mayflower moving vans stole Baltimore's beloved Colts away to the Hoosier Dome. Baltimore rallied behind its baseball team and finally fell in love with the Orioles. And to reward their newfound love, team president Larry Lucchino oversaw the design and construction of the mother of all modern ballparks, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, saving baseball in Baltimore.

Didn't he have a tremendous influence on the next generation of shortstops?

Cal gets credit for re-inventing shortstop as an offensive position. Isn't that a Hall of Fame worthy accomplishment?

I'm not even going to concede that it's a positive. I want my shortstops to be glove wizards who don't embarrass themselves on offense.

A-Rod credits Cal as a major influence. My question is: how valuable is A-Rod as a shortstop?

Going into this season, I probably would have said A-Rod was the single most valuable position player in baseball today. I've changed my mind. Last season, A-Rod was with the Seattle Mariners. You may recall they had a rather good season. In the off-season, A-Rod got some headlines signing a contract with the Texas Rangers. What's happened to those two divisional rivals since then? The Rangers now trail the A-Rod-free Mariners by an historically large deficit.

It's not A-Rod's fault. But, I have a hard time accepting someone as the greatest player in the game when (1) the team he leaves improves significantly (to the point where they are on track for one of the greatest records of all time) and (2) the team he goes to falls apart.

So, A-Rod considers himself to a Ripken-like shortstop. Is it better to have your shortstop Ripken-like, or Vizquelian? The Vizquelian (and Venezuelan) Carlos Guillen seems to be ably filling the 6-slot for the incredible M's.

Can't you say anything good about Ripken?

Yes. The Streak was impressive, especially considering that he played a physically demanding position throughout most of it AND he did not cheaply extend it by frequent pinch hitting or DH'ing. He legitimately won his ROY and the first of his two MVP trophies, at least. He deserves the Hall of Fame. It's just that I dissent from the few that he belongs on a team with the All Time Greats.