If Ripken played w/replacements, how would he have done?

[DTF955]

This is just a thread because I'm feeling a little silly, and just too anxious for baseball to start during this beautiful, mild winter weather (in Ohio.)

Let's say that Cal Ripken, Jr. is somehow convinced to play with replacement players, and the owner is, too, and they do indeed trot them out on the field in 1995. He plays all 162 games as is his custom that year, but they are all against replacements (unless you choose options 7 or 8), and the team doesn't forfeit any to keep his streak intact. What result?

[KCGHOST]

It is not clear, but I think you mean to say that the entire 162 game schedule is played with just Cal & the replacement players. 18 games with replacement players probably wouldn't have mattered much.

[DTF955]

You're right, thanks; I edited the original. The 18 games would be a good way to look at option #8, players coming back slowly like the NFL strike.

[Captain Cold Nose]

When Steve Largent crossed the picket lines in the 1987 NFL strike, he went for like 15 catches and a few touchdowns.
I think a superstar caliber player would post huge, expansion year-like numbers. Ripken, however, was on the downside of his career by 1995. He would have undoubtedly posted nice numbers, but I'm not sure if he would have done as well as players like Belle did that year against the regulars.

[Brian McKenna]

there are still replacement players active - kevin millar was just signed by the orioles

[Appling]

I don't think a few MLB stars like Ripken, playing even a full season against replacement players, would have anything like the advantage that was given to some players who got to play during the WWII years (1943-44-45) -- when most of the "real men" were out fighting for their country.