Barry Larkin

[Eddie Collins]

Is Barry a HOFer? He had some spectacular seasons, played great defense, and was one the most complete players of his time during his prime.

What do you guys think?

[BoSox Rule]

He's played in an era with Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith, Nomar, A-Rod, and Jeter. Sorry, but no.

[Eddie Collins]

Originally posted by BoSox Rule
He's played in an era with Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith, Nomar, A-Rod, and Jeter. Sorry, but no.

Nomar, Arod, and Jeter began playing once Larkin was past his prime.

[Cougar]

Barry Larkin is:

*11 time All-Star SS; unchallenged as the best NL SS of the 1990's.
*Three time Gold Glove SS who will have played 2000 games at the position (29 to go)
* MVP (1995)
* Best player on a championship team (1990)
* .338 average in the postseason, including .353 in the World Series and .387 in the 1995 postseason.
* Meets 44% of typical HOF standards
* Over 2200 hits, career BA of .295, OBP of .372
* Just under 200 HR (189 at this writing) from the SS position (historically very good, even if that's all changing with the new wave). Also 418 doubles and counting, and 73 triples and counting. .447 career slugging percentage.
* 376 SB at an 83% success rate.

Without listing out all the shortstops in the HOF as of now, I'd say with a high degree of confidence that Larkin is probably clearly better than at least half of them. Only a lack of durability is keeping Larkin out of the no-brainer category; were he healthier, he'd have 300-400 more hits and probably a slightly higher BA. As is, Larkin was the best SS in his league for something like a 12-13 year span, from shortly after he entered the league to about 2000.

He clearly deserves the Hall call. The only thing that may hurt him is that he was really a generalist; he did everything very well, but nothing incandescently well. People who don't look closely enough may miss how great Larkin really is.

Larkin should go to the HOF. There's no question about it.

[BoSox Rule]

Originally posted by Cougar
Barry Larkin is:

*11 time All-Star SS; unchallenged as the best NL SS of the 1990's.
*Three time Gold Glove SS who will have played 2000 games at the position (29 to go)
* MVP (1995)
* Best player on a championship team (1990)
* .338 average in the postseason, including .353 in the World Series and .387 in the 1995 postseason.
* Meets 44% of typical HOF standards
* Over 2200 hits, career BA of .295, OBP of .372
* Just under 200 HR (189 at this writing) from the SS position (historically very good, even if that's all changing with the new wave). Also 418 doubles and counting, and 73 triples and counting. .447 career slugging percentage.
* 376 SB at an 83% success rate.

Without listing out all the shortstops in the HOF as of now, I'd say with a high degree of confidence that Larkin is probably clearly better than at least half of them. Only a lack of durability is keeping Larkin out of the no-brainer category; were he healthier, he'd have 300-400 more hits and probably a slightly higher BA. As is, Larkin was the best SS in his league for something like a 12-13 year span, from shortly after he entered the league to about 2000.

He clearly deserves the Hall call. The only thing that may hurt him is that he was really a generalist; he did everything very well, but nothing incandescently well. People who don't look closely enough may miss how great Larkin really is.

Larkin should go to the HOF. There's no question about it.

Wow, my comment was VERY ignorant. I should have done my homework. Now, I say he's in.

[J W]

Thank you so much, Cougar. You saved me a whole lot of typing. :D

[Eddie Collins]

Put those stats in the context of the time he played and they seem even better. He did not play his best years in the homer happy game we see now. Had he played today, that already impressive 30/30 season of 1995, may have turned into a 40+/30 season. He did win several gold gloves, but played spectacular defense even when he didn't win them. For most of the 90's he was the best shortstop in the NL and his All Star appearances prove that. He had a great combination of hitting for average, power, defense, speed, and clutch hitting. Even in his decline he keeps up with the clutch hits, last night hitting the game winner for the Reds. Earlier in the year he smashed a PH walkoff homer. If Larkin would have been able to stay healthy for these past few years, he would most likely have reached 2,500+ hits, almost guaranteeing him a place in the Hall.

Not to use the lowest common denominator theory as reason for HOF election, but I believe Larkin was superior to the following enshrined shortstops:
Rabbit Maranville
Dave Bancroft
Travis Jackson
Phil Rizzuto
Pee Wee Reese
etc etc etc( I dont feel like researching right now)

I am not saying that Larkin's numbers were just as good as these people and therefore he should be enshrined. Rather, I am pointing out that his numbers were DRASTICALLY better than many HOFers.

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by Cougar
Barry Larkin is:

** Best player on a championship team (1990)




I question this one wouldn't the best player ona championship team have led his team in something

the 1990 Reds were led
In Runs, HR, and 2B by Chris Sabo
In RBI and SLG by Eric Davis
In BA and 3B by Mariano Duncan
In SB and OBP Larkin did lead though he tied Billy Hatcher for the SB lead

Larkin was 5th in OPS amongst Reds Starters that year.

He has the best career of the Reds Players on that team but he wasn't the best team at least not clearly the best Sabo, Davis, O'Neil, and Duncan could all lay claim to that as could Tom Browning or Randy Myers

[Cougar]

Certainly Larkin is at least arguably the best hitter. He led the team in hits, hit .301 in 614 AB (as opposed to Duncan hitting .306 in 435 AB). Other players had more power, true, but Larkin was the most reliable offensive player they had.

In addition, Larkin was:

* Definitely the most valuable fielder (gold glove caliber SS).

* Best baserunner (30 SB, SB% of 86%).

* Team captain.

With an ordinary shortstop...say, Walt Weiss (not to knock the guy, he's a nice complementary player) the Reds might have finished over .500, but weren't going to sniff the World Series.

With Larkin, they swept a dynastic A's team.

[The Commissioner]

He definitely deserves to go in. However, as Clint Eastwood said, "deserves got nothing to do with it". I can easily see the writers unfairly overlooking his accomplishments 5 years after he retires.

[Cougar]

Wouldn't surprise me either. As I said before, he's got that generalist problem, plus he'll be unfairly compared with the super-generation of shortstops today (as BoSox's knee jerk initial demonstration showed us -- good recovery BoSox! You learn better than most BBWAA writers.

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by Cougar
Certainly Larkin is at least arguably the best hitter. He led the team in hits, hit .301 in 614 AB (as opposed to Duncan hitting .306 in 435 AB). Other players had more power, true, but Larkin was the most reliable offensive player they had.

In addition, Larkin was:

* Definitely the most valuable fielder (gold glove caliber SS).

* Best baserunner (30 SB, SB% of 86%).

* Team captain.

With an ordinary shortstop...say, Walt Weiss (not to knock the guy, he's a nice complementary player) the Reds might have finished over .500, but weren't going to sniff the World Series.

With Larkin, they swept a dynastic A's team.

Actually you could argue for Eric Davis who had an 87.5% success rate with SB and also was a GG caliber fielder 1990 was the first year in 4 seasons he didn't win a GG (even though he had his best Fielding percentage that year)


I would say that Larkin was not clearly the best player on the Reds in 1990 but rather just one of many talented players who came together and won a championship

[Brad Harris]

1990 Cincinnati Reds Win Shares
25 Barry Larkin
20 Chris Sabo
17 Eric Davis
17 Rob Dibble
17 Randy Myers
17 Jose Rijo
16 Paul O'Neill
15 Mariano Duncan
14 Norm Charlton
13 Tom Browning
12 Billy Hatcher
12 Joe Oliver
11 Hal Morris
10 Jack Armstrong

14 players with fewer than 10 win shares.

[Brad Harris]

This from Baseball Library (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/L/Larkin_Barry.stm):

"Over the next several seasons, Larkin not only improved his play, but also grew into the role of team leader. In September of 1990, with the Reds struggling to close out the NL West title, he called a clubhouse meeting and ripped his teammates for coasting through the stretch run.


Some interesting stuff on that link, by the way.

Larkin was named the captain of the 1988 U.S. Barnstorming Tour of Japan.

Larkin hit .311 as a starter for the '84 Olympic Team.

MVP of the American Association in 1986.

August 17, 1986 was Larkin's first ML home run in the same game that was to be (player-manager) Pete Rose's last career game.

[Brad Harris]

Where Larkin Rates Among Shorstops...
20th in hits
12th in doubles
7th in home runs
19th in runs batted in
14th in runs scored
13th in stolen bases
12th in walks
6th all-time in extra-base hits
11th all-time in total bases

Among shortstops with at least as many PAs...
5th in batting average
3rd in on base percentage
3rd in slugging percentage
3rd in OPS
3rd in Isolated Power (ISO)
1st in Secondary Average (SEC)

Using runs created...
12th in RC
4th in RC/27
6th in RCAA
3rd in RCAP

[J W]

...and of course he was rated sixth all-time at SS by Mr. James in his latest Abstract, ahead of Ozzie Smith and Joe Cronin.

At that time, aside from the "uber-generation" players, only Honus Wagner, Monte Ward, and Arky Vaughan had a higher WS/season than Larkin's 28.12. Of course, that number would have gone down by now.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by J W
...and of course he was rated sixth all-time at SS by Mr. James in his latest Abstract, ahead of Ozzie Smith and Joe Cronin.


I agree with Larkin being a Hall of Famer, but Mr. James is setting a bad example for today's youth culture through his apparent continual abuse of illegal narcotic substances.

[abolishthedh]

A couple of years ago, during one game the Royals announcers were discussing possible HoFers who will retire after playing their entire careers with one team. With the exception of Barry, they listed everyone, including Gwynn and Ripken. I kept waiting for them to mention Barry, but they never did. This tells me that in the era of Arod, Nomar, Jeter, Tejada that Barry Larkin is already becoming less appreciated, and even forgotten. He'll probably get in, but it might take a while on the ballot.

[J W]

It's going to take a lot of screaming and yelling to get him in... so it's up to his supporters on the Association.

[cubbieinexile]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
I agree with Larkin being a Hall of Famer, but Mr. James is setting a bad example for today's youth culture through his apparent continual abuse of illegal narcotic substances.

I can certainly see Barry being rated above Cronin and Ozzie. Cronin was not as goog of an all-around player that Larkin was. His defense was no where near as good as Larkins. Plus there numbers are pretty close despite the fact that for the most part Cronin played in a better hitters era than Larkin. Ozzie had the defense but was nowhere near as good as Larkin is with the bat. Also Barry was not a bad fielder he was quite good. So it comes down to how much weight do you put on defense. I would not say not enough especially when you consider that Barry was quite good at defense to out weigh the hitting accomplishments.

The trouble with Barry is that he is fragile and had the misfortune of playing while the new wave of SS came onto the scene. If ozzie had started his career in 1990 or 1989 (like Omar) he probably wouldn't have a shot at the Hall. Fortunately for him he played at a time when most teams only required defense at SS.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by abolishthedh
A couple of years ago, during one game the Royals announcers were discussing possible HoFers who will retire after playing their entire careers with one team. With the exception of Barry, they listed everyone, including Gwynn and Ripken. I kept waiting for them to mention Barry, but they never did. This tells me that in the era of Arod, Nomar, Jeter, Tejada that Barry Larkin is already becoming less appreciated, and even forgotten. He'll probably get in, but it might take a while on the ballot.

I think this is more a reflection on the fact that Denny Matthews and Ryan Lefebvre haven't seen Larkin play much because neither has ever covered a National League team.

They've both had the good fortune to watch the current triumverate of AL shortstops (now adding Tejada) as well as Omar Vizquel. And Matthews has been blessed with watching Yount, Trammell, Ripken, Campaneris and Belanger, among others, over the years.

No doubt, the small sampling of interleague matchups they've watched an old Larkin in, are a poor sampling of how consistently great he's been throughout his career.

Furthermore, it's entirely possible, if they were throwing out names, that they simply overlooked one. Let's face it...there's a pretty fair number of decent candidates to discuss.

[Mike D.]

Hello All...new poster to Baseball Fever, but have been reading here for a while and think this is a great site!

I just wrote an article on Barry Larkin's HOF chances (http://www.darowski.com/rulev/?p=1) on my fledgling baseball blog, The Rule V Baseball Blog (http://www.darowski.com/rulev/), and wanted to see what the folks around here thought about his worthiness.

[KCGHOST]

Well, I would elect him, but he has problems. First, by the time he gets on the ballot (2009) it will be 9-10 years since he had a good season. That's given the voter's time to forget him. Despite a 19 year career he "only" played in 2180 games and his counting numbers aren't special. His lack of durability will be a mark against him.

He did win an MVP award, several gold gloves, and was in 12 all-star games. His comp are all good players and three of them are HoFers (Cronin, Reese, and Sandberg). He doesn't do well at all on the Grey or Black Ink ranking. His Hof standard ranking is just below average, while his HoF monitor ranking is well above average.

And it doesn't help that by the time his career ended he was thoroughly eclipsed by Arod, Jeter, Tejada and Garciaparra. Fortunately for him Nomar has about well off the face of the earth and Arod has moved to 3rd.

[abacab]

Most people on this site consider Larkin a deserving HoFer. If you check the "Baseball Fever Hall of Fame" thread at the top, you'll see that Larkin has already been elected. Whether the actual Hall of Fame voters feel the same way remains to be seen. The lack of support for Alan Trammell doesn't bode well for Larkin, as the two players were similar (though Larkin was beter).

[DoubleX]

With the exception of Ozzie Smith, middle infielders have not been treated kindly in recent years. Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, and Willie Randolph all received the one and done treatment, while Sandberg took much longer than he should have to get in, and Trammell struggles to stay on the ballot each year.

That being said, I think Larkin will get in, as he should (so should Trammell for that matter, and perhaps even Grich and Whitaker), but I think like Sandberg, Larkin will take a couple of years to get in.

[538280]

Barry Larkin should be a first ballot HOFer IMO. The only concern with him is that he wasn't always that durable and missed quite a few games during the season. Still, though, he was an awesome player, one of the most complete in baseball history (what is his weakness again?). I might as well re-post the long post I made in the history forum in my "Jeter vs. Larkin" thread:

If he does achieve those career totals you give, and he doesn't improve his peak, I don't see how on earth he goes ahead of Barry Larkin IMO. All he would have is pure longevity. People don't realize the true greatness of Barry Larkin over his career. Look at this handy little chart:

OPS SS OPS DIFF*
Barry Larkin .815 .678 20.2%
Derek Jeter .848 .737 15.1%

RCAP
Honus Wagner 1060
Arky Vaughan 598
Alex Rodriguez 506
BARRY LARKIN 488
George Davis 452
Joe Cronin 431
Cal Ripken 408
Robin Yount 408
Luke Appling 375
Alan Trammell 365

That shows runs created in his career above the average SS during his time. Larkin is 4th all time, behind the three players pretty much conceded as the best offensive SSs ever. In relative OPS versus the league average shortstop, he is I believe 4th or 5th all time.

Over his career Larkin had an OPS 21% better than SSs of his time (just player OPS divided by league average, not OPS+). Jeter so far is 15% better than the other SSs. That is also bound to go down. Barry Larkin is the better offensive player.

Some may say that there have been more great offensive shortstops in Jeter's time. There have, but I think that makes Jeter less valuable and Larkin more. Hitting from SS is more valualble when it's harder to find.

I do think, however, that the fact there were more other great hitting 1B and CF during their eras does make their hitting slightly less valuable. I think the fact it was easier to get a great hitting CFer in Ashburn's time than in most others does make Ashburn's hitting less valuable. As I said before, when there are less great hitters at a position in the league it makes those great hitters there are at that position more valuable. The fact that it was harder to get a great hitting SS in Larkin's era does make Larkin's hitting more valuable IMO.

Anyway, I think we're all missing the point here. Despite what the performance of the average shorstop in their era is, Larkin will still almost certainly end up the better hitter, unless Jeter has a way better second half of his career which is very rare for a shortstop.

As of right now, Larkin's peak is also better. Larkin had one year (1996) which was about the same in quality as Jeter's great 1998 year. Other than that Larkin has five other seasons above 130 OPS+, Jeter doesn't have one other year above 130.

His peak isn't as good, his rates would be worse, and his fielding, oh his fielding.

Derek Jeter can't hold Barry Larkin's jockstrap in fielding. Barry Larkin was a tremendous defensive shortstop in his peak, he was trmendous over his career. All around greatness. Jeter is, well, horrible out there. I have no other way of phrasing it. He'd probably make top 10 given those numbers, but he's not moving ahead of Larkin.

Larkin's OPS+ right now is only 5 points lower than Jeter, and Larkin has already retired and been through his entire decline phase while Jeter is still in his prime. It is clear that by the time Jeter's playing days are over his OPS+ will be about the same or even lower.

Also, Larkin has had way more impressive seasons. Jeter did have one truly great hitting year in 1999, when he had a 161 OPS+, a .325 EqA, and drove in 102 runs. Barry Larkin has a truly great offensive season to match that in 1996, when he had a 154 OPS+, a .326 EqA, and hit 33 home runs.

Outside of his great 1999, Jeter's offensive prowess really isn't as great. His career high in OPS+ outside of that was 127 in 2003. Larkin has had two seasons over 140 OPS+, and six seasons above 130. Much more great offensive seasons.

Jeter's main advantages I suppose most people would claim is that 1.He is considered to be greater and is more famous, 2.He is a great clutch player, adn 3.He has been money in the postseason. I'll address each of those.

1.He is considered to be greater and is more famous

He definitely is more famous, but that doesn't make him a better ballplayer. If Jeter had played his whole career in Cincinnati instead of New York he wouldn't be any more celebrated than Larkin is.

Is he considered to be greater? Maybe, but evidence doesn't necessarily support it. Larkin won an MVP award in 1995, Jeter has never won one. We all know MVP awards tend to come from players on great teams, and despite the fact Jeter has played on tremendous teams his whole career he has never won the award.

Jeter has been an All Star six times, or 60% of his 10 full seasons (full season defined as playing 100+ games). Larkin has been an All Star 12 times, or 80% of his full seasons (I counted 1997 as a full season because he did make the All Star Game).

Those are the normal methods used to determine how a player was thought of in his time. Seem to favor Larkin rather than Jeter.

2.Jeter is a great clutch player

Jeter over his career has batted .324 with men on base and .304 with no men on. But, he has hit for less power with men on base with a .470 SLG% with no one on and a a .446 SLG with men on. He has hit one HR per 29 ABs with the bases empty, one HR per 45 ABs with men on base. He has hit slightly worse (.313) with runners in scoring position than overall (.315).

Overall, it is hard to see how Jeter has been a particularly great clutch player.

Larkin over his career has hit 27 points higher with men on base than with them empty. He has also hit for more power with men on base, with a SLG 28 points higher. He has hit 4 points worse with RISP, but his OBP is higher.

It's hard to see how Jeter has been a better clutch player than Larkin

3.Jeter has been money in the postseason

Jeter has obviously had more postseason games played than Larkin, so it is unfair to compare their raw totals.

Larkin has batted .338/.397/.465 in the postseason. His BA is 43 points high than in the regular season, his OBP is 26 points higher, and his SLG is 21 points higher. He has been significantly better in the postseason than in the regular season.

Jeter has batted .307/.379/.463 in the postseason. His BA and OBP are 7 points worse than they are in the regular season, and his SLG is two points higher. Hard to see how he has hit any better there than in the regular season.

But here's some revealing information for you:

In his entire post-season career, a total of 99 games spread over eight seasons, Derek Jeter is a .210/.355/.306 hitter with runners in scoring position and a .245/.345/.329 hitter with men on base. He is a .176/.263/.323 hitter in "close and late" situations. Jeter has actually been incredibly "un-clutch" in the postseason.

Why Larkin has never gotten respect for what he is (an all time great) is beyond me. The fact Jeter has been considered better is an all out crime.

[DoubleX]

What's the point of reposting that? That's more comparing Larkin to Jeter than establishing a good Hall case for Larkin...well that is unless you feel that Jeter is the measuring stick for the Hall... :)

[Mike D.]

Most people on this site consider Larkin a deserving HoFer. If you check the "Baseball Fever Hall of Fame" thread at the top, you'll see that Larkin has already been elected. Whether the actual Hall of Fame voters feel the same way remains to be seen. The lack of support for Alan Trammell doesn't bode well for Larkin, as the two players were similar (though Larkin was beter).

Cool, I'll check out the Baseball Fever Hall of Fame and see who you folks consider to be worthy inductees...a real fun idea...because I'm sure we all have arguments with some of the Hall of Fame's selections and non-selections over the years.

On the blog, among other things, I plan to post a lot of articles about guys who are either coming up on eligibility or are soon to retire who are borderline, and take a closer look and try to see whether they're worthy or not, and if they'll be elected. I should have an article on Tim Raines ready to go sometime tomorrow.

[Tigerfan1974]

I would like to see Barry make it some day.
I don't think he is a first ballot kind of guy, but I think he at least deserves some consideration.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Larkin has an MVP and was regarded as the best, or one of the top two or three players for a W.S. winning team. Those two factors alone place him at a Sandberg-like level ahead of Grich, Whitaker, etc. in the eyes of voters. Factor in the stellar defense and the several all-star selections (again, ahead of the one and done group) and you have a guy who'll spend no more than three or four years on the ballot.

[DoubleX]

Larkin's chances will definitely be helped by the fact that his competition in the 2010 election will not be that stiff. Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez, and Robin Ventura are the other big names for that election, and only Alomar will likely receive significant support (and perhaps election). Plus, the holdovers will not be that significant either. After next year, in which Gwynn and Ripken will surely be elected, and perhaps McGwire too, the only surefire Hall of Famer to enter the ballot after that is Rickey Henderson (assuming no team gives him another chance), and he'll get in on his first try in 2009. Of the holdovers in 2010, I image Tim Raines will probably be receiving strong support (he might even be in by then, but I doubt it), Bert Blyleven and Andre Dawson could still be hanging around as well, and hopefully Alan Trammell would have gained some momentum by then too. Anyway, the point is that the competition when Larkin enters the ballot will not be that stiff, so he could have a chance of first year election.

[baseballPAP]

Since I'm hard pressed to make Larkin any lower than the #7 SS all time(I have him 5, but could see moving him down, maybe), and the guys ahead of him are either in or active(ARod), plus 10 or more HOFers BELOW him....he's a first ballot to me. Having said that, by then he'll be lucky to stay on the ballot...the writers are idiots.

[digglahhh]

Hit it on the head PAP,

I would actually be shocked to see the writers elect Larkin. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked at all to see him get the one and done treatment.

Personally, I'm not as big a supporter of Larkin as many others here. I think he's borderline- I have a hard time getting past the durability issue. I think he deserves some consideration and wouldn't be upset if he got in. I think he'll get less consideration than I think he deserves, and I don't even actively support him.

[Mike D.]

Just posted my article about Tim Raines, who I see you guys have already elected to your hall of fame.

My co-author and brother also posted a short peice on Deacon McGuire.

Going to look over your HOF again...interesting stuff in there, some really great selections!

[yankillaz]

He´s not a first-ballot hall of famer. He will eventually get in, probably on a poor-man´s selection year. His overall numbers are the best for a ss in the national league, which should help.

[micsmith]

I think Larkin is borderline, but I'd support him. However, I think the voting might get too spread out by the time Larkin arrives on the ballot. By that I mean there will be an ample number of borderline guys on the ballot when Larkin's name first appears. Roberto Alomar is the best of Larkin's class and most likely to get elected. I'd say Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez, and Tim Raines (a holdover from the previous year) are all about equally deserving. I don't think Andres Galarraga will be one and done, but he'll get some support, though not nearly as much as the other newcomers. The voters haven't elected more than three players in a single year in decades, and by the time Larkin gets on the ballot, there might just be a ton of derserving players, but only 2 or 3 will get in. If Larkin doesn't make it in his first year, then the next year Larry Walker, John Franco, and quite possibly Jeff Bagwell, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and Roger Clemens make the ballot. That group of guys doesn't make it any easier for Larkin to get voted in.

Anyone know if Kevin Brown retired?

[Pine Tar]

I would be very surprised if Larkin doesn't make it on the first ballot. Whether or not people here consider him superior to Trammel, most people who actually vote do, and the difference should be enough to result in being elected on the first try.

[digglahhh]

Good post micsmith,

I agree, he's going to have a his best shot in his first year of eligibility, and I assume he won't go then because in my mind, and more importantly in the eyes of writers, I highly doubt he is a first ballot guy. The longer he sticks around...here comes Thomas, Bagwell, Sosa, Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, Biggio, Piazza.

It will be interesting to see, if the writers decide to compensate for the impending binge of power guys by showing Larkin some extra love, or if his paltry raw numbers get lost in the shuffle of 450+ HR guys.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Larkin is a Highest Common Demoninator case. It's not an issue of "Well, Phil Rizzuto is in, and Barry Larkin is better, ergo, Barry Larkin should go into the HOF." That's the Lowest Common Denominator argument.

Larkin is a case of "There is NO shortstop in the history of baseball as good as Barry Larkin that is NOT in the HOF, and there are many, many shortstops nowhere near as good as Barry Larkin that ARE in the HOF." Really, where's the precedent for keeping him out?

What SHORTSTOP . . .

Who hit .295 over 18 1/2 seasons . . .

And appeared in 12 All Star Games . . .

And won 3 Gold Gloves . . .

And won an NL MVP Award . . .

And was the best SS in baseball between 1992-95 . . .

And was the best player on a World Championship Team . . .

Is NOT in the HOF? What shortstops NOT in the HOF are better than Larkin? Concepcion? Bowa? Vern Stephens? Campeneris? No way, no way to all of them. The only SS even close to Larkin not in the HOF is Alan Trammell, and while I view Trammell as a HOF injustice, Trammell is not the equal of Larkin.

That's Larkin's case, and I'm surprised there is such dissent over his candidacy.

[Cougar]

I think Larkin vs. Trammell is a closer call than Fuzzy does, although (a) I've got Larkin rated slightly higher too; I'm just not that confident about it, and (b) they are both WELL over the HOF line.

So, for all practical purposes, I completely agree.

[The Dude]

Barry Larkin is one of the top 10 Shortstops of all time. How could he not be in?

He was a constantantly very good hitter, very good defense, and he has a career success rate of 83% stolen bases.

The negatives against Larkin:
-The 2nd half of his career was overshadowed by shorstops with power (Rodriguez, Tejada, Jeter, Nomar?)
-He was injured a number of seasons.

I look at it this way. Hard Larkin played in 70's and 80's and retired in 1991, he would be looked back on as a great shorstop. Now, we're talking about how he might get in. I don't think we should penalize Larkin for playing at a time when power hitting shorstops are easier to find then they were previously.

[baseballPAP]

Some metrics, and much public opinion of the time rated Larkin over Ozzie in about 4 or 5 of Ozzie's last GG years. His defense was exceptional...not just pretty good. Much like the AL 3B GGs in the early-mid 70s went to Robinson, when he wasn't as good as 2 or 3 other 3Bmen. Still very good, but not the best any more. Of course every time someone says GG I think Palmeiro and zone out completely.

Larkin should be a no-brainer...unfortunately, that description also fits many of the HOF voters, so we'll see.

[ivylover]

he's in in my book

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think Larkin vs. Trammell is a closer call than Fuzzy does, although (a) I've got Larkin rated slightly higher too; I'm just not that confident about it, and (b) they are both WELL over the HOF line.

So, for all practical purposes, I completely agree.

Trammell is closer to Larkin than I may have implied. Especially if you consider Trammell to be the guy who REALLY deserved the 1987 AL MVP (instead of the ridiculous George Bell).

I hope Trammell's fate isn't a harbinger of what Larkin's will be. I also believe that Trammell will eventually get in.

[digglahhh]

I would not personally vote for Larkin, but would not complain at all if he was to be inducted.

One of my biggest problems with him is the complete lack of durability. Larkin was certainly a big asset, but what about the back up SS practically guaranteed to play 35-40 games a year?...

[jalbright]

I would not personally vote for Larkin, but would not complain at all if he was to be inducted.

One of my biggest problems with him is the complete lack of durability. Larkin was certainly a big asset, but what about the back up SS practically guaranteed to play 35-40 games a year?...

True, but he played 19 seasons and 2180 games, only 95 below 100th place alltime among all position players. He's about 20th among guys whose primary position is shortstop, and would rise if only games at shortstop are counted (he'd pass Julio Franco, Honus Wagner, George Davis and Bill Russell at least). That means that you're only talking about one kind of durability, namely in-season.

Jim Albright

[romanos72]

He didn't deserve the MVP award in the mid-1990s. He was a good ballplayer, but just that. If guys like Santo and Hodges could get enough votes, Larkin surely shouldn't. Should he be along names like Wagner, Banks, Ripken (shoo-in), and Yount?

[baseballPAP]

He didn't deserve the MVP award in the mid-1990s. He was a good ballplayer, but just that. If guys like Santo and Hodges could get enough votes, Larkin surely shouldn't. Should he be along names like Wagner, Banks, Ripken (shoo-in), and Yount?
Absolutely, yes.
It would be much more relevant to ask if he belongs with guys like Reese, Rizzuto and Maranville, and I don't really think that is giving him close to enough credit.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He didn't deserve the MVP award in the mid-1990s. He was a good ballplayer, but just that. If guys like Santo and Hodges could get enough votes, Larkin surely shouldn't. Should he be along names like Wagner, Banks, Ripken (shoo-in), and Yount?

That's just not true about Larkin and the MVP. Larkin won an MVP in what was not his best year. That's a sign of greatness.

Larkin won because (A) his team was highly successful, finishing first, (B) he was the best player on his team, and (C) he was the best SS in the NL. 1995 was also a year where there was no obvious candidate. Really now, should the voters have chosen runner-up Dante Bischette???

Larkin's numbers were MVP caliber for a shortstop, plus he helped his team win big. I can't see the problem with the selection.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think Larkin is borderline, but I'd support him.


I don't see Larkin as borderline in quality. I see him as an unambiguous HOFer, and I don't see why others don't.

His career totals for a shortstop, offensively and defensively, are of HOF caliber, easily. He won an MVP, and while he won in an off year for a lot of other guys, he also won it with a year that was smack dab within the normal range of his 5 best years. That's evidence of quality. He had some injuries, but he still had a long career, and his career totals are outstanding for a shortstop.

Name one shortstop of Larkin's caliber that isn't in the HOF. The only one you could POSSIBLY think of is Trammell, and I rate Larkin ahead of Trammell, but some may not. (Trammell's a HOF injustice; he'll get there someday.)

[brett]

Larkin comes out at +50 offensive game equivalents for me. Interestingly I got +482 runs created which is right in line with other systems (although I always believed that true runs created should be 1/2 of that value because someone has to score and someone has to drive them in usually.

Anyway, +50 would be right on the HOF border for an average value defensive player. An average SS is way above that-perhaps +50 games there alone, and he is better than that, although I think he is a little overrated defensively-Ripken was a much more valuable defensive player in my opinion.

So, I thought it was close, but its not. If he were an average fielding second baseman or a gold glove first baseman it would be borderline.

Plus the MVP, the 30/30 year and the Championship.

[mtortolero]

If he does achieve those career totals you give, and he doesn't improve his peak, I don't see how on earth he goes ahead of Barry Larkin IMO. All he would have is pure longevity. People don't realize the true greatness of Barry Larkin over his career. Look at this handy little chart:

OPS SS OPS DIFF*
Barry Larkin .815 .678 20.2%
Derek Jeter .848 .737 15.1%



I am a little curious:
OPS of SS during Jeter´s years in the AL includes figures by GarciaParra, ARod, Michael Young, Miguel Tejada and Carlos Guillen among others. Only as example Arod, Garciaparra and Young won four batting titles between 1996 and 2005.
Probably Jeter was playing with the best generation of ofensive SS in any league, any time.
However during Barry Larkin´s years on the NL I can not remember any SS who can be remember as a great or a good hitter in comparison with the names that Jeter has as competition.
This comparison what really shows is the mediocrity of ofensive SS in the NL during Larkin´s years more than any advantage of Larkin over Jeter, and does not have any sense for me.

[538280]

I am a little curious:
OPS of SS during Jeter´s years in the AL includes figures by GarciaParra, ARod, Michael Young, Miguel Tejada and Carlos Guillen among others. Only as example Arod, Garciaparra and Young won four batting titles between 1996 and 2005.
Probably Jeter was playing with the best generation of ofensive SS in any league, any time.
However during Barry Larkin´s years on the NL I can not remember any SS who can be remember as a great or a good hitter in comparison with the names that Jeter has as competition.
This comparison what really shows is the mediocrity of ofensive SS in the NL during Larkin´s years more than any advantage of Larkin over Jeter, and does not have any sense for me.

The fact Larkin was able to separate more from the average shorstop in his time does indeed make him more valuable. If a great hitting shorstop is harder to find (as it was in Larkin's era), then it does make those great hitting shorstops in the league more valuable. The whole premise behind positional adjustments is that a player is made more valuable because of how other players in the leauge hit at his position. Shortstops in Jeter's time hit 4% worse than league in OPS, shorstops in Larkin's hit 11% worse. In other words, there were less great hititng shorstops while Larkin was playing and this means that he deserves a bigger positional adjustment.

Anyway, Jeter's career OPS+, 121, is not significantly higher right now than Larkin's 116. And Jeter's is a mid career figure. By the end of his career he will probably slip to Larkin's level or lower, and he always will have a MUCH worse glove than Larkin. With my new system I'm much more positive about Jeter than I used to be, I but I'm still not sure he'll ever be better than Barry Larkin.

[csh19792001]

I don't see Larkin as borderline in quality. I see him as an unambiguous HOFer, and I don't see why others don't.

I agree. People may be looking at his numbers and probably not fully taking into consideration that he was 1) a SS, and very good in the field, at that, and 2) was the CONSUMMATE team player. He was absolutely one of the most selfless players I ever had the pleasure of watching, and he was all class. He WAS Cincinnati, in an in which genuine allegiances and affiliations have basically become extinct.

And what's all this talk about "durability issues"?

SS is the second most difficult, injury prone position in baseball. It's also arguably the most valuable position, depending on the era in question. With the exception of 3 games at second base and 3 at DH, Larkin played every single game there (2,085 total). That's one of the alltime highest figures for games played at the position.

Aaron Gleeman "Ravenlord" here at The Fever, as usual, does a great job in his article. He does Larkin justice. Everyone should read this.

Larkin for the Hall? (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/larkin-for-the-hall/)


Name one shortstop of Larkin's caliber that isn't in the HOF. The only one you could POSSIBLY think of is Trammell.

Possibly this guy, Fuzz:

Bill Dahlen For The HOF (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36518)

[mtortolero]

Again, Gleeman is comparing pears and apples saying that Larkin was better than Jeter only because he has better diff % in SS`s OPS.
Quality in offensive for SS for both eras was very different and you can not put that in the same context . That .737 OPS for SS in Jeter, ARod or Nomar era shows that SS of their era had 10% better offensive skills that those SS who put .678 OPS in Larkin´times, and that is problem of quality in competition as mainly cause that you can not handle in flat terms as he did in his list.
How a hitter who rates 174 hits, 15 Hrs and 70 BB by each 162 games can be better than other who rates 206 hits, 18 Hrs and 68 BB. Looks a little weird. Jeter at the end of this season will be only just less than 210 hits short from Larkin with five seasons less!

[538280]

Couldn't agree more, Chris. It's nice to agree with you for once. :dance

[csh19792001]

Again, Gleeman is comparing pears and apples saying that Larkin was better than Jeter only because he has better diff % in SS`s OPS.

Quality in offensive for SS for both eras was very different and you can not put that in the same context . That .737 OPS for SS in Jeter, ARod or Nomar era shows that SS of their era had 10% better offensive skills that those SS who put .678 OPS in Larkin´times, and that is problem of quality in competition as mainly cause that you can not handle in flat terms as he did in his list.

How a hitter who rates 174 hits, 15 Hrs and 70 BB by each 162 games can be better than other who rates 206 hits, 18 Hrs and 68 BB. Looks a little weird. Jeter at the end of this season will be only just less than 210 hits short from Larkin with five seasons less!

This makes sense. In essence, Jeter is penazlied because there were two alltime great shortstops in his league for many years during the prime of his career, I understand that. That's going to skew the positional average upward, and make Jeter less impressive, relative to Larkin, who did not have guys like A Rod and Nomar playing short in his time. Obviously Jeter can't help who is playing SS on other teams in his league, so it's unfair to penalize him for it.

And I think Jeter is probably a greater player than Larkin was, but again, I see Jeter as being an absolute lock for the HOF (assuming a normal decline), so even if Larkin is a tinge behind, he still clearly belongs as well.

[mtortolero]

And I think Jeter is probably a greater player than Larkin was, but again, I see Jeter as being an absolute lock for the HOF (assuming a normal decline), so even if Larkin is a tinge behind, he still clearly belongs as well.

Larkin deserves the plaque (my god, I am not against his enshriment!) but looks as a lack of criteria and common sense try to justify that by resting merits to Jeter in a comparison with him and not trying to qualify him among the elite of ofensive SS in the big leagues history, as he was, based on his OPS+, winshares, WARP3 or whatever saberfigure we want to use in general terms.

[brett]

Again, Gleeman is comparing pears and apples saying that Larkin was better than Jeter only because he has better diff % in SS`s OPS.
Quality in offensive for SS for both eras was very different and you can not put that in the same context . That .737 OPS for SS in Jeter, ARod or Nomar era shows that SS of their era had 10% better offensive skills that those SS who put .678 OPS in Larkin´times, and that is problem of quality in competition as mainly cause that you can not handle in flat terms as he did in his list.
How a hitter who rates 174 hits, 15 Hrs and 70 BB by each 162 games can be better than other who rates 206 hits, 18 Hrs and 68 BB. Looks a little weird. Jeter at the end of this season will be only just less than 210 hits short from Larkin with five seasons less!

I avoid comparing offense relative to position. I prefer to give a single offensive value, however I give players calculated bonuses for "freeing up" other positions. An example would be a player who plays SS. If, rather, he could only play first base, his team would likely lose a good hitter at first base from the lineup and would replace him with a probably poor hitting shortstop. This effect on the lineup becomes the positional value. Players also get bases for actual defensive value. I haven't worked out all the details, but I can tell you that I believe it is the key in putting a players defensive contributions into the same language as their offense.

Larkin's offense, if he was merely an average defensive shortstop would put him in without question. If he was an average defensive 2nd or 3rd baseman or center fielder, he would be absolutely, flat out on the borderline for the hall.

[baseball junkie]

While he was playing I never thought of Larkin as a future Hall of Famer. Larkin was always overshadowed or outshined, in his early days by Cal Ripken Jr. and Ozzie Smith, in his later career by Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez & Nomar Garciaparra.

In retrospect, I see a lot of merit for his induction into the HOF. Here are a few reasons why Larkin should get a plaque in Cooperstown: as a shortstop he won the 1995 NL MVP Award and arguably had a much better year in 1996 & 1998; he helped lead the 1990 Reds to the World Series Championship; he won multiple gold gloves and spent his entire 19 year career as a shortstop; he didn't have to be shifted out of his position for defensive reasons late in his career like Ripken, Garciaparra & Rodriguez have been; if he is not inducted, he will automatically become the best shortstop not in the HOF.

Larkin didn't hit any major milestone but at his peak he was great and his peak lasted from 1995 to the end of 2000. I still think the BBWAA will vote him in, just not first-ballot.

[philkid3]

Notice, I'm asking if you think he will be, not if you think he should be. Although I am interested in your answer to the latter question.


When I was growing up, I thought Larkin was a great but overrated shortstop who would be in the Hall of Fame. I now think he's become a very underrated shorstop who won't be in the Hall of Fame. Weird how perceptions change.

[October Chase]

I think he will be and should be.

Barry was one of the more complete and consistent players of his generation.

He could hit for average, hit for power (although he wasn't a big HR hitter, he did hit 179 HRs playing SS AND he had plenty of doubles & triples), he could field, he could run....no weaknesses.

Again, I think he should and will be in the HOF, and it would be a shame if he isn't.



www.octoberchase.com

[Captain Cold Nose]

I do believe so. He was a complete player, well-liked by fans and writers. I don't think he'll be first-ballot. The HOF voters will likely treat him as they did Ryne Sandberg, a couple of years on the ballot but in after not too long a wait.

[PVNICK]

I'd like to think he will go with the MVP beign a tipping point. However, Trammell is resonably similar and hasn't had great support so I fear Larkin may fare no better.

[yankillaz]

Best SS of his generation (league wise). Bunch of ASG's, SS's and GG's. I think that he makes it, not in a first ballot, but very similar to Ryne Sandberg.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'd like to think he will go with the MVP beign a tipping point. However, Trammell is resonably similar and hasn't had great support so I fear Larkin may fare no better.

I think Larkin was a little better as a hitter, baserunner and fielder. That might be enough.

[DoubleX]

I do believe so. He was a complete player, well-liked by fans and writers. I don't think he'll be first-ballot. The HOF voters will likely treat him as they did Ryne Sandberg, a couple of years on the ballot but in after not too long a wait.

I agree. The voters will likely take a few years to get with it. I'm wondering if Roberto Alomar might get similar treatment.

[KCGHOST]

I voted "Yes", but I really mean "I Think So". The guy should make it on merit alone, but funny things can happen to middle infielders on the way to Cooperstown.

[dgarza]

I think it's hard to get a read on how voters will react to Larkin being on the ballot.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I'd have to say yes.

[Cougar]

How long it will take is an open question, but Larkin is too good for his quality to not eventually be recognized.

[digglahhh]

If I was an oddsmaker, I'd posit that the likelihood of him going one and done is greater than the likelihood of him going first ballot.

I'd actually say the same thing for Raines.

I'd support both, Raines more adamantly than Larkin, but I think 35% on the first ballot would be a huge achievement.

[Senor Octobre]

I voted no clue. I know he deserves it, but... knowing the voters' track record... :rolleyes:

[Los Bravos]

I voted no clue. I know he deserves it, but... knowing the voters' track record... :rolleyes:That's about where I am, too.

[willshad]

The thing about Larkin is he was injured alot, so he didnt really play a lot of full seasons. He only had about 8 full seasons, and 2 of them were strike years, and 4 of them really werent good. Plus he was good in a lot of areas, but not 'great' at anything besides maybe fielding..that may hurt him as well. His MVP means nothing as it was probably the least deserving MVP of the last 25 years ( come on, you had a catcher with a 1.16 OPS on the road on a first place team). Only scored over 100 runs twice (in the steroid era) The thing about Larkin is that his 162 per game averages are probbaly hall worthy, when you consider his fielding, but he seldom played anywhere near 162 games in a season, and was insonsistent.

[ChrisLDuncan]

This I don't know, I think he probably should be in the HoF...however as to if he'll get in is a different question. I really don't see anything that seperates him from a player like Ryne Sanberg, who I think is better, so maybe on the fifth or six to around. Trouble is look at all the players that recently retired or are retiring soon (not to mention the ones out that need to be in):

Craig Biggio
Jeff Bagwell
Curt Schilling
Pedro Martinez (he's got maybe a year or two left)
Tom Glavine
Roger Clemens (It's time buddy)
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Mike Mussina (do me a favor and retire this year, higher career WARP3 than Larkin)
Barry Bonds (yes I know and if writers don't elect him they may as well burn the hall down)
Sammy Sosa (600?)
Frank Thomas
Jim Thome
Manny Ramirez (maybe, I dunno about this one, I'd he could go six more if he wanted too)
Mariano Rivera
Jorge Posada
Trevor Hoffman
Billy Wagner
Ivan Rodriguez (Mags too?)
Vlad (looks like he may break down soon enough)
Mike Piazza
Todd Helton
Brian Giles
Bobby Abreu
Nomar Garciaparra
Jeff Kent
Omar Vizquel
Jim Edmonds (I don't think he belogns but voters will say LOOK AT TEH GOLD GLOVEZ!!!111!!!)
Ken Griffey Jr.
Maybe Andruw Jones for the same reason as Edmonds, but I say no too him too
Chipper Jones
John Smoltz



He's eligible in 2009 if I'm not mistaken, now I don't think he's a first ballot guy, but after that there's others that will become eligible, IMO that list should last us on the HOF ballot until about 2015. I don't see how he gets in with those guys. After that class passes, you'll have the A'Rods, the Pujolses, the Jeters, the Santanas, and others that will be in the hall. So there's a damn good chance that he misses the hall.

I'd put his chances at 51% for making it.

[philkid3]

Off topic, but you mention Mussina's career WARP3. I'm a paying BP subscriber, but I can't for the life of me find pitchers' WARP3s.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Off topic, but you mention Mussina's career WARP3. I'm a paying BP subscriber, but I can't for the life of me find pitchers' WARP3s.

Advanced batting statistics, or something like that, just scroll down a bit. I'd say you can make a case for all of those guys over Larkin, not that I'd agree with it. However the thing that makes me say yes to Larkin is that he's probably a top ten SS, because I'd go something like:
Wagner
A-Rod
Vaughn
Jeter (soon enough)
Ripken
Nomar
Yount
Cronin
after Cronin there isn't a whole whole lot out there, there's Smith and Vizquel but I'd say Larkin was better. Another thing is that with guys like Hanley and Reyes comming into their own they may end up better than Larkin too, so it's a fine line. However, I'd lean yes to Larkin.

[leecemark]

1) Wagner
2) Arod
3) Ripken
4) Vaughan
--Lloyd is in this top group too
5) Yount
6) Banks
7) Cronin
8) Appling
--Jeter seems likely to get at least this high, but not yet.
--There are a bunch of hard choices to round out the top 10, but Larkin is definately a contender. He is a a pretty tight group with Trammell, Smith and Davis, plus Negro Leaguer Willie Wells. Boudreau, Dahlen and Reese are not far behind that group either. Nomar is arguably in this third tier too, based strictly on his peak - but if Nomar then what about Jennings, Moore (NeL) and Stephens. Tejada could climb into this group too. The younger guys its way too soon to specualte on.

[digglahhh]

The thing about Larkin is he was injured alot, so he didnt really play a lot of full seasons. He only had about 8 full seasons, and 2 of them were strike years, and 4 of them really werent good. Plus he was good in a lot of areas, but not 'great' at anything besides maybe fielding..that may hurt him as well. His MVP means nothing as it was probably the least deserving MVP of the last 25 years ( come on, you had a catcher with a 1.16 OPS on the road on a first place team). Only scored over 100 runs twice (in the steroid era) The thing about Larkin is that his 162 per game averages are probbaly hall worthy, when you consider his fielding, but he seldom played anywhere near 162 games in a season, and was insonsistent.

Rarely do we seem to agree, WS. But, we're close here.

I don't even support Larkin, so much as I am sympathetic to his case. I'd probably vote for him, but not emphatically. The thing is that he has a good argument to rank pretty damn highly at his position all time, and that is hard to ignore.

But, his durability was a concern, a big blemish for me. You basically got 120 games worth of Larkin and 40 from a replacement. That has to be factored into his value. If you have Larkin, holding on to a borderline starter level utility infielder is pretty much a must.

At his best, his all around game was HOF caliber, sustaining it year in and year out, and within seasons, is the question mark.

One issue I do take with your post is that the vast majority of Larkin's peak was outside what is commonly referred to as the steroid era.

Somewhat paradoxically, if I were a voter, my ideal would be that Larkin would be able to get in without me having to actually vote for him.

[ChrisLDuncan]

You can also add Gary Sheffield to that laundry list of players that I listed earlier, I agree he probably is a HoFer, but with all those players it's kind of hard to get in.

[ChrisLDuncan]

1) Wagner
2) Arod
3) Ripken
4) Vaughan
--Lloyd is in this top group too
5) Yount
6) Banks
7) Cronin
8) Appling
--Jeter seems likely to get at least this high, but not yet.
--There are a bunch of hard choices to round out the top 10, but Larkin is definately a contender. He is a a pretty tight group with Trammell, Smith and Davis, plus Negro Leaguer Willie Wells. Boudreau, Dahlen and Reese are not far behind that group either. Nomar is arguably in this third tier too, based strictly on his peak - but if Nomar then what about Jennings, Moore (NeL) and Stephens. Tejada could climb into this group too. The younger guys its way too soon to specualte on.

Out of curiosity where do you rank Maury Wills and Rizzuto?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'd like to think he will go with the MVP beign a tipping point. However, Trammell is resonably similar and hasn't had great support so I fear Larkin may fare no better.

I've been optimistic about Barry's chances. I agree with you on Trammell; he and Barry are quite similar, and Trammell's failure to be enshrined gives me pause.

Two things are working for Larkin that are not working for Trammell. One is, of course, the MVP award, and while Trammell should have been the AL MVP in 1987, Larkin WAS the NL MVP in 1995. The second thing is that Larkin was perceived as the best shortstop in his league, and, for a bit, the best shortstop in baseball. Trammell was a contemporary of Ripken, so he didn't enjoy that distinction, although there were certainly some years when he was the best shortstop in the AL.

I hope they both get in.

[philkid3]

I still hate the Hall for not putting Trammel in.

He and Santo should just burn that crap to the ground.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I still hate the Hall for not putting Trammel in.

He and Santo should just burn that crap to the ground.

Santo especially, I've seen solid cases that he was better than Boggs, he's no worse than the 6th best third basemen ever. I rank him 5th amongst third basemen.

[philkid3]

Santo especially, I've seen solid cases that he was better than Boggs, he's no worse than the 6th best third basemen ever. I rank him 5th amongst third basemen.

I think I've got him 5th. Ahead of a guy who made the All-Centry team. :crazy

[willshad]

Rarely do we seem to agree, WS. But, we're close here.

I don't even support Larkin, so much as I am sympathetic to his case. I'd probably vote for him, but not emphatically. The thing is that he has a good argument to rank pretty damn highly at his position all time, and that is hard to ignore.

But, his durability was a concern, a big blemish for me. You basically got 120 games worth of Larkin and 40 from a replacement. That has to be factored into his value. If you have Larkin, holding on to a borderline starter level utility infielder is pretty much a must.

At his best, his all around game was HOF caliber, sustaining it year in and year out, and within seasons, is the question mark.

One issue I do take with your post is that the vast majority of Larkin's peak was outside what is commonly referred to as the steroid era.

Somewhat paradoxically, if I were a voter, my ideal would be that Larkin would be able to get in without me having to actually vote for him.

Just interested, do you also hold it against Mantle a bit that he had durability issues as well? I think he was similiar to Larkin that his rate stats and per game averages inflate his value because he rarely came close to playing a full season's worth of games and at bats. I put Gehrig significantly higher than Mantle because not only did he play EVERY game, but he did not even drop in value one bit because of it. he produced RBI at a better rate than any guy ever, EVERY game .

[ChrisLDuncan]

Just interested, do you also hold it against Mantle a bit that he had durability issues as well? I think he was similiar to Larkin that his rate stats and per game averages inflate his value because he rarely came close to playing a full season's worth of games and at bats. I put Gehrig significantly higher than Mantle because not only did he play EVERY game, but he did not even drop in value one bit because of it. he produced RBI at a better rate than any guy ever, EVERY game .

Yeah when Mantle played everyday (which he did a few seasons) he was an unstopable force of the likes of which only Ruth could compare too. His 56,57, and 61 seasons are as good as any other player's best three years ever.

[willshad]

Yeah when Mantle played everyday (which he did a few seasons) he was an unstopable force of the likes of which only Ruth could compare too. His 56,57, and 61 seasons are as good as any other player's best three years ever.

Well that may be exaggerating a bit..Id take the best 3 years of Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Hornsby, Foxx, Williams, and MAYBE Geenberg, Thomas, Belle, and Mcgwire over Mantle's (remember I clount RBI more than most people here)..and thats not counting the dead ball era stars, who i feel are difficult to compare to sluggers. Of course, the thing is that Mantle didnt play every day, and many of his seasons lose value because the Yankees had to use a much lesser player in his place much of the season. That is why i feel mantle is not a top 10 all time player..probably not top 15 either.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well that may be exaggerating a bit..Id take the best 3 years of Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Hornsby, Foxx, Williams, and MAYBE Geenberg, Thomas, Belle, and Mcgwire over Mantle's (remember I clount RBI more than most people here)..and thats not counting the dead ball era stars, who i feel are difficult to compare to sluggers. Of course, the thing is that Mantle didnt play every day, and many of his seasons lose value because the Yankees had to use a much lesser player in his place much of the season. That is why i feel mantle is not a top 10 all time player..probably not top 15 either.

Actually the only three people who have had three seasons better than Mantle's three best were: Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner and they were all with in a win share or two of Mantle's, Bonds probably has too I'm not sure. Of the other men you mentioned only Williams has came close to Mantle's three best.

[willshad]

Actually the only three people who have had three seasons better than Mantle's three best were: Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner and they were all with in a win share or two of Mantle's, Bonds probably has too I'm not sure. Of the other men you mentioned only Williams has came close to Mantle's three best.

well maybe some people place little or no value in 'win shares'. If that is the only stat you can use to say Mantle's years are better than thats a pretty shabby argument.

[ChrisLDuncan]

well maybe some people place little or no value in 'win shares'. If that is the only stat you can use to say Mantle's years are better than thats a pretty shabby argument.


He had an OPS+ of over 200 in all three seasons from a CF.

[willshad]

yes and that is very impressive. But Foxx and Gehrig had over 200 OPS+ as well, despite having much better hitters in their league. And they had much better triple crown stats as well. And Hornsby had over 200 OPS+ three times as a second baseman.

[ChrisLDuncan]

yes and that is very impressive. But Foxx and Gehrig had over 200 OPS+ as well, despite having much better hitters in their league. And they had much better triple crown stats as well. And Hornsby had over 200 OPS+ three times as a second baseman.

Hornsby was pretty sick, I'll give you that, but Foxx and Gehrig were both first basemen, so really all you got is Rogers Hornsby, and Hornsby's leagues were pretty crappy.

[philkid3]

Well that may be exaggerating a bit..Id take the best 3 years of Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Hornsby, Foxx, Williams, and MAYBE Geenberg, Thomas, Belle, and Mcgwire over Mantle's (remember I clount RBI more than most people here)..and thats not counting the dead ball era stars, who i feel are difficult to compare to sluggers. Of course, the thing is that Mantle didnt play every day, and many of his seasons lose value because the Yankees had to use a much lesser player in his place much of the season. That is why i feel mantle is not a top 10 all time player..probably not top 15 either.

I definitely think taking Mantle's best three years is nowhere near the exagerration of saying he's not a top 15 player.

I'm wondering if you just choose to be divisive?

If that is the only stat you can use to say Mantle's years are better than thats a pretty shabby argument.

Quality over quantity. ;)

yes and that is very impressive. But Foxx and Gehrig had over 200 OPS+ as well, despite having much better hitters in their league. And they had much better triple crown stats as well. And Hornsby had over 200 OPS+ three times as a second baseman.

Lucky for them having more baserunners on when they came up to bat!

[digglahhh]

I hold it slightly against Mantle. I've at times moved him out of my top ten for that reason. But, at his best Mantle was top 5 talent. Also, when you get that high on the list, greatness begins to count for something too. When I say greatness, in this specific sense, I'm referring to the extremely rare heights that these guys reached as ballplayers and athletes.

From a pure abilities, skills, standpoint Mantle was one of the five most talented players to ever play the game. And, he was NEVER healthy. He was damaged goods before he made his MLB debut!

But his durability was indeed an issue, and for that he gets relegated to the back end of my top ten. Consistency and longevity do count. For example, Mays holds down my #2 slot, but at their respective bests, he wasn't better than Mantle.

[digglahhh]

Well that may be exaggerating a bit..Id take the best 3 years of Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Hornsby, Foxx, Williams, and MAYBE Geenberg, Thomas, Belle, and Mcgwire over Mantle's (remember I clount RBI more than most people here)..and thats not counting the dead ball era stars, who i feel are difficult to compare to sluggers.

See, here's the thing, and I really don't want to re-hash this argument, but, choosing what stats to endorse is not like choosing your favorite color, or what to eat for dinner. It is more like choosing an economic indicator. If your broker used the theories of statistical analysis that use here, to manage your money - you'd be broke quicker than you could say Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em.

You want something that adjusts, or at least attempts to adjust, for the contexts in which the events occurred. It's simple supply and demand, the more runs there are, the less valuable each one is. The 1930s was a period of historic offense, the counting stats will always be higher.

A dollar is worth something different in different countries, the domestic value of a dollar (against "constant dollars") changes over time. You are walking around touting how many dollars you have. But the dollar is just a piece of paper, its value is not inherent; it's determined by what you can buy that dollar for.

Do you see my analogy?

[willshad]

See, here's the thing, and I really don't want to re-hash this argument, but, choosing what stats to endorse is not like choosing your favorite color, or what to eat for dinner. It is more like choosing an economic indicator. If your broker used the theories of statistical analysis that use here, to manage your money - you'd be broke quicker than you could say Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em.

You want something that adjusts, or at least attempts to adjust, for the contexts in which the events occurred. It's simple supply and demand, the more runs there are, the less valuable each one is. The 1930s was a period of historic offense, the counting stats will always be higher.

A dollar is worth something different in different countries, the domestic value of a dollar (against "constant dollars") changes over time. You are walking around touting how many dollars you have. But the dollar is just a piece of paper, its value is not inherent; it's determined by what you can buy that dollar for.

Do you see my analogy?

Of course I get it. If more runs are scored in a particular season, than the individual runs are 'worth' less. In a way it makes sense..BUT to me that is basically judging a player based on what OTHER players do. Lou Gehrig or Jimmie Foxx had no control over how the rest of the league hit in 1930 or 1932..they only had control over what THEY did...and they hit about as well as a human being can humanly hit; in Gehrig's case being in the lineup literally EVERY day. If you penalize them for playing in a league with high offense, how is that different than penalizing a guy for a low RBI total in the 1960s..since in each case their stats are dependant on something out of their conrtrol? And another thing, since the offense was overall much higher in the 1930s, then wouldnt that make the 200 OPS+ seasons of Foxx and Gehrig even MORE impressive? To me, it has to work both ways..if you arent going to penalize Mantle for his relatively low RBI totals, due to his era, then you must also give more credit to Foxx and Gehrig for their OPS+, due to their era. Just as it was harder to get high RBI totals in the 1960s, it was hard to get high OPS+ totals in the 1930s.

[willshad]

[QUOTE=digglahhh;1031101]I hold it slightly against Mantle. I've at times moved him out of my top ten for that reason. But, at his best Mantle was top 5 talent. Also, when you get that high on the list, greatness begins to count for something too. When I say greatness, in this specific sense, I'm referring to the extremely rare heights that these guys reached as ballplayers and athletes.

From a pure abilities, skills, standpoint Mantle was one of the five most talented players to ever play the game. And, he was NEVER healthy. He was damaged goods before he made his MLB debut!


So i can say the same thing about Jose Canseco, or Eric Davis, or any number of other guys who didnt live up to their full potential due to injuries. Are we going to let them into the hall of fame due to the heights they achieved at their best, or their pure talent and athletic ability? To me Mantle is just a slightly pumped up version of Yaz...2 or 3 outstanding seasons, then playing a long time and having years that were not that great..in Mantle's case due to injuries, and in Yaz's case due to him just not being that good. So their peak value was great due to their 3 great years, and their career value was great, due to playing a long time...BUT, they should lose points because they werent consistent from year to year. Sorry but Id much rather have a guy like Gehrig , who you knew would be in there every day, and have triple crown like numbers every year.

[philkid3]

So i can say the same thing about Jose Canseco, or Eric Davis, or any number of other guys who didnt live up to their full potential due to injuries. Are we going to let them into the hall of fame due to the heights they achieved at their best, or their pure talent and athletic ability?

If they were as dominant as Mantle at their peaks, and if they still managed to put together as good a resume after their declines, yes.

[willshad]

Offensively, I put Mantle about the same level as Mark Mcgwire, Frank Thomas, and jim Thome....giving him a little more credit for his position, I think top 15 or 20 all time is more than fair.

[philkid3]

Offensively, I put Mantle about the same level as Mark Mcgwire, Frank Thomas, and jim Thome....giving him a little more credit for his position, I think top 15 or 20 all time is more than fair.

Mantle equal to McGwire and Thome?

:disbelief:


See, dude, this is why I wonder if you say things just to try and stir the pot.

[willshad]

not equal, but on the sae basic level.....closer to them certainly than to gehrig, Williams, and Ruth.

[digglahhh]

[QUOTE=digglahhh;1031101]I hold it slightly against Mantle. I've at times moved him out of my top ten for that reason. But, at his best Mantle was top 5 talent. Also, when you get that high on the list, greatness begins to count for something too. When I say greatness, in this specific sense, I'm referring to the extremely rare heights that these guys reached as ballplayers and athletes.

From a pure abilities, skills, standpoint Mantle was one of the five most talented players to ever play the game. And, he was NEVER healthy. He was damaged goods before he made his MLB debut!


So i can say the same thing about Jose Canseco, or Eric Davis, or any number of other guys who didnt live up to their full potential due to injuries. Are we going to let them into the hall of fame due to the heights they achieved at their best, or their pure talent and athletic ability? To me Mantle is just a slightly pumped up version of Yaz...2 or 3 outstanding seasons, then playing a long time and having years that were not that great..in Mantle's case due to injuries, and in Yaz's case due to him just not being that good. So their peak value was great due to their 3 great years, and their career value was great, due to playing a long time...BUT, they should lose points because they werent consistent from year to year. Sorry but Id much rather have a guy like Gehrig , who you knew would be in there every day, and have triple crown like numbers every year.

Jose Canseco reached his peak through artificial enhancements and didn't sustain it very long.

Davis had a couple of really good season, but he too was unable to sustain it, as a result of game related injuries and debilitating disease.

Mantle had an all-time-y peak run, and plenty of other really good seasons around them.

As for Thome, Thomas and Mac. Even if I concede that they were all around the same basic level offensively. All three were subpar 1Bs/DHs. Mantle was a very good centerfielder. All three of those guys were liabilities on the bases, Mantle was one of the fastest men in the world in his youth, people say he could have been an Olympic runner!

Basically Mantle was all-time level in every facet of the game.

15-20 isn't unfair, per se. But, I do think that is moderately underrating him.

Some people quibble over a handful of ranking spots; I'm not one to do so.

[willshad]

[QUOTE=willshad;1031289]

Jose Canseco reached his peak through artificial enhancements and didn't sustain it very long.

Davis had a couple of really good season, but he too was unable to sustain it, as a result of game related injuries and debilitating disease.

Mantle had an all-time-y peak run, and plenty of other really good seasons around them.

As for Thome, Thomas and Mac. Even if I concede that they were all around the same basic level offensively. All three were subpar 1Bs/DHs. Mantle was a very good centerfielder. All three of those guys were liabilities on the bases, Mantle was one of the fastest men in the world in his youth, people say he could have been an Olympic runner!

Basically Mantle was all-time level in every facet of the game.

15-20 isn't unfair, per se. But, I do think that is moderately underrating him.

Some people quibble over a handful of ranking spots; I'm not one to do so.


well my actual quote was:

Offensively, I put Mantle about the same level as Mark Mcgwire, Frank Thomas, and jim Thome....giving him a little more credit for his position, I think top 15 or 20 all time is more than fair.

I give Mantle credit for his positon. I would not put mcgwire or Thome in my top 15 or 20. Thomas, maybe, but still a bit lower than Mantle. He won a total of one gold glove, which hardly qualifies him as a great fielder. I do not really give him credit for his speed, because it doesnt really show in his production. If he was THAT fast, why wasnt he stealing 100 bases a year? Why wasnt he getting a ton of doubles and triples? I think exploits of his speed have been greatly exaggerated. Without trying to sound sound racist, Its hard to believe a musclebound white guy could run faster than any black guy playing. If he was indeed as fast as they say, hed probbaly be the only white guy in the top 100 fastest players ever.

[philkid3]

[QUOTE=digglahhh;1034836]


well my actual quote was:

Offensively, I put Mantle about the same level as Mark Mcgwire, Frank Thomas, and jim Thome....giving him a little more credit for his position, I think top 15 or 20 all time is more than fair.

I give Mantle credit for his positon. I would not put mcgwire or Thome in my top 15 or 20. Thomas, maybe, but still a bit lower than Mantle. He won a total of one gold glove, which hardly qualifies him as a great fielder. I do not really give him credit for his speed, because it doesnt really show in his production. If he was THAT fast, why wasnt he stealing 100 bases a year? Why wasnt he getting a ton of doubles and triples? I think exploits of his speed have been greatly exaggerated. Without trying to sound sound racist, Its hard to believe a musclebound white guy could run faster than any black guy playing. If he was indeed as fast as they say, hed probbaly be the only white guy in the top 100 fastest players ever.

Wow. There are just so many things to say. Maybe I'll come back to it, right now I'm just dumbfounded.

I don't think Mantle was a great fielder either, but Gold Gloves?

Stolen bases as a measure of speed?

Race?

Come on, dude.

[digglahhh]

So you don't think that Mantle was a very good fielder because he didn't win a lot of Gold Gloves.

Okay, I did say "all-time-y in all facets of the game," I'll admit to a little hyperbole, Mantle wasn't all-time-great as a defensive CF. But he was damn good - a well above average defensive player at a very important defensive position.

Now, you don't think he was really that fast because... he didn't steal a ton of bases and... he was white.

Don't really know what to say here. The stolen base went out of fashion; it wasn't utilized, generally speaking, for much of Mantle's career. Guys like Maury Wills and Brock began to bring it back, but by that point Mantle was fragile, and riddled with injury - although his production wouldn't show it, his games played did.

Were players of Mantle's era just randomly slower than players of other eras? That would be the conclusion juddging speed by stolen bases would lead us too. Is this some sort of random genetic distribution? Do you have an explanation?

I'm not even going to touch the contention that sheer melanin made, I dunno, Roy Campanella, faster than Mickey Mantle. I'll leave the racial component aside and just say that the above comment illustrates that you have not done much biographical research into the life of Mickey Mantle. If I was teacher, and your post was a book report, I would be forced to conclude that you didn't read the book!

Mickey Mantle on the 40/40 club:

"If I had known it would be such a big deal, I would have done it five or six times."

[willshad]

I wasnt saying Mantle wasnt fast, Im saying if he WAS really as fast as they say, it wasnt showing up on his stat sheets. Eeven if steals were 'out of style', if a guy comes along who can run faster than any player ever, wouldnt that be enough to bring it BACK into style? Especially a guy with as high a OBP as Mantle. So, Im not saying he wasnt fast..im saying he really shouldnt be given extra CREDIT for his speed, because he wasnt taking advantage of it on the field. Sure, he legged out some infield singles, but that already shows in his other averages. Youd think a guy that fast would get more doubles and triples, and more steals, thats all. Its like the strongest man in the world playing baseball and hitting 5 home runs in a season. Would we be gushing about his great 'power', and giving him extra credit for it? No..if anything we would be penalizing him for not being able to take advantage of his natural gifts and use them to prodice more on the ballfield.

[STLCards2]

I agree. The voters will likely take a few years to get with it. I'm wondering if Roberto Alomar might get similar treatment.

It will have to be litteraly a "few " years, becasue if it isn't, he will run into the: Bagwell, Biggio, Clemens, Bonds, Maddux, Piazza, Glavine, Thomas, Smoltz, Johnson, Griffey, Hoffman, Schilling, Piazza, Sosa, Sheffield train. If he misses that train, then comes Pedro, Manny, Thome, Rivera, etc. Even though these guys may not all make it (or deserve to necessarily) at some point in their careers, they were all percieved as being more HOFesque than Larkin-or at least as much so. If Larkin doesn not get in right away, he could be in big trouble.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The thing about Larkin is he was injured alot, so he didnt really play a lot of full seasons. He only had about 8 full seasons, and 2 of them were strike years, and 4 of them really werent good. Plus he was good in a lot of areas, but not 'great' at anything besides maybe fielding..that may hurt him as well. His MVP means nothing as it was probably the least deserving MVP of the last 25 years ( come on, you had a catcher with a 1.16 OPS on the road on a first place team). Only scored over 100 runs twice (in the steroid era) The thing about Larkin is that his 162 per game averages are probbaly hall worthy, when you consider his fielding, but he seldom played anywhere near 162 games in a season, and was insonsistent.

It may be true that Larkin was not he best player in the N.L. in 1995 (I don't think he was) but he DID win the award. A lot of the same MVP voters are also HoF voters. I think it's highly unlikely that the HoF voters will look on his 1998 MVP award and think to themselves, "Barry won the MVP but he didn't really deserve it so I will discount it as a positive for Barry."

[jjpm74]

I voted yes even though I'm a bit wary of saying Larkin is a shoe in. He certainly has the numbers, but so does Trammel and he doesn't get much support.

[califangels72]

Notice, I'm asking if you think he will be, not if you think he should be. Although I am interested in your answer to the latter question.


When I was growing up, I thought Larkin was a great but overrated shortstop who would be in the Hall of Fame. I now think he's become a very underrated shorstop who won't be in the Hall of Fame. Weird how perceptions change.

not before dave concepcion...!

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Cuurently, Barry Larkin is running about 57% for definite HOF support and Tim Raines 52% (last I checked). I'd be currious to have a debate as to which player is more deserving.

[Afterglow]

Hey, 1st post.

I voted no. Not to take anything away from him, but I just do not think that with his overrall numbers, and his tendency to be injured will bode well for his chances to get in.

If he does, it will be with the veterans commettiee.

And also not to try to start anything. Cause I do not want to. But could someone please explain to me his 96' season? Because I recall him having about 33 homers in about 519 or so ab's.

I am not saying he was doing anything fishy. But those numbers are just plain odd, considering what he did previously.

And again, I am not sayin he did anything. It just seems odd.

Also, sorry if my numbers aren't exact. My computer is too slow to just copy and paste stuff at will.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hey, 1st post.

I voted no. Not to take anything away from him, but I just do not think that with his overrall numbers, and his tendency to be injured will bode well for his chances to get in.

If he does, it will be with the veterans commettiee.

And also not to try to start anything. Cause I do not want to. But could someone please explain to me his 96' season? Because I recall him having about 33 homers in about 519 or so ab's.

I am not saying he was doing anything fishy. But those numbers are just plain odd, considering what he did previously.

And again, I am not sayin he did anything. It just seems odd.

Also, sorry if my numbers aren't exact. My computer is too slow to just copy and paste stuff at will.

This happens among shortstops. Bert Campeneris hit 22 HRs in 1970, but never hit in double digits before or after 1970.

[brett]

I agree. The voters will likely take a few years to get with it. I'm wondering if Roberto Alomar might get similar treatment.


Alomar strung together over a decade of consecutive healthy, high quality full seasons, while both Trammell and Larkin failed to do so.

I think that in terms of voting trends there is a "break up" factor where if you put one injury plagued season in the middle of say 4 full good seasons, the voters consider that to be a negative. Its almost like stringing strikes together.

[Afterglow]

This happens among shortstops. Bert Campeneris hit 22 HRs in 1970, but never hit in double digits before or after 1970.

I understand that it is possible. I was just really referring to his low number of total ab's. Which i found out was 517, compared to his 33 homers.

Homer every 15.66 at bats.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Alomar strung together over a decade of consecutive healthy, high quality full seasons, while both Trammell and Larkin failed to do so.

I think that in terms of voting trends there is a "break up" factor where if you put one injury plagued season in the middle of say 4 full good seasons, the voters consider that to be a negative. Its almost like stringing strikes together.

Alomar was more dominant at his position, defensively, than Larkin and Trammell were at theirs, but Larkin and Trammell also played a more demanding defensive position. Larkin was also the best offensive player of the group (OWP of .627 vs. .600 for Alomar).

Trammell was not as good as Alomar or Larkin, but he is certainly withing the range of the average HOF shortstop; his exclusion from the HOF is an injustice.

[philkid3]

not before dave concepcion...!

If Concepcion gets in before Larkin that will be a sad day indeed.

[JDD]

He hit well enough to make it, and I have never heard anything about his fielding, which is good news.

He is right behind ARod, Garciaparra, Banks and Jeter in runs created from that position (given a large enough sample size, 4000 PA in shortstop seasons) going all the way back to 1947.

RUNS CREATED/GAME RATE PLAYER LEAGUE
1 Alex Rodriguez 158 8.23 5.20
2 Nomar Garciaparra 146 7.55 5.18
3 Ernie Banks 139 6.77 4.88
4 Derek Jeter 132 6.81 5.17
5 Barry Larkin 127 6.22 4.90
6 Eddie Joost 122 6.11 5.00
7 Alan Trammell 115 5.27 4.58
8 Cal Ripken 115 5.34 4.67
9 Robin Yount 114 4.99 4.39
10 Jim Fregosi 113 4.80 4.23
11 Miguel Tejada 109 5.62 5.13
12 Pee Wee Reese 108 5.46 5.05
13 Roy Smalley 107 4.76 4.44
14 Jeff Blauser 107 5.21 4.88
15 Jimmy Rollins 104 5.40 5.21
16 Rafael Furcal 103 5.38 5.24
17 Tony Fernandez 101 4.58 4.56
18 Al Dark 100 5.01 5.02

I am guessing a long climb for him, and he will sneak in one year when the field is a little weaker. I am guessing some players get a ten percent bump during those years when there are less than two no-brainers.

Larkin's value increases if you look at players with longer careers (7000 PA)and take their entire careers, including those games outside of shortstop. Here is a list, excluding Banks:

RUNS CREATED/GAME RATE PLAYER LEAGUE
1 Alex Rodriguez 162 8.37 5.16
2 Derek Jeter 132 6.81 5.17
3 Barry Larkin 127 6.22 4.90
4 Robin Yount 119 5.27 4.45
5 Alan Trammell 115 5.27 4.58
6 Harvey Kuenn 113 5.30 4.68
7 Jim Fregosi 111 4.71 4.23
8 Julio Franco 111 5.29 4.76
9 Cal Ripken 109 5.19 4.77
10 Pee Wee Reese 105 5.30 5.04
11 Tony Fernandez 104 4.88 4.72
12 Jay Bell 99 4.91 4.95
13 Al Dark 98 4.90 4.98
14 Edgar Renteria 95 4.95 5.22
15 Maury Wills 92 4.07 4.43
16 Ozzie Smith 92 4.16 4.53
17 Bert Campaneris 92 3.84 4.19
18 Dick Groat 88 4.10 4.64
19 Dave Concepcion 87 3.89 4.48
20 Leo Cardenas 86 3.72 4.30

It's too bad he finished JUST under 200 homers and just under 1000 RBI and a .300 batting average. Those round numbers help your HOF chances I reckon'.

[philkid3]

I have never heard anything about his fielding, which is good news.
Well, now you're going to! :)

Here is Barry Larkin's career in TotalZone (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-defense-for-players-back-to-1956-part-2/) by season, with bold seasons denoting the years he lead the NL at SS.

1986: 3
1987: -1
1988: 14
1989: 10
1990: 16 (Tied for MLB Lead)
1991: 13 (Tied for MLB Lead)
1992: 8
1993: 0
1994: 0
1995: -8
1996: 8
1997: 3
1998: -10
2000: -4
2001: -5
2002: -6
2003: -3
2004: -3

Career: 35

That's not a GREAT career total, but it is positive and ranks 34th all-time among shortstops. More importantly, the peak was awesome. A couple of those years where he didn't lead the NL, the only guy better was one Ozzie Smith.

[mtortolero]

Well that may be exaggerating a bit..Id take the best 3 years of Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Hornsby, Foxx, Williams, and MAYBE Geenberg, Thomas, Belle, and Mcgwire over Mantle's (remember I clount RBI more than most people here)..and thats not counting the dead ball era stars, who i feel are difficult to compare to sluggers. Of course, the thing is that Mantle didnt play every day, and many of his seasons lose value because the Yankees had to use a much lesser player in his place much of the season. That is why i feel mantle is not a top 10 all time player..probably not top 15 either.

Let´s take the best three years of Mantle according to his OPS+:
1956 210 OPS+ 150 games played of 154
1957 223 OPS+ 144 games played of 154
1961 206 OPS+ 153 games played of 162

Are you saying that in those seasons, which include 2 MVP and a second place MVP, "lose value because the Yankees had to use a much lesser player in his place much of the season", which means a total of 23 games in three seasons (5% of the season)? For me it´s really really hard to believe that those 23 games played by his replacement screwed what Mantle did those seasons.

[henrich]

If Concepcion gets in before Larkin that will be a sad day indeed.

Concepcion 9201
Larkin 9450
Cronin is in at 9499 but Dahlan is out at 9794 as well as Willis 9629, whereas Reese 9956 and Smith are in at 9874.

I think all above deserve enshrinement, but they are in a section in modern times that is in limbo.

[philkid3]

Concepcion 9201
Larkin 9450
Cronin is in at 9499 but Dahlan is out at 9794 as well as Willis 9629, whereas Reese 9956 and Smith are in at 9874.

I think all above deserve enshrinement, but they are in a section in modern times that is in limbo.

What are those numbers?

[Mike90]

Positives for Barry Larkin's Hall case:
- Won an MVP in '95
- Liked and respected by teammates, fans, and media. Named to 12 All-Star teams
- Won 3 gold gloves, and fielding stats indicate he was an above average fielder
- His batting line of .295/.371/.444 was better than the average of .269/.339/.418. His OPS+ is 116, which compares well to Ryne Sandberg (114), a hall of famer with very similar stats.
- Per 162 games, he averaged 99 runs scored, 15 HRs, 6 triple, 33 doubles, and 28 stolen bases.

Negatives:
- Aside from that 1 MVP, Larkin never finished better than 7th in MVP voting. He had only 2 top-ten MVP finishes.
- He missed a lot of games because of injuries. Although he averaged 99 runs per 162 games, he only had two seasons where he scored 100 runs or more. He played less than 140 games in 12 of his 19 seasons.
- His skills were subtle. He never led the league in any offensive category because he was good at every aspect of the game and not really a standout in any one particular area. His Gray Ink Score is only 66, ranking 369th all time.
- His career Triple Crown stats, which sportswriters tend to love, are pretty mediocre: 198 HRs, 960 RBIs, and .295 BA.

I think he's a deserving Hall of Famer, but I can see him very easily getting the same Hall support as Allen Trammell.

[Poulanc]

As far as I can tell, the only knock against Larkin is his tendency to be injured. I guess if he only played in parts of 10 seasons that it could make a difference, but he played in parts of 19 seasons. He played 2,085 games at short - 12 most all time. I think that by looking at it that way, the fact that he was injury-prone shouldn't be much of a consideration.

[Mike90]

As far as I can tell, the only knock against Larkin is his tendency to be injured. I guess if he only played in parts of 10 seasons that it could make a difference, but he played in parts of 19 seasons. He played 2,085 games at short - 12 most all time. I think that by looking at it that way, the fact that he was injury-prone shouldn't be much of a consideration.

It's not so much that he did not play enough career games - he did have a long career - it's that he didn't have enough high-impact seasons because he only had 7 seasons where he played 140 or more games. The result is that he has only 1 top-5 finish in MVP voting and 2 top-10 finishes in MVP voting. Voters look at that type of stuff, and that will probably affect Larkin's support.

I think Larkin is a deserving hall of famer, but I'm not really sure if he's going to be elected.

[Poulanc]

It's not so much that he did not play enough career games - he did have a long career - it's that he didn't have enough high-impact seasons because he only had 7 seasons where he played 140 or more games. The result is that he has only 1 top-5 finish in MVP voting and 2 top-10 finishes in MVP voting. Voters look at that type of stuff, and that will probably affect Larkin's support.

I think Larkin is a deserving hall of famer, but I'm not really sure if he's going to be elected.


I get that, but Cal Ripken Jr. only had 3 years where he was top-10 in MVP voting. Of course he won it twice and finished 3rd the other time, but other than that, he had a high of 12th. (On a side note, how did Ripken finish 3rd in MVP voting in a year that he hit .257/.317/.401???) I'm not trying to suggest that Larkin was as good as Cal Ripken Jr., but he hit just as well as Ripken did, if not better, and I think he was known as the best shortstop in his league for a long time. It seems like it should be a pretty easy case for him.

[Cougar]

(On a side note, how did Ripken finish 3rd in MVP voting in a year that he hit .257/.317/.401???)

Ripken was the best player on a surprise 87 win second place Oriole team, and there wasn't really a standout offensive player in the AL that season.

[Brad Harris]

When he debuts, Larkin will be the most deserving candidate on the BBWAA ballot.

[Mike90]

I get that, but Cal Ripken Jr. only had 3 years where he was top-10 in MVP voting. Of course he won it twice and finished 3rd the other time, but other than that, he had a high of 12th. (On a side note, how did Ripken finish 3rd in MVP voting in a year that he hit .257/.317/.401???) I'm not trying to suggest that Larkin was as good as Cal Ripken Jr., but he hit just as well as Ripken did, if not better, and I think he was known as the best shortstop in his league for a long time. It seems like it should be a pretty easy case for him.

Ripken played over 800 more games in his career than Larkin and was able to hit the statistical milestones that voters love: 3000 hits, 400 HRs, 600 doubles, 1700 RBIs (almost) and The Streak. Larkin doesn't have any numbers that jump out at a voter.

Again, I think Larkin is deserving because he was truly great when he was healthy. I'm just pointing out what might hurt Larkin in the minds of the voters.

[jalbright]

Three Barry Larkin threads are now merged into one.

[Seattle1]

Three Barry Larkin threads are now merged into one.

Thank you very much for doing that.

Imho, Barry Larkin is another player who we can be pretty sure was never "on the juice."

[Brad Harris]

Thank you very much for doing that.

Imho, Barry Larkin is another player who we can be pretty sure was never "on the juice."
Because....?

[Seattle1]

Because....?

Just one of those gut instincts.

[Brad Harris]

Just one of those gut instincts.
If you're concerned about providing appropriate role models for your kids, then you should focus less on what baseball players choose to do behind closed doors and more on teaching your children that "gut instinct" is not an appropriate basis on which to form opinions about people. Of course, you'd have to learn that yourself, first.

[Seattle1]

If you're concerned about providing appropriate role models for your kids, then you should focus less on what baseball players choose to do behind closed doors and more on teaching your children that "gut instinct" is not an appropriate basis on which to form opinions about people. Of course, you'd have to learn that yourself, first.

So by your logic if a baseball player chooses to take steroids "behind closed doors," a practice which has always been inherently morally and ethically reprehensible no matter when the rules happened to kick in, that is ok? I'm glad my children aren't being raised by you then because I don't think they should learn your lesson that "it's ok as long as you don't get caught because it's nobody else's business."

[jalbright]

Gentlemen:

The personal back and forth will stop immediately, or I promise consequences for both of you. It's obvious you don't agree, but there are rules against personal attacks. I will enforce them if there are further outbursts like this. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

[Brad Harris]

So by your logic if a baseball player chooses to take steroids "behind closed doors," a practice which has always been inherently morally and ethically reprehensible no matter when the rules happened to kick in, that is ok? I'm glad my children aren't being raised by you then because I don't think they should learn your lesson that "it's ok as long as you don't get caught because it's nobody else's business."
I said no such thing. If it makes it simpler, then you can re-read my last post and take the words "behind closed doors" out of it since that's really beside the point: "gut instinct" is an insufficient basis for making critical judgments.

[Seattle1]

Gentlemen:

The personal back and forth will stop immediately, or I promise consequences for both of you. It's obvious you don't agree, but there are rules against personal attacks. I will enforce them if there are further outbursts like this. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Ok, sorry about that Jalbright. Sorry for attacking you personally Classic.

[Brad Harris]

Ok, sorry about that Jalbright. Sorry for attacking you personally Classic.
I started it. You have my apologies.

[Seattle1]

I started it. You have my apologies.

That's no problem. I guess we are seeing this latest A-Rod thing spark some heated debate. (If that's not too much of an understatement.)

[Brad Harris]

:laugh:laugh:laugh

FWIW, I happen to agree with you about Larkin, but on my part it's just speculation. Being a Reds fan, I often wondered about Larkin and Griffey in the 2000-2004 years with respect to potential PED usage and the health issues both players suffered from.

[mtortolero]

Larkin's chances will definitely be helped by the fact that his competition in the 2010 election will not be that stiff. Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez, and Robin Ventura are the other big names for that election, and only Alomar will likely receive significant support (and perhaps election). Plus, the holdovers will not be that significant either. After next year, in which Gwynn and Ripken will surely be elected, and perhaps McGwire too, the only surefire Hall of Famer to enter the ballot after that is Rickey Henderson (assuming no team gives him another chance), and he'll get in on his first try in 2009. Of the holdovers in 2010, I image Tim Raines will probably be receiving strong support (he might even be in by then, but I doubt it), Bert Blyleven and Andre Dawson could still be hanging around as well, and hopefully Alan Trammell would have gained some momentum by then too. Anyway, the point is that the competition when Larkin enters the ballot will not be that stiff, so he could have a chance of first year election.

DoubleX
this post in 2006 was a great exercise of anticipation. Congrats.

[NJRob65]

Should be inducted into the HoF, but probably won't be.

[gman5431]

Larkin will get in in front of a lot of the guys mentioned in this post. However, i dont know if he will get in next year. Could be Robbie only.

G Man

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Larkin will get in in front of a lot of the guys mentioned in this post. However, i dont know if he will get in next year. Could be Robbie only.

G Man

Although Alomar should be a first-ballot HOF, it's unclear whether he will get in because of the scandal surrounding his name. Of course, everybody remembers the John Hirschbeck spitting incident, but more recently he's been accused in a court of law for knowingly passing HIV to his Ex live-in. There also was the tumultuous relationship he had with tennis star Mary Pierce, whom she accused Alomar of physical assault.

I personally think he should be judged only by his accomplishments of the baseball field, but some voters might look at his unsavory record and abstain from checking his name.

For the record also, I do not support Larkin's HOF bid at this time; a very solid borderline candidate. Have already posted the reasons why on this thread. Larkin might benefit greatly from the passage of time and retrospect, but at the very minimum, I don't believe he should be a first ballot selection.

[SABR Matt]

For the life of me, I will never understand why people do that. Why does it matter what year a player gets into the HOF? Why would you think "he's a good candidate for the HOF, but I want to make him sweat for a decade before I cast a vote in his favor?"

Either he's a HOFer or he's not...make up your mind now and vote the same way every darned year.

[JDD]

Yeah, I agree with that. Some guys gather more and more votes as they go thru the process. I guess it is because someone got talked into voting for him this year (and the player did not get that writer's vote last year), it's a new voter or the writer looked closer at the record.

That all sounds logical. But I am betting part of this goes to writers who pick, say, three guys every year. And only three (or whatever the number). This could explain why some players' vote totals go up and down over time.

[davewashere]

For the life of me, I will never understand why people do that. Why does it matter what year a player gets into the HOF? Why would you think "he's a good candidate for the HOF, but I want to make him sweat for a decade before I cast a vote in his favor?"

Either he's a HOFer or he's not...make up your mind now and vote the same way every darned year.

Some voters are stubborn, and they think there are different tiers to the Hall of Fame. If a guy gets in on the first ballot, does that mean he's better than Joe DiMaggio because Joltin' Joe didn't get in on the first ballot? If a guy gets 97% of the vote, does that mean he's better than Babe Ruth? There are some voters who believe this, and that's why we'll never see someone get 100% of the vote, even when it's obvious they are a Hall of Famer. I take that back, someone could get 100% of the vote if they dominate all aspects of the game (hitting, fielding, and even pitching every 5th day) for 20 seasons, play every day, submit a blood test to the media every day to prove they're clean, and also spend all of their free time volunteering at childrens hospitals.

As for Larkin, I think his first shot will be his best shot. 2010 is a down year for HOF candidates, so a lot of borderline HOFers (a category I'd put Larkin in) have a chance. I predict Larkin, Blyleven, and Dawson all getting in next year, even though I think very few people believe Barry Larkin was a better player than Robbie Alomar. They'll make Alomar wait, not because he was a borderline HOFer but because there are a handful of incidents of bad behavior that the writers would like to punish him for.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

For the life of me, I will never understand why people do that. Why does it matter what year a player gets into the HOF? Why would you think "he's a good candidate for the HOF, but I want to make him sweat for a decade before I cast a vote in his favor?"

Either he's a HOFer or he's not...make up your mind now and vote the same way every darned year.

It's not that I would 'punish' Larkin by not voting for him initially. It's more a case of genuine fence sitting (indecision). I could see myself being persuaded by a convincing pro-Larkin argument, but I have failed to hear a good one yet. Would he better than most shortstops currently in the HOF? Probably, but I don't believe half of them should be there to begin with so that's not a convincing argument to me.

I'm still trying to come to terms with his propensity to get injured all the time and how negatively that impacted the teams he played for. Also, while he had many quality seasons, he had few 'standout' campaigns beside his controversial 1996 MVP season. Larkin also benefited greatly from the dearth of good hitting shortstops in MLB from the late 80's into the mid nineties, which lead to all those Silver Sluggers because there was no one else at that position who could hit.

To me, Larkin and Trammel share similar characteristics: They could be great at times, even top hitters for a season or two, but ultimately injuries and inconsistency from year to year give me pause. Granted, Larkin was better than Trammel - the latter is a solid 'No' for me, but similar cases nonetheless.

[SABR Matt]

I have Larkin ahead of CAL RIPKEN...despite 3000 fewer plate appearances.

His PCA card:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1996 NL 9.88 3.73 15.8 4.8 13.61
1988 NL 7.56 4.58 11.0 6.5 12.14
1995 NL 8.97 2.90 14.3 3.6 11.87
1990 NL 5.50 5.54 6.7 8.3 11.04
1991 NL 6.82 3.70 10.3 5.2 10.52
1998 NL 8.70 1.79 13.4 1.0 10.49
1992 NL 7.37 2.87 10.9 3.2 10.24
1999 NL 6.01 4.04 7.7 5.2 10.05
1994 NL 4.68 2.24 6.2 2.5 6.92
2000 NL 3.88 2.51 4.9 3.3 6.39
1993 NL 4.93 1.24 7.1 0.7 6.17
1989 NL 4.34 1.76 6.4 1.9 6.10
1997 NL 3.55 1.54 5.4 2.0 5.09
1987 NL 2.00 2.17 0.9 2.2 4.17
2002 NL 1.67 1.85 -0.2 1.4 3.52
2004 NL 2.70 0.33 3.0 -0.7 3.03
1986 NL 1.43 0.48 1.8 0.2 1.91
2003 NL 1.62 0.23 1.6 -0.5 1.85
2001 NL 1.38 0.35 1.6 0.0 1.73

Not only was Barry Larkin more consistently an al-star-level player when you combine his superior defense with his well above average offense (DESPITE losing a lot of playing time) than Ripken...he lasted plenty long enough in terms of total playing time to be an accumulator as well as a high-peak shortstop.

This argument that Larkin was not consistently a great player in his prime is balderdash. I don't think you have the appropriate level of appreciation for his defensive value.

Here's Ripken, BTW, for comparison:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1991 AL 13.23 2.43 21.9 1.9 15.66
1984 AL 10.18 5.08 15.8 7.2 15.26
1983 AL 9.05 4.67 13.5 6.3 13.72
1986 AL 7.66 3.38 10.8 3.8 11.04
1988 AL 7.74 1.96 11.1 0.9 9.70
1985 AL 6.43 2.92 8.3 2.9 9.35
1990 AL 6.49 2.02 8.6 1.1 8.51
1989 AL 4.55 3.94 4.6 4.9 8.49
1987 AL 4.90 2.48 5.3 2.0 7.38
1982 AL 4.88 2.14 5.6 1.7 7.02
1995 AL 2.63 4.36 1.4 6.1 6.99
1993 AL 3.26 2.93 2.0 2.9 6.19
1992 AL 3.17 2.69 1.8 2.4 5.86
1996 AL 3.76 1.90 3.0 0.8 5.66
1997 AL 2.81 2.51 1.3 3.1 5.32
1994 AL 2.74 2.38 2.4 2.7 5.12
1999 AL 4.00 1.04 5.8 1.2 5.04
1998 AL 3.08 1.25 2.0 0.6 4.33
2000 AL 1.74 0.81 1.3 0.8 2.55
2001 AL 0.64 1.65 -2.0 1.9 2.29

Ripken was better in his very best seasons, but Larkin held his peak performance WAY better than Ripken did...oh and Ripken spent nearly half his career as a noticeably below average bat and that was almost never true of Larkin.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I have Larkin ahead of CAL RIPKEN...despite 3000 fewer plate appearances.

His PCA card:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1996 NL 9.88 3.73 15.8 4.8 13.61
1988 NL 7.56 4.58 11.0 6.5 12.14
1995 NL 8.97 2.90 14.3 3.6 11.87
1990 NL 5.50 5.54 6.7 8.3 11.04
1991 NL 6.82 3.70 10.3 5.2 10.52
1998 NL 8.70 1.79 13.4 1.0 10.49
1992 NL 7.37 2.87 10.9 3.2 10.24
1999 NL 6.01 4.04 7.7 5.2 10.05
1994 NL 4.68 2.24 6.2 2.5 6.92
2000 NL 3.88 2.51 4.9 3.3 6.39
1993 NL 4.93 1.24 7.1 0.7 6.17
1989 NL 4.34 1.76 6.4 1.9 6.10
1997 NL 3.55 1.54 5.4 2.0 5.09
1987 NL 2.00 2.17 0.9 2.2 4.17
2002 NL 1.67 1.85 -0.2 1.4 3.52
2004 NL 2.70 0.33 3.0 -0.7 3.03
1986 NL 1.43 0.48 1.8 0.2 1.91
2003 NL 1.62 0.23 1.6 -0.5 1.85
2001 NL 1.38 0.35 1.6 0.0 1.73

Not only was Barry Larkin more consistently an al-star-level player when you combine his superior defense with his well above average offense (DESPITE losing a lot of playing time) than Ripken...he lasted plenty long enough in terms of total playing time to be an accumulator as well as a high-peak shortstop.

This argument that Larkin was not consistently a great player in his prime is balderdash. I don't think you have the appropriate level of appreciation for his defensive value.

Here's Ripken, BTW, for comparison:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1991 AL 13.23 2.43 21.9 1.9 15.66
1984 AL 10.18 5.08 15.8 7.2 15.26
1983 AL 9.05 4.67 13.5 6.3 13.72
1986 AL 7.66 3.38 10.8 3.8 11.04
1988 AL 7.74 1.96 11.1 0.9 9.70
1985 AL 6.43 2.92 8.3 2.9 9.35
1990 AL 6.49 2.02 8.6 1.1 8.51
1989 AL 4.55 3.94 4.6 4.9 8.49
1987 AL 4.90 2.48 5.3 2.0 7.38
1982 AL 4.88 2.14 5.6 1.7 7.02
1995 AL 2.63 4.36 1.4 6.1 6.99
1993 AL 3.26 2.93 2.0 2.9 6.19
1992 AL 3.17 2.69 1.8 2.4 5.86
1996 AL 3.76 1.90 3.0 0.8 5.66
1997 AL 2.81 2.51 1.3 3.1 5.32
1994 AL 2.74 2.38 2.4 2.7 5.12
1999 AL 4.00 1.04 5.8 1.2 5.04
1998 AL 3.08 1.25 2.0 0.6 4.33
2000 AL 1.74 0.81 1.3 0.8 2.55
2001 AL 0.64 1.65 -2.0 1.9 2.29

Ripken was better in his very best seasons, but Larkin held his peak performance WAY better than Ripken did...oh and Ripken spent nearly half his career as a noticeably below average bat and that was almost never true of Larkin.

Very consistent BA; power and SB totals were not. Would loved to have seen a better peak, although the injuries torpedoed that idea... I probably penalize oft-injured players who have many 2/3 GP seasons more than most would, because he hurt his team immensely being out of the lineup while his team had to play a light hitting backup. Hence, it would have been MUCH BETTER had he accumulated his stats in 12 years playing 150 games/season as opposed to 120G/season over 19 yrs. In fact, Larkin averaged only 114.73 GP/season over 19 years. That really hurts his value.

Perhaps I'm underestimating his defence; maybe that's what takes him over the line. Not convinced yet.

[SABR Matt]

I could calculate the average value of the shortstops the Reds used other than Larkin, but what you're going to find out is that they were not all that much more reliant on backups than the average club...it just meant that their utility infielder had a few more plate appearances some seasons...most teams get their utility infielders 200 plate appearances scattered all over the infield, I'm betting the Reds got them 250 PAs mostly at short.

[gman5431]

Although Alomar should be a first-ballot HOF, it's unclear whether he will get in because of the scandal surrounding his name. Of course, everybody remembers the John Hirschbeck spitting incident, but more recently he's been accused in a court of law for knowingly passing HIV to his Ex live-in. There also was the tumultuous relationship he had with tennis star Mary Pierce, whom she accused Alomar of physical assault.

I personally think he should be judged only by his accomplishments of the baseball field, but some voters might look at his unsavory record and abstain from checking his name.

For the record also, I do not support Larkin's HOF bid at this time; a very solid borderline candidate. Have already posted the reasons why on this thread. Larkin might benefit greatly from the passage of time and retrospect, but at the very minimum, I don't believe he should be a first ballot selection.


I didnt know those things about Robbie. You may be right on that.

I support Larkin but i can see why some people may not. He is better than a lot of the SS in the HOF already tho - including one of his contemporaries, Ozzie Smith.

G Man

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

It took me a long time to make up my mind about Larkin's HOF candidacy, and I'm not sure why. Although I don't think he was quite the player that Roberto Alomar was, I think he clearly belongs in.

[mtortolero]

The differences in acumulative stats between Alomar and Larkin are more or less the value of two average seasons:
Total difference...........1343 PA 179 runs 384 H 63 2B 12 Hr 174 RBI
two average seasons of 671 PA 89 runs 192 H 32 2B 6 Hr 87 RBI
The funny thing is Larkin was active 19 seasons vs 17 seasons of Alomar.
Bad for Larkin was so injury prone while was an active player.

[SABR Matt]

Larkin was a better player in his prime seasons than Alomar because Larkin was a good fielder, Alomar was not.

[Brad Harris]

Larkin was a better player in his prime seasons than Alomar because Larkin was a good fielder, Alomar was not.

I still remember that SI issue that said Alomar was the greatest fielding second baseman in history. :laugh

[SABR Matt]

Oh he had a tremendous fielding reputation...but no sabermetric tool has thus far been able to find any evidence whatsoever supporting any claim that Alomar was even an average defensive second baseman, let alone a good one.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Oh he had a tremendous fielding reputation...but no sabermetric tool has thus far been able to find any evidence whatsoever supporting any claim that Alomar was even an average defensive second baseman, let alone a good one.

I know Alomar slowed down defensively later in his career, but when he was with the Blue Jays he was a tremendous defensive player. I know the likes of Sabr Matt might discount this claim because its anecdotal, but I watched hundreds of Blue Jay games then and Alomar was a gold glove fielder. Maybe because the turf was so fast at Skydome his range factor was unfairly diminished or whatever, but he was fantastic defensively then. It's not hard to understand why: good fielding %, excellent speed, agile... there's no way he could be anything less than very good. You simply cannot win 5 GG's for the Blue Jays unless you really can pick it.

As for who was the better player, I can't believe its even a debate. Alomar hands down, if nothing else, for his ability to stay in the lineup.

[SABR Matt]

Alomar's defensive career by PCA:
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
2B 1997 103 3.14 0.319
2B 1999 147 3.83 0.299
2B 1988 141 3.18 0.284
2B 1991 159 3.32 0.277
2B 1990 133 2.75 0.275
2B 2003 62 1.22 0.271
2B 1998 142 2.57 0.264
2B 1995 126 2.25 0.263
2B 1996 137 2.31 0.259
2B 1993 146 2.35 0.256
2B 1989 154 2.49 0.256
2B 1994 98 1.45 0.250
2B 2000 151 2.18 0.248
2B 1992 139 1.62 0.236
2B 2003 64 0.73 0.235
2B 2001 150 1.48 0.228
2B 2002 139 1.10 0.220
2B 2004 21 0.10 0.205

He showed flashes of ability as an Oriole and Indian...but he was, statistically, a below average fielder for his entire stay in Toronto. I'd always heard that astroturf was easier to field...not harder. You get true hops on turf...it does make for faster grounder speed, though, so it's possible this is a case where the existing fielding analyses are missing something...I just think there's a danger in being wow'ed by someone who looks slick but doesn't really get results (Griffey Jr. in Seattle, for example).

[SavoyBG]

I know Alomar slowed down defensively later in his career, but when he was with the Blue Jays he was a tremendous defensive player. I know the likes of Sabr Matt might discount this claim because its anecdotal, but I watched hundreds of Blue Jay games then and Alomar was a gold glove fielder. Maybe because the turf was so fast at Skydome his range factor was unfairly diminished or whatever, but he was fantastic defensively then. It's not hard to understand why: good fielding %, excellent speed, agile... there's no way he could be anything less than very good. You simply cannot win 5 GG's for the Blue Jays unless you really can pick it.

As for who was the better player, I can't believe its even a debate. Alomar hands down, if nothing else, for his ability to stay in the lineup.

Alomar's rep as a great fielder came solely because he made a lot of great plays going to his left, or at least they seemed to be great plays, probably because other 2Bmen would have gotten to the same balls without diving. I agree with Matt, the guy was vastly overrated as a fielder, just like Jeter.

[SABR Matt]

Alomar's trademark play was ranging to his left to catch foul flies and bloopers to short right. He did that well much like Jeter handles pop-ups well. He was not very good going up the middle, though he was certainly better at it than Jeter.

[SavoyBG]

Alomar's trademark play was ranging to his left to catch foul flies and bloopers to short right. He did that well much like Jeter handles pop-ups well. He was not very good going up the middle, though he was certainly better at it than Jeter.

My 79 year old father would be better at it than Jeter.

[SABR Matt]

LOL!

Well to be fair Jeter seems to be playing a little better up the middle the last couple of seasons, but yes...he's not a good role model for training young shortstops at defensive positioning OR fundamentals and footwork.

[SavoyBG]

LOL!

Well to be fair Jeter seems to be playing a little better up the middle the last couple of seasons, but yes...he's not a good role model for training young shortstops at defensive positioning OR fundamentals and footwork.


That stupid play when he dove into the stands after making a pretty good running catch....there's actually some schmucks around here in the NY area who think it was one of the greatest plays they ever saw. The other team's SS made an even better play on a deep popup down the LF line in the same game, but since he wasn't as clumsy as Jeter, he didn't need to dive into the stands after the catch.

The Yankees have not won anything since Jeter was named captain in June of 2003. Actually the team has gotten progressively worse in every season since then. "Captain Collapse" presided over the biggest collapse in the history of post season sports in 2004, against Boston.

Here's what the team has done since Jeter was named captain.

2003 - lost world series
2004 - lost ALCS after leading thre games to none.....LOL
2005 - lost in first round in 5 games
2006 - lost in first round in 4 games
2007 - wild card - lost in first round in 4 games
2008 - did not make playoffs....LOL

[SABR Matt]

The Yankees don't know how to build a team...they spend money on players but they don't fit well together emotionally or sabermetrically...the team has become increasingly unstable, and increasingly flawed. They make no attempt to field a competent team defense, they focus on big name pitchers, most of whom are over or near 30 when they get to New York, many of whom flamed out horribly upon their arrival. They don't spend their money on good back-up plans the way Boston does (when a big name player stops producing as is the case with Ortiz, Boston has competent major league bench players who can step up and keep that spot from being a black hole...when the Yankees lose A-Rod, they play Cody farking Ransom...LOL), and they don't emphasize player development. Not to mention the way they horribly mistreated Torre.

[SavoyBG]

The Yankees don't know how to build a team...they spend money on players but they don't fit well together emotionally or sabermetrically...the team has become increasingly unstable, and increasingly flawed. They make no attempt to field a competent team defense, they focus on big name pitchers, most of whom are over or near 30 when they get to New York, many of whom flamed out horribly upon their arrival. They don't spend their money on good back-up plans the way Boston does (when a big name player stops producing as is the case with Ortiz, Boston has competent major league bench players who can step up and keep that spot from being a black hole...when the Yankees lose A-Rod, they play Cody farking Ransom...LOL), and they don't emphasize player development. Not to mention the way they horribly mistreated Torre.


It's no accident that Boston pulled ahead of New York in putting a team together just after they hired BJ.

Their outfield defense right now is brutal. Only Melky can throw, and the corner outfielders (Damon and Swisher) at the moment are really bad. The infield is not any better at 2B and SS. The only position where they have even an above average fielder is 1B.

A-Rod is 3 for his last 34 and is "resting" tonight and tomorrow in Florida. He's now at .212 for the season.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

The Yankees don't know how to build a team...they spend money on players but they don't fit well together emotionally or sabermetrically...the team has become increasingly unstable, and increasingly flawed. They make no attempt to field a competent team defense, they focus on big name pitchers, most of whom are over or near 30 when they get to New York, many of whom flamed out horribly upon their arrival. They don't spend their money on good back-up plans the way Boston does (when a big name player stops producing as is the case with Ortiz, Boston has competent major league bench players who can step up and keep that spot from being a black hole...when the Yankees lose A-Rod, they play Cody farking Ransom...LOL), and they don't emphasize player development. Not to mention the way they horribly mistreated Torre.

That post is full of good points. With the money they spend (approximately 50% more than any other Major League team), if the Yankees don't win the division every single year, they're a monumental failure as a team. Why do they routinely sign high-profile pitchers who are past their primes? It would only mildly surprise me if they offered Tom Glavine a 2-year/$10 million deal.

[Milt on Tilt]

how does every conversation on here turn into a discussion about the Yankees/Bosox?

[Captain Cold Nose]

how does every conversation on here turn into a discussion about the Yankees/Bosox?

Who knows. :shrug:

:thumbsdown:

Barry Larkin is the subject matter. We've seen far too many threads hijacked of late. Please create a new thread if you *must* talk about a subject matter that has nothing to do with the present thread.

[leecemark]

I have Larkin ahead of CAL RIPKEN...despite 3000 fewer plate appearances.

Ripken was better in his very best seasons, but Larkin held his peak performance WAY better than Ripken did...oh and Ripken spent nearly half his career as a noticeably below average bat and that was almost never true of Larkin.

--For Ripken's first 10 years as an everyday SS (and in his case everyday is literal:cool:) he posted a 128 OPS+ and was never below average as a hitter. Not just for a SS for for anybody. He stayed at SS another 5 years and was slightly below average as a hitter, but still an above average hittign SS. He probably should have retired rather than move to 3b, as he was never above average after the move (well he had one very nice partial season), but I can't hold that against him. Larkin is a Hall of Famer in my book, but Ripken ranks significantly higher.

[SABR Matt]

Hitting includes baserunning too, Mark. When you consider baserunning (there is a league average rate of production on the bases), Ripken was, in total, a below average hitter from 1992 through 2001 (only 1999 excluded). That's 9 below average offensive seasons compared to 11 above average seasons.