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.

[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:

"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 on my fledgling baseball blog, The Rule V Baseball Blog, 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.