Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barry Larkin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    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."
    Last edited by digglahhh; 10-26-2007, 11:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • philkid3
    replied
    [QUOTE=willshad;1035027]
    Originally posted by digglahhh View Post


    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    [QUOTE=digglahhh;1034836]
    Originally posted by willshad View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    [QUOTE=willshad;1031289]
    Originally posted by digglahhh View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • philkid3
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • philkid3
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    [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.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by digglahhh View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    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?
    Last edited by digglahhh; 10-20-2007, 04:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X