Barry Larkin

[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.

[Chadwick]

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.

[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.