Barry Larkin

[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!

[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.

[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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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 .

[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.

[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]

I still hate the Hall for not putting Trammel in.

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

[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.

[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?

[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.