Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barry Larkin

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

  • Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    brett says of Larkin,

    I hope so, because there's George Wright and Jack Glasscock before Jennings, and there are five shortstops from the Negro Leagues in the Hall of Merit. (My memory says 6 HOM and 3 HOF, but I now count five and two.)

    In the HOM rankings that predate Larkin, Joe Sewell is the 25th and last shortstop. (Pearce, Ward, and Wallace plus the preceding paragraph make ten, plus fifteen eligible shortstops that brett named.) 8 x 25 = 200 but those rankings cover only 171 players at eight regular fielding positions.

    Cooperstown has about 23/160 or 24/162 shortstops, again one-seventh rather than one-eighth of the non-pitchers.
    If you get a chance, could I see all the hall of merit second basemen, shortstops and third basemen, and their "score?" plus if they are "short high peak" inductees.

    I basically have firm spots for about the 120 most "valuable" position players including 19th, 20th and NeLeagueers. I also tend to reserve 10-15 spots for guys who don't make it in MY ratings on value but who make up for SOME lesser value with their "historical place." I really haven't decided on these guys but it might include guys like Sisler, Mazeroski, Dean...

    Comment


    • Data available (done)

      Originally posted by brett View Post
      If you get a chance, could I see all the hall of merit second basemen, shortstops and third basemen, and their "score?" plus if they are "short high peak" inductees.
      Yes, except for the latter assessment. I will say rashly that the eight "Negro Leaguers" at those positions (two 3b, five ss, one 2b as classified by the HOM) include seven with long to very long careers, none medium, and Dobie Moore short.

      I will re-post a data table recently described at the Hall of Merit (#10, 70, 72). That thread is mainly discussion of overall ratings systems with participation by Sean Smith, Tom Tango, and Dan Rosenheck.

      :

      add:
      This 1583 x 25 table in csv format is attached at "Data available" (selected Rankings and Ratings for 1583 players)

      Columns 8-16 (Excel H-P) give Hall of Merit data, the results of special ranking elections and the three annual elections.
      - 8-10, ranking all HOMers within fielding position
      - 11-12, ranking all who are not in Cooperstown within eligibility groups
      - 14-16, annual elections 2010 2009 2008

      add add:
      If and when I provide more documentation, that will be at the Data thread (bold).
      Last edited by Paul Wendt; 12-17-2009, 06:48 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AstrosFan View Post
        Larkin's an easy Hall of Famer. He hit like a Hall of Fame shortstop, so that should be good enough, but he was also a terrific fielder and baserunner. He was the very definition of a complete, high percentage player. He has the numbers of a Hall of Famer, but furthermore, he passes the test of the emphasis on the "Fame" part. Larkin was regarded as a genuine superstar in his day. It would be sheer absurdity to keep him out.
        That covers it all, quite nicely.
        3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

        Comment


        • the importance of 5% - a lot may happen in 15 years

          Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
          That covers it all, quite nicely.
          At worst Larkin will be renominated annually like Trammell and Raines.

          Over at Kevin Brown,
          Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
          ... Just because Greinke and Lincecum (justly) won the Cys this year does not mean we're going to get any sort of full scale revisitation of HOF cases from the recent past, viewed now through a sabermetric lens. Very few in the BBWAA want to start a process that ends up with Brown, Steib and other stat analysis darlings in the Hall.
          Renomination by 5% support is important because the BBWAA electorate changes gradually, at least. Furthermore the Board might revise BBWAA control without restoring eligibility to those who fall below 5% support ("killed" by the writers).

          For Larkin, Edgar Martinez, and others in the class of 2010, the window under current rules is 2010-2024.

          At least the BBWAA changes gradually, as younger members put in their ten years and older members die; also as some retire from covering baseball and choose not to continue their professional society memberships. Fourteen years from now the cumulative change may be significant on a crucial dimension such as degree of reliance on statistical analysis.

          The BBWAA electorate might change more quickly than in the past. Print newspapers are in trouble economically. Many will not make an effective transition to internet business or they will cut sports staff if they do. Some will survive in print only by cutting staff at least by attrition. Already the BBWAA has admitted some internet writers who are not affiliated with print newspapers. There may be further liberalization to follow, perhaps to admit writers who are not on a beat. (Revisit the Rob Neyer flap.)

          The NBHOFM might revise the BBWAA monopoly. Probably the Board will do that if the BBWAA becomes evidently marginal, which will happen if the BBWAA is too conservative and the future of newspapers is too bleak. Of course the BBWAA will try to remain central rather than become marginal, by changing just enough as the world changes.
          Last edited by Paul Wendt; 12-17-2009, 07:44 AM.

          Comment


          • I think Larkin will get between 30-40% this year and will gradually turn up from there. People have to remember that Larkin never won many friends in the media. He was similar to Barry Sanders; rarely ever gave interview (when has anybody EVER seen a Barry Sanders inteview?) and wasn't the most friendly to media brass. And like Sanders, he kept a very low profile.

            I think Larkin will eventually get elected in a year with a weak voting roster. Unfrtunately for him, that may be a few years off. If I had to guess, I'd say 6-10 years. As far as middle infielders go, Alomar will be getting in well before him, as he should, since he was the better player on aggregate. Jeff Kent might too for that matter, despite the fact he isn't eligiblr for another 4 years.
            Last edited by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan; 12-17-2009, 08:18 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan View Post
              I think Larkin will get between 30-40% this year and will gradually turn up from there. People have to remember that Larkin never won many friends in the media. He was similar to Barry Sanders; rarely ever gave interview (when has anybody EVER seen a Barry Sanders inteview?) and wasn't the most friendly to media brass. And like Sanders, he kept a very low profile.

              I think Larkin will eventually get elected in a year with a weak voting roster. Unfrtunately for him, that may be a few years off. If I had to guess, I'd say 6-10 years. As far as middle infielders go, Alomar will be getting in well before him, as he should, since he was the better player on aggregate. Jeff Kent might too for that matter, despite the fact he isn't eligiblr for another 4 years.
              Sandberg took until his 3rd year right? And I think everyone knew he was a hall of famer. Larkin will probably have to have a longer and slower version of Sandberg's path, perhaps 7-8 years, but in reality, career-wise Larkin looks to be a virtual statistical clone of Sandberg both offensively and defensively (if not a little better).

              What Sandberg did have on him was 150 or more games played 11 times.

              I do have a belief that voters like to be able to look at several FULL seasons, ideally in a row to be really confident in a player. They want to be able to put their finger on what that player really was during their HEALTHY PRIME.

              (though that reasoning didn't help Ron Santo who played over 150 for 11 straight, nor did it hurt Brett who only played 150 6 times and only twice between '77 and '87. I don't know. I just know that you can look at some guys games played by season and some guys come away looking negative (like Larkin and Trammell) and others like Brett or Molitor (who lost almost 2 full years and was on the DL 7 times) it doesn't seem to affect-probably because they both got to 2600+ games.

              Comment


              • Ryne Sandberg finished weakly, as did like Larkin. They were recognized as great players more in their twenties than in their thirties. They fit a prominent hypothesis by someone here (FB?): expect a little trouble at the ballot box.

                Brett was a superduperstar.

                Paul Molitor finished strongly --that is, played strongly in his mid-thirties, although not quite finished because he continued playing. He posted one of his best seasons to help Toronto repeat its championship --something many baseball fans had never experienced and everyone knew would always be a rarity. He played unbelievably well in the playoffs, albeit as a mere DH.

                Other strong points to Molitor's resume: He had played well in the 1982 playoffs, too, as the Brewers thirdbaseman. He was one of the best baserunners in the history of the game. He reached 3000 hits. People believed that he took a hometown discount in Minnesota (1996), maybe also during 15 seasons in Milwaukee (?).


                Sandberg won his MVP award at age 25.1, Molitor finished second at 37.2. Those were single season achievements that caricature or epitomize the shapes of their careers. Larkin won his MVP at 31.6, more as a lifetime achievement.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by brett View Post
                  Sandberg took until his 3rd year right? And I think everyone knew he was a hall of famer. Larkin will probably have to have a longer and slower version of Sandberg's path, perhaps 7-8 years, but in reality, career-wise Larkin looks to be a virtual statistical clone of Sandberg both offensively and defensively (if not a little better).

                  What Sandberg did have on him was 150 or more games played 11 times.
                  Didn't Sandberg also have some sort of fielding record? I can't remember exactly what it was, but I remember him seeming to be hyped (at the time) because of that.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by dgarza View Post
                    Didn't Sandberg also have some sort of fielding record? I can't remember exactly what it was, but I remember him seeming to be hyped (at the time) because of that.
                    He broke the record with 9 gold gloves at 2B. I thought Larkin was the guy who finally beat out Ozzie Smith, but actually it was someone else-I'll look for it.

                    Smith won from '80 through '92 but Larkin was considered a defensive gem as early as '88 and people were talking about when would he unseat Ozzie.

                    Ozzie deserved at least 10 of his 13, and probably deserved it in '94 as well, but easily "could" have lost in '91 and '93.

                    Larkin really was never at Ozzie's level. He was GOOD and might have been a justifiable candidate in '88, '90 and '99 but mostly he hovered around being a step above average to a hair below.

                    Sandberg was overrated too. He was a little better second baseman than Larkin a SS, but he should have only won 3-4, maybe 5. By the way, Alomar was HUGELY overrated at least looking at defensive analyses. He was basically an average value fielder-but flashy. Alomar broke Sandberg's record by winning 10. Probably didn't deserve 1.

                    Got it! The guy who unseated Smith was Jay Bell.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dgarza View Post
                      Didn't Sandberg also have some sort of fielding record? I can't remember exactly what it was, but I remember him seeming to be hyped (at the time) because of that.
                      Ryne Sandberg chased, maybe broke, the record for consecutive errorless games at secondbase.

                      Larry Bowa chased the shortstops record a few years earlier, iirc.

                      For all of the fielding positions these errorless records have been chased time and again. The developments of fielding gloves and groundskeeping have supported decline in errors "forever".

                      It's possible that Sandberg or Bowa chased consecutive chances rather than consecutive games. The same historical observation holds true for both record categories.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
                        Ryne Sandberg chased, maybe broke, the record for consecutive errorless games at secondbase.
                        That was it. But I remember it being drummed up more so than similar records of that type.
                        Maybe because it was the same year he was hitting 40 HRs.

                        Comment


                        • I agree, Sandberg earned a lot more attention. --more attention than any shortstops or thirdbasemen afaik. (When Bowa enjoyed a lot of attention for his fielding, I was in the region full time, then during summers.)

                          Twenty years ago I supposed that great love for Sandberg was partly a Chicago effect but I haven't detected many Chicago effects since then.

                          How widely and when were Cubs games available by television? I recall more attention to the Braves becoming an "America's team" by superstation but neither my recall nor that attention is reliable.

                          Comment


                          • Through '93 I thought that Sandberg and Ripken would both go on to challenge 3000 hits and possibly 400 home runs together.

                            Sandberg had 2080/240 and Ripken 2087/297. Sandberg had had somewhat of a down year due to injury, and was about a year older but considering his 9 gold gloves and his good stolen base totals, I considered Sandberg to be ahead of Ripken through that point.

                            Ripken turns out to have probably been a significantly better fielder-every statistical defensive evaluation shows him to have been as good or better a fielder for his position-Sandberg being somewhat overrated but "good" and Ripken being underrated and "real good".

                            It read years later that it could be documented that Sandberg did not go to the ground at a typical rate for a second baseman, and another that he become a little obsessed with not making errors even if it meant letting the tough play go. His RF looks good, but I was also told that he started building up his TC's by taking every elective play-partly because Dunston had defensive issues at SS.

                            Anyway, on defense, I'll take a player who makes 40 more plays than average and commits 5 more errors over the guy with the .990 fielding percentage. Errors, like batter K's have been improperly stigmatized. And on defense you get players who are rated high for the to "FP" reasons: 1) Fielding percentage-about the only stat that voters used to look at and 2) flashy plays.

                            90% of defensive value has nothing to do with FP or flashy plays.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by dgarza View Post
                              Didn't Sandberg also have some sort of fielding record? I can't remember exactly what it was, but I remember him seeming to be hyped (at the time) because of that.
                              In 1989 Sandberg broke Manny Trillo's M.L. record of 89 consecutive games played by a second baseman without committing an error. He carried that record into the 1990 season, eventually extending it to a total of 123 games. Sandberg still owns the N.L. record, but Placido Polanco eclipsed the Major League record in 2007 which he now holds the mark for at 188 consecutive games.

                              Also, at the time of his retirement, Sandberg was tied for the M.L. record (in 1000 or more career games played) for the highest career fielding percentage by a second baseman at .989 with Tommy Herr. Since then, Polanco has gone on to set the career M.L. record, but Sandberg and Herr still co-own the N.L. one.

                              Comment


                              • I almost wrote Manny Trillo. I knew he did something.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X