Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barry Larkin

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

  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by micsmith
    I think Larkin is borderline, but I'd support him.
    I don't see Larkin as borderline in quality. I see him as an unambiguous HOFer, and I don't see why others don't.

    His career totals for a shortstop, offensively and defensively, are of HOF caliber, easily. He won an MVP, and while he won in an off year for a lot of other guys, he also won it with a year that was smack dab within the normal range of his 5 best years. That's evidence of quality. He had some injuries, but he still had a long career, and his career totals are outstanding for a shortstop.

    Name one shortstop of Larkin's caliber that isn't in the HOF. The only one you could POSSIBLY think of is Trammell, and I rate Larkin ahead of Trammell, but some may not. (Trammell's a HOF injustice; he'll get there someday.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by romanos72
    He didn't deserve the MVP award in the mid-1990s. He was a good ballplayer, but just that. If guys like Santo and Hodges could get enough votes, Larkin surely shouldn't. Should he be along names like Wagner, Banks, Ripken (shoo-in), and Yount?
    That's just not true about Larkin and the MVP. Larkin won an MVP in what was not his best year. That's a sign of greatness.

    Larkin won because (A) his team was highly successful, finishing first, (B) he was the best player on his team, and (C) he was the best SS in the NL. 1995 was also a year where there was no obvious candidate. Really now, should the voters have chosen runner-up Dante Bischette???

    Larkin's numbers were MVP caliber for a shortstop, plus he helped his team win big. I can't see the problem with the selection.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by romanos72
    He didn't deserve the MVP award in the mid-1990s. He was a good ballplayer, but just that. If guys like Santo and Hodges could get enough votes, Larkin surely shouldn't. Should he be along names like Wagner, Banks, Ripken (shoo-in), and Yount?
    Absolutely, yes.
    It would be much more relevant to ask if he belongs with guys like Reese, Rizzuto and Maranville, and I don't really think that is giving him close to enough credit.

    Leave a comment:


  • romanos72
    replied
    Good, not great

    He didn't deserve the MVP award in the mid-1990s. He was a good ballplayer, but just that. If guys like Santo and Hodges could get enough votes, Larkin surely shouldn't. Should he be along names like Wagner, Banks, Ripken (shoo-in), and Yount?

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Originally posted by digglahhh
    I would not personally vote for Larkin, but would not complain at all if he was to be inducted.

    One of my biggest problems with him is the complete lack of durability. Larkin was certainly a big asset, but what about the back up SS practically guaranteed to play 35-40 games a year?...
    True, but he played 19 seasons and 2180 games, only 95 below 100th place alltime among all position players. He's about 20th among guys whose primary position is shortstop, and would rise if only games at shortstop are counted (he'd pass Julio Franco, Honus Wagner, George Davis and Bill Russell at least). That means that you're only talking about one kind of durability, namely in-season.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    I would not personally vote for Larkin, but would not complain at all if he was to be inducted.

    One of my biggest problems with him is the complete lack of durability. Larkin was certainly a big asset, but what about the back up SS practically guaranteed to play 35-40 games a year?...

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by Cougar
    I think Larkin vs. Trammell is a closer call than Fuzzy does, although (a) I've got Larkin rated slightly higher too; I'm just not that confident about it, and (b) they are both WELL over the HOF line.

    So, for all practical purposes, I completely agree.
    Trammell is closer to Larkin than I may have implied. Especially if you consider Trammell to be the guy who REALLY deserved the 1987 AL MVP (instead of the ridiculous George Bell).

    I hope Trammell's fate isn't a harbinger of what Larkin's will be. I also believe that Trammell will eventually get in.

    Leave a comment:


  • ivylover
    replied
    he's in in my book

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Some metrics, and much public opinion of the time rated Larkin over Ozzie in about 4 or 5 of Ozzie's last GG years. His defense was exceptional...not just pretty good. Much like the AL 3B GGs in the early-mid 70s went to Robinson, when he wasn't as good as 2 or 3 other 3Bmen. Still very good, but not the best any more. Of course every time someone says GG I think Palmeiro and zone out completely.

    Larkin should be a no-brainer...unfortunately, that description also fits many of the HOF voters, so we'll see.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Dude
    replied
    Barry Larkin is one of the top 10 Shortstops of all time. How could he not be in?

    He was a constantantly very good hitter, very good defense, and he has a career success rate of 83% stolen bases.

    The negatives against Larkin:
    -The 2nd half of his career was overshadowed by shorstops with power (Rodriguez, Tejada, Jeter, Nomar?)
    -He was injured a number of seasons.

    I look at it this way. Hard Larkin played in 70's and 80's and retired in 1991, he would be looked back on as a great shorstop. Now, we're talking about how he might get in. I don't think we should penalize Larkin for playing at a time when power hitting shorstops are easier to find then they were previously.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cougar
    replied
    I think Larkin vs. Trammell is a closer call than Fuzzy does, although (a) I've got Larkin rated slightly higher too; I'm just not that confident about it, and (b) they are both WELL over the HOF line.

    So, for all practical purposes, I completely agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Larkin is a Highest Common Demoninator case. It's not an issue of "Well, Phil Rizzuto is in, and Barry Larkin is better, ergo, Barry Larkin should go into the HOF." That's the Lowest Common Denominator argument.

    Larkin is a case of "There is NO shortstop in the history of baseball as good as Barry Larkin that is NOT in the HOF, and there are many, many shortstops nowhere near as good as Barry Larkin that ARE in the HOF." Really, where's the precedent for keeping him out?

    What SHORTSTOP . . .

    Who hit .295 over 18 1/2 seasons . . .

    And appeared in 12 All Star Games . . .

    And won 3 Gold Gloves . . .

    And won an NL MVP Award . . .

    And was the best SS in baseball between 1992-95 . . .

    And was the best player on a World Championship Team . . .

    Is NOT in the HOF? What shortstops NOT in the HOF are better than Larkin? Concepcion? Bowa? Vern Stephens? Campeneris? No way, no way to all of them. The only SS even close to Larkin not in the HOF is Alan Trammell, and while I view Trammell as a HOF injustice, Trammell is not the equal of Larkin.

    That's Larkin's case, and I'm surprised there is such dissent over his candidacy.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    Good post micsmith,

    I agree, he's going to have a his best shot in his first year of eligibility, and I assume he won't go then because in my mind, and more importantly in the eyes of writers, I highly doubt he is a first ballot guy. The longer he sticks around...here comes Thomas, Bagwell, Sosa, Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, Biggio, Piazza.

    It will be interesting to see, if the writers decide to compensate for the impending binge of power guys by showing Larkin some extra love, or if his paltry raw numbers get lost in the shuffle of 450+ HR guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pine Tar
    replied
    I would be very surprised if Larkin doesn't make it on the first ballot. Whether or not people here consider him superior to Trammel, most people who actually vote do, and the difference should be enough to result in being elected on the first try.

    Leave a comment:


  • micsmith
    replied
    I think Larkin is borderline, but I'd support him. However, I think the voting might get too spread out by the time Larkin arrives on the ballot. By that I mean there will be an ample number of borderline guys on the ballot when Larkin's name first appears. Roberto Alomar is the best of Larkin's class and most likely to get elected. I'd say Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez, and Tim Raines (a holdover from the previous year) are all about equally deserving. I don't think Andres Galarraga will be one and done, but he'll get some support, though not nearly as much as the other newcomers. The voters haven't elected more than three players in a single year in decades, and by the time Larkin gets on the ballot, there might just be a ton of derserving players, but only 2 or 3 will get in. If Larkin doesn't make it in his first year, then the next year Larry Walker, John Franco, and quite possibly Jeff Bagwell, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and Roger Clemens make the ballot. That group of guys doesn't make it any easier for Larkin to get voted in.

    Anyone know if Kevin Brown retired?

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X