Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barry Larkin

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

  • dgarza
    replied
    Larkin? HOF? No doubt.

    Larkin's a Top 15 SS. He's every bit deserving as Bill Dahlen, so...:disbelief:

    Leave a comment:


  • stejay
    replied
    Barry Larkin?

    HOFer, or not? I personally say yes, but hey, i'm usually wrong with my gut instinct on this matter.
    Some stats....
    198 HR
    1329 runs
    2340 hits
    960 RBI
    379 SB
    .295 BA
    .371 OBP
    .444 SLG
    12x All Star
    9x Silver Slugger
    3x Gold Glove
    1995 MVP
    World Series champ 1990

    Like I said, yes, a Reds, and SS legend,who I believe deserves to be in the hall

    Agree? Disagree?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    The general point is sound, but

    Polanco's +52 is for fielding secondbase only, 1014 games.
    (Davenport credits him with +53 runs at third and short in 443 games!)

    Randolph's +118 is also for fielding secondbase only, 2153 games.

    The rates are more than 8 runs/162g for Polanco, less than 9 runs/162g for Randolph.


    Barry Larkin at shortstop is +60 runs in 2084 games, including +75 thru 1994 and below average thereafter.
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 12-19-2009, 07:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    Thanks.

    Polanco is active but very unlikely to drop below Sandberg and Herr (i don't know about other actives). Approximately,

    Sandberg, 109 errors in 10000 chances
    Herr, 77 errors in 7000 chances
    Polanco, 36 errors in 5000 chances

    That errorless 2007 season (141 games at 2b) was Polanco's best season at bat, too, maybe good enough to be league MVP in 2006.
    And oddly or not, his '07 season rates out as basically average in the metrics I checked quickly. +3 runs above average on baseball prospectus, +less than 1 on baseball reference.

    Here is what their systems say about some of these very low error guys for their career:
    Polanco: +52/+63.8
    Sandberg: +52/+56.6
    Herr: -25/-14.2

    Point is, what difference do errors matter when they occur 5-10 times a season for these guys, and when a guy with great range can make 40 or more plays above average in a great year?

    Compare to:

    Willie Randolph: +117/+114.5
    Frank White: +187/+125.6
    Maz: +203/+148.1
    Grich: +130/+70.9

    Keep in mind that we are looking at guys who saved 10+ runs per 162 games. 10 runs per 162 is about the same value as you owuld get by bumping their OPS+ up by 12-13 points.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Originally posted by The Commissioner View Post
    ... 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.
    Thanks.

    Polanco is active but very unlikely to drop below Sandberg and Herr (i don't know about other actives). Approximately,

    Sandberg, 109 errors in 10000 chances
    Herr, 77 errors in 7000 chances
    Polanco, 36 errors in 5000 chances

    That errorless 2007 season (141 games at 2b) was Polanco's best season at bat, too, maybe good enough to be league MVP in 2006.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • The Commissioner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dgarza
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dgarza
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X