Barry Larkin

[jalbright]

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

[romanos72]

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?

[baseballPAP]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.)

[brett]

Larkin comes out at +50 offensive game equivalents for me. Interestingly I got +482 runs created which is right in line with other systems (although I always believed that true runs created should be 1/2 of that value because someone has to score and someone has to drive them in usually.

Anyway, +50 would be right on the HOF border for an average value defensive player. An average SS is way above that-perhaps +50 games there alone, and he is better than that, although I think he is a little overrated defensively-Ripken was a much more valuable defensive player in my opinion.

So, I thought it was close, but its not. If he were an average fielding second baseman or a gold glove first baseman it would be borderline.

Plus the MVP, the 30/30 year and the Championship.

[mtortolero]

If he does achieve those career totals you give, and he doesn't improve his peak, I don't see how on earth he goes ahead of Barry Larkin IMO. All he would have is pure longevity. People don't realize the true greatness of Barry Larkin over his career. Look at this handy little chart:

                        OPS       SS OPS       DIFF*
Barry Larkin           .815        .678        20.2%
Derek Jeter            .848        .737        15.1%

I am a little curious:
OPS of SS during Jeter´s years in the AL includes figures by GarciaParra, ARod, Michael Young, Miguel Tejada and Carlos Guillen among others. Only as example Arod, Garciaparra and Young won four batting titles between 1996 and 2005.
Probably Jeter was playing with the best generation of ofensive SS in any league, any time.
However during Barry Larkin´s years on the NL I can not remember any SS who can be remember as a great or a good hitter in comparison with the names that Jeter has as competition.
This comparison what really shows is the mediocrity of ofensive SS in the NL during Larkin´s years more than any advantage of Larkin over Jeter, and does not have any sense for me.

[538280]

I am a little curious:
OPS of SS during Jeter´s years in the AL includes figures by GarciaParra, ARod, Michael Young, Miguel Tejada and Carlos Guillen among others. Only as example Arod, Garciaparra and Young won four batting titles between 1996 and 2005.
Probably Jeter was playing with the best generation of ofensive SS in any league, any time.
However during Barry Larkin´s years on the NL I can not remember any SS who can be remember as a great or a good hitter in comparison with the names that Jeter has as competition.
This comparison what really shows is the mediocrity of ofensive SS in the NL during Larkin´s years more than any advantage of Larkin over Jeter, and does not have any sense for me.

The fact Larkin was able to separate more from the average shorstop in his time does indeed make him more valuable. If a great hitting shorstop is harder to find (as it was in Larkin's era), then it does make those great hitting shorstops in the league more valuable. The whole premise behind positional adjustments is that a player is made more valuable because of how other players in the leauge hit at his position. Shortstops in Jeter's time hit 4% worse than league in OPS, shorstops in Larkin's hit 11% worse. In other words, there were less great hititng shorstops while Larkin was playing and this means that he deserves a bigger positional adjustment.

Anyway, Jeter's career OPS+, 121, is not significantly higher right now than Larkin's 116. And Jeter's is a mid career figure. By the end of his career he will probably slip to Larkin's level or lower, and he always will have a MUCH worse glove than Larkin. With my new system I'm much more positive about Jeter than I used to be, I but I'm still not sure he'll ever be better than Barry Larkin.

[csh19792001]

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.

I agree. People may be looking at his numbers and probably not fully taking into consideration that he was 1) a SS, and very good in the field, at that, and 2) was the CONSUMMATE team player. He was absolutely one of the most selfless players I ever had the pleasure of watching, and he was all class. He WAS Cincinnati, in an in which genuine allegiances and affiliations have basically become extinct.

And what's all this talk about "durability issues"?

SS is the second most difficult, injury prone position in baseball. It's also arguably the most valuable position, depending on the era in question. With the exception of 3 games at second base and 3 at DH, Larkin played every single game there (2,085 total). That's one of the alltime highest figures for games played at the position.

Aaron Gleeman "Ravenlord" here at The Fever, as usual, does a great job in his article. He does Larkin justice. Everyone should read this.

Larkin for the Hall?

Name one shortstop of Larkin's caliber that isn't in the HOF. The only one you could POSSIBLY think of is Trammell.

Possibly this guy, Fuzz:

Bill Dahlen For The HOF

[mtortolero]

Again, Gleeman is comparing pears and apples saying that Larkin was better than Jeter only because he has better diff % in SS`s OPS.
Quality in offensive for SS for both eras was very different and you can not put that in the same context . That .737 OPS for SS in Jeter, ARod or Nomar era shows that SS of their era had 10% better offensive skills that those SS who put .678 OPS in Larkin´times, and that is problem of quality in competition as mainly cause that you can not handle in flat terms as he did in his list.
How a hitter who rates 174 hits, 15 Hrs and 70 BB by each 162 games can be better than other who rates 206 hits, 18 Hrs and 68 BB. Looks a little weird. Jeter at the end of this season will be only just less than 210 hits short from Larkin with five seasons less!

[538280]

Couldn't agree more, Chris. It's nice to agree with you for once.

[csh19792001]

Again, Gleeman is comparing pears and apples saying that Larkin was better than Jeter only because he has better diff % in SS`s OPS.

Quality in offensive for SS for both eras was very different and you can not put that in the same context . That .737 OPS for SS in Jeter, ARod or Nomar era shows that SS of their era had 10% better offensive skills that those SS who put .678 OPS in Larkin´times, and that is problem of quality in competition as mainly cause that you can not handle in flat terms as he did in his list.

How a hitter who rates 174 hits, 15 Hrs and 70 BB by each 162 games can be better than other who rates 206 hits, 18 Hrs and 68 BB. Looks a little weird. Jeter at the end of this season will be only just less than 210 hits short from Larkin with five seasons less!

This makes sense. In essence, Jeter is penazlied because there were two alltime great shortstops in his league for many years during the prime of his career, I understand that. That's going to skew the positional average upward, and make Jeter less impressive, relative to Larkin, who did not have guys like A Rod and Nomar playing short in his time. Obviously Jeter can't help who is playing SS on other teams in his league, so it's unfair to penalize him for it.

And I think Jeter is probably a greater player than Larkin was, but again, I see Jeter as being an absolute lock for the HOF (assuming a normal decline), so even if Larkin is a tinge behind, he still clearly belongs as well.

[mtortolero]

And I think Jeter is probably a greater player than Larkin was, but again, I see Jeter as being an absolute lock for the HOF (assuming a normal decline), so even if Larkin is a tinge behind, he still clearly belongs as well.

Larkin deserves the plaque (my god, I am not against his enshriment!) but looks as a lack of criteria and common sense try to justify that by resting merits to Jeter in a comparison with him and not trying to qualify him among the elite of ofensive SS in the big leagues history, as he was, based on his OPS+, winshares, WARP3 or whatever saberfigure we want to use in general terms.

[brett]

Again, Gleeman is comparing pears and apples saying that Larkin was better than Jeter only because he has better diff % in SS`s OPS.
Quality in offensive for SS for both eras was very different and you can not put that in the same context . That .737 OPS for SS in Jeter, ARod or Nomar era shows that SS of their era had 10% better offensive skills that those SS who put .678 OPS in Larkin´times, and that is problem of quality in competition as mainly cause that you can not handle in flat terms as he did in his list.
How a hitter who rates 174 hits, 15 Hrs and 70 BB by each 162 games can be better than other who rates 206 hits, 18 Hrs and 68 BB. Looks a little weird. Jeter at the end of this season will be only just less than 210 hits short from Larkin with five seasons less!

I avoid comparing offense relative to position. I prefer to give a single offensive value, however I give players calculated bonuses for "freeing up" other positions. An example would be a player who plays SS. If, rather, he could only play first base, his team would likely lose a good hitter at first base from the lineup and would replace him with a probably poor hitting shortstop. This effect on the lineup becomes the positional value. Players also get bases for actual defensive value. I haven't worked out all the details, but I can tell you that I believe it is the key in putting a players defensive contributions into the same language as their offense.

Larkin's offense, if he was merely an average defensive shortstop would put him in without question. If he was an average defensive 2nd or 3rd baseman or center fielder, he would be absolutely, flat out on the borderline for the hall.

[baseball junkie]

get his plaque ready

While he was playing I never thought of Larkin as a future Hall of Famer. Larkin was always overshadowed or outshined, in his early days by Cal Ripken Jr. and Ozzie Smith, in his later career by Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez & Nomar Garciaparra.

In retrospect, I see a lot of merit for his induction into the HOF. Here are a few reasons why Larkin should get a plaque in Cooperstown: as a shortstop he won the 1995 NL MVP Award and arguably had a much better year in 1996 & 1998; he helped lead the 1990 Reds to the World Series Championship; he won multiple gold gloves and spent his entire 19 year career as a shortstop; he didn't have to be shifted out of his position for defensive reasons late in his career like Ripken, Garciaparra & Rodriguez have been; if he is not inducted, he will automatically become the best shortstop not in the HOF.

Larkin didn't hit any major milestone but at his peak he was great and his peak lasted from 1995 to the end of 2000. I still think the BBWAA will vote him in, just not first-ballot.