Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barry Larkin

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

  • [QUOTE=willshad;1035027]
    Originally posted by digglahhh View Post


    well my actual quote was:

    Offensively, I put Mantle about the same level as Mark Mcgwire, Frank Thomas, and jim Thome....giving him a little more credit for his position, I think top 15 or 20 all time is more than fair.

    I give Mantle credit for his positon. I would not put mcgwire or Thome in my top 15 or 20. Thomas, maybe, but still a bit lower than Mantle. He won a total of one gold glove, which hardly qualifies him as a great fielder. I do not really give him credit for his speed, because it doesnt really show in his production. If he was THAT fast, why wasnt he stealing 100 bases a year? Why wasnt he getting a ton of doubles and triples? I think exploits of his speed have been greatly exaggerated. Without trying to sound sound racist, Its hard to believe a musclebound white guy could run faster than any black guy playing. If he was indeed as fast as they say, hed probbaly be the only white guy in the top 100 fastest players ever.
    Wow. There are just so many things to say. Maybe I'll come back to it, right now I'm just dumbfounded.

    I don't think Mantle was a great fielder either, but Gold Gloves?

    Stolen bases as a measure of speed?

    Race?

    Come on, dude.
    Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

    Comment


    • So you don't think that Mantle was a very good fielder because he didn't win a lot of Gold Gloves.

      Okay, I did say "all-time-y in all facets of the game," I'll admit to a little hyperbole, Mantle wasn't all-time-great as a defensive CF. But he was damn good - a well above average defensive player at a very important defensive position.

      Now, you don't think he was really that fast because... he didn't steal a ton of bases and... he was white.

      Don't really know what to say here. The stolen base went out of fashion; it wasn't utilized, generally speaking, for much of Mantle's career. Guys like Maury Wills and Brock began to bring it back, but by that point Mantle was fragile, and riddled with injury - although his production wouldn't show it, his games played did.

      Were players of Mantle's era just randomly slower than players of other eras? That would be the conclusion juddging speed by stolen bases would lead us too. Is this some sort of random genetic distribution? Do you have an explanation?

      I'm not even going to touch the contention that sheer melanin made, I dunno, Roy Campanella, faster than Mickey Mantle. I'll leave the racial component aside and just say that the above comment illustrates that you have not done much biographical research into the life of Mickey Mantle. If I was teacher, and your post was a book report, I would be forced to conclude that you didn't read the book!

      Mickey Mantle on the 40/40 club:

      "If I had known it would be such a big deal, I would have done it five or six times."
      Last edited by digglahhh; 10-26-2007, 11:03 AM.
      THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

      In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

      Comment


      • I wasnt saying Mantle wasnt fast, Im saying if he WAS really as fast as they say, it wasnt showing up on his stat sheets. Eeven if steals were 'out of style', if a guy comes along who can run faster than any player ever, wouldnt that be enough to bring it BACK into style? Especially a guy with as high a OBP as Mantle. So, Im not saying he wasnt fast..im saying he really shouldnt be given extra CREDIT for his speed, because he wasnt taking advantage of it on the field. Sure, he legged out some infield singles, but that already shows in his other averages. Youd think a guy that fast would get more doubles and triples, and more steals, thats all. Its like the strongest man in the world playing baseball and hitting 5 home runs in a season. Would we be gushing about his great 'power', and giving him extra credit for it? No..if anything we would be penalizing him for not being able to take advantage of his natural gifts and use them to prodice more on the ballfield.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
          I agree. The voters will likely take a few years to get with it. I'm wondering if Roberto Alomar might get similar treatment.
          It will have to be litteraly a "few " years, becasue if it isn't, he will run into the: Bagwell, Biggio, Clemens, Bonds, Maddux, Piazza, Glavine, Thomas, Smoltz, Johnson, Griffey, Hoffman, Schilling, Piazza, Sosa, Sheffield train. If he misses that train, then comes Pedro, Manny, Thome, Rivera, etc. Even though these guys may not all make it (or deserve to necessarily) at some point in their careers, they were all percieved as being more HOFesque than Larkin-or at least as much so. If Larkin doesn not get in right away, he could be in big trouble.
          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

          Comment


          • Originally posted by willshad View Post
            The thing about Larkin is he was injured alot, so he didnt really play a lot of full seasons. He only had about 8 full seasons, and 2 of them were strike years, and 4 of them really werent good. Plus he was good in a lot of areas, but not 'great' at anything besides maybe fielding..that may hurt him as well. His MVP means nothing as it was probably the least deserving MVP of the last 25 years ( come on, you had a catcher with a 1.16 OPS on the road on a first place team). Only scored over 100 runs twice (in the steroid era) The thing about Larkin is that his 162 per game averages are probbaly hall worthy, when you consider his fielding, but he seldom played anywhere near 162 games in a season, and was insonsistent.
            It may be true that Larkin was not he best player in the N.L. in 1995 (I don't think he was) but he DID win the award. A lot of the same MVP voters are also HoF voters. I think it's highly unlikely that the HoF voters will look on his 1998 MVP award and think to themselves, "Barry won the MVP but he didn't really deserve it so I will discount it as a positive for Barry."
            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

            Comment


            • I voted yes even though I'm a bit wary of saying Larkin is a shoe in. He certainly has the numbers, but so does Trammel and he doesn't get much support.

              Comment


              • larkin...hof

                Originally posted by philkid3 View Post
                Notice, I'm asking if you think he will be, not if you think he should be. Although I am interested in your answer to the latter question.


                When I was growing up, I thought Larkin was a great but overrated shortstop who would be in the Hall of Fame. I now think he's become a very underrated shorstop who won't be in the Hall of Fame. Weird how perceptions change.
                not before dave concepcion...!
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • Barry Larkin vs. Tim Raines

                  Cuurently, Barry Larkin is running about 57% for definite HOF support and Tim Raines 52% (last I checked). I'd be currious to have a debate as to which player is more deserving.

                  Comment


                  • Hey, 1st post.

                    I voted no. Not to take anything away from him, but I just do not think that with his overrall numbers, and his tendency to be injured will bode well for his chances to get in.

                    If he does, it will be with the veterans commettiee.

                    And also not to try to start anything. Cause I do not want to. But could someone please explain to me his 96' season? Because I recall him having about 33 homers in about 519 or so ab's.

                    I am not saying he was doing anything fishy. But those numbers are just plain odd, considering what he did previously.

                    And again, I am not sayin he did anything. It just seems odd.

                    Also, sorry if my numbers aren't exact. My computer is too slow to just copy and paste stuff at will.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Afterglow View Post
                      Hey, 1st post.

                      I voted no. Not to take anything away from him, but I just do not think that with his overrall numbers, and his tendency to be injured will bode well for his chances to get in.

                      If he does, it will be with the veterans commettiee.

                      And also not to try to start anything. Cause I do not want to. But could someone please explain to me his 96' season? Because I recall him having about 33 homers in about 519 or so ab's.

                      I am not saying he was doing anything fishy. But those numbers are just plain odd, considering what he did previously.

                      And again, I am not sayin he did anything. It just seems odd.

                      Also, sorry if my numbers aren't exact. My computer is too slow to just copy and paste stuff at will.
                      This happens among shortstops. Bert Campeneris hit 22 HRs in 1970, but never hit in double digits before or after 1970.
                      "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                      NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
                        I agree. The voters will likely take a few years to get with it. I'm wondering if Roberto Alomar might get similar treatment.

                        Alomar strung together over a decade of consecutive healthy, high quality full seasons, while both Trammell and Larkin failed to do so.

                        I think that in terms of voting trends there is a "break up" factor where if you put one injury plagued season in the middle of say 4 full good seasons, the voters consider that to be a negative. Its almost like stringing strikes together.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
                          This happens among shortstops. Bert Campeneris hit 22 HRs in 1970, but never hit in double digits before or after 1970.
                          I understand that it is possible. I was just really referring to his low number of total ab's. Which i found out was 517, compared to his 33 homers.

                          Homer every 15.66 at bats.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by brett View Post
                            Alomar strung together over a decade of consecutive healthy, high quality full seasons, while both Trammell and Larkin failed to do so.

                            I think that in terms of voting trends there is a "break up" factor where if you put one injury plagued season in the middle of say 4 full good seasons, the voters consider that to be a negative. Its almost like stringing strikes together.
                            Alomar was more dominant at his position, defensively, than Larkin and Trammell were at theirs, but Larkin and Trammell also played a more demanding defensive position. Larkin was also the best offensive player of the group (OWP of .627 vs. .600 for Alomar).

                            Trammell was not as good as Alomar or Larkin, but he is certainly withing the range of the average HOF shortstop; his exclusion from the HOF is an injustice.
                            "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                            NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by califangels72 View Post
                              not before dave concepcion...!
                              If Concepcion gets in before Larkin that will be a sad day indeed.
                              Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

                              Comment


                              • He hit well enough to make it, and I have never heard anything about his fielding, which is good news.

                                He is right behind ARod, Garciaparra, Banks and Jeter in runs created from that position (given a large enough sample size, 4000 PA in shortstop seasons) going all the way back to 1947.

                                RUNS CREATED/GAME RATE PLAYER LEAGUE
                                1 Alex Rodriguez 158 8.23 5.20
                                2 Nomar Garciaparra 146 7.55 5.18
                                3 Ernie Banks 139 6.77 4.88
                                4 Derek Jeter 132 6.81 5.17
                                5 Barry Larkin 127 6.22 4.90
                                6 Eddie Joost 122 6.11 5.00
                                7 Alan Trammell 115 5.27 4.58
                                8 Cal Ripken 115 5.34 4.67
                                9 Robin Yount 114 4.99 4.39
                                10 Jim Fregosi 113 4.80 4.23
                                11 Miguel Tejada 109 5.62 5.13
                                12 Pee Wee Reese 108 5.46 5.05
                                13 Roy Smalley 107 4.76 4.44
                                14 Jeff Blauser 107 5.21 4.88
                                15 Jimmy Rollins 104 5.40 5.21
                                16 Rafael Furcal 103 5.38 5.24
                                17 Tony Fernandez 101 4.58 4.56
                                18 Al Dark 100 5.01 5.02

                                I am guessing a long climb for him, and he will sneak in one year when the field is a little weaker. I am guessing some players get a ten percent bump during those years when there are less than two no-brainers.

                                Larkin's value increases if you look at players with longer careers (7000 PA)and take their entire careers, including those games outside of shortstop. Here is a list, excluding Banks:

                                RUNS CREATED/GAME RATE PLAYER LEAGUE
                                1 Alex Rodriguez 162 8.37 5.16
                                2 Derek Jeter 132 6.81 5.17
                                3 Barry Larkin 127 6.22 4.90
                                4 Robin Yount 119 5.27 4.45
                                5 Alan Trammell 115 5.27 4.58
                                6 Harvey Kuenn 113 5.30 4.68
                                7 Jim Fregosi 111 4.71 4.23
                                8 Julio Franco 111 5.29 4.76
                                9 Cal Ripken 109 5.19 4.77
                                10 Pee Wee Reese 105 5.30 5.04
                                11 Tony Fernandez 104 4.88 4.72
                                12 Jay Bell 99 4.91 4.95
                                13 Al Dark 98 4.90 4.98
                                14 Edgar Renteria 95 4.95 5.22
                                15 Maury Wills 92 4.07 4.43
                                16 Ozzie Smith 92 4.16 4.53
                                17 Bert Campaneris 92 3.84 4.19
                                18 Dick Groat 88 4.10 4.64
                                19 Dave Concepcion 87 3.89 4.48
                                20 Leo Cardenas 86 3.72 4.30

                                It's too bad he finished JUST under 200 homers and just under 1000 RBI and a .300 batting average. Those round numbers help your HOF chances I reckon'.
                                Your Second Base Coach
                                Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
                                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X