Barry Larkin

[philkid3]

I have never heard anything about his fielding, which is good news.

Well, now you're going to!

Here is Barry Larkin's career in TotalZone by season, with bold seasons denoting the years he lead the NL at SS.

1986: 3
1987: -1
1988: 14
1989: 10
1990: 16 (Tied for MLB Lead)
1991: 13 (Tied for MLB Lead)
1992: 8
1993: 0
1994: 0
1995: -8
1996: 8
1997: 3
1998: -10
2000: -4
2001: -5
2002: -6
2003: -3
2004: -3

Career: 35

That's not a GREAT career total, but it is positive and ranks 34th all-time among shortstops. More importantly, the peak was awesome. A couple of those years where he didn't lead the NL, the only guy better was one Ozzie Smith.

[mtortolero]

Well that may be exaggerating a bit..Id take the best 3 years of Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Hornsby, Foxx, Williams, and MAYBE Geenberg, Thomas, Belle, and Mcgwire over Mantle's (remember I clount RBI more than most people here)..and thats not counting the dead ball era stars, who i feel are difficult to compare to sluggers. Of course, the thing is that Mantle didnt play every day, and many of his seasons lose value because the Yankees had to use a much lesser player in his place much of the season. That is why i feel mantle is not a top 10 all time player..probably not top 15 either.

Let´s take the best three years of Mantle according to his OPS+:
1956 210 OPS+ 150 games played of 154
1957 223 OPS+ 144 games played of 154
1961 206 OPS+ 153 games played of 162

Are you saying that in those seasons, which include 2 MVP and a second place MVP, "lose value because the Yankees had to use a much lesser player in his place much of the season", which means a total of 23 games in three seasons (5% of the season)? For me it´s really really hard to believe that those 23 games played by his replacement screwed what Mantle did those seasons.

[henrich]

maybe Veteran's Committee for both

If Concepcion gets in before Larkin that will be a sad day indeed.

Concepcion 9201
Larkin 9450
Cronin is in at 9499 but Dahlan is out at 9794 as well as Willis 9629, whereas Reese 9956 and Smith are in at 9874.

I think all above deserve enshrinement, but they are in a section in modern times that is in limbo.

[philkid3]

Concepcion 9201
Larkin 9450
Cronin is in at 9499 but Dahlan is out at 9794 as well as Willis 9629, whereas Reese 9956 and Smith are in at 9874.

I think all above deserve enshrinement, but they are in a section in modern times that is in limbo.

What are those numbers?

[Mike90]

Barry Larkin HOF

Positives for Barry Larkin's Hall case:
- Won an MVP in '95
- Liked and respected by teammates, fans, and media. Named to 12 All-Star teams
- Won 3 gold gloves, and fielding stats indicate he was an above average fielder
- His batting line of .295/.371/.444 was better than the average of .269/.339/.418. His OPS+ is 116, which compares well to Ryne Sandberg (114), a hall of famer with very similar stats.
- Per 162 games, he averaged 99 runs scored, 15 HRs, 6 triple, 33 doubles, and 28 stolen bases.

Negatives:
- Aside from that 1 MVP, Larkin never finished better than 7th in MVP voting. He had only 2 top-ten MVP finishes.
- He missed a lot of games because of injuries. Although he averaged 99 runs per 162 games, he only had two seasons where he scored 100 runs or more. He played less than 140 games in 12 of his 19 seasons.
- His skills were subtle. He never led the league in any offensive category because he was good at every aspect of the game and not really a standout in any one particular area. His Gray Ink Score is only 66, ranking 369th all time.
- His career Triple Crown stats, which sportswriters tend to love, are pretty mediocre: 198 HRs, 960 RBIs, and .295 BA.

I think he's a deserving Hall of Famer, but I can see him very easily getting the same Hall support as Allen Trammell.

[Poulanc]

As far as I can tell, the only knock against Larkin is his tendency to be injured. I guess if he only played in parts of 10 seasons that it could make a difference, but he played in parts of 19 seasons. He played 2,085 games at short - 12 most all time. I think that by looking at it that way, the fact that he was injury-prone shouldn't be much of a consideration.

[Mike90]

As far as I can tell, the only knock against Larkin is his tendency to be injured. I guess if he only played in parts of 10 seasons that it could make a difference, but he played in parts of 19 seasons. He played 2,085 games at short - 12 most all time. I think that by looking at it that way, the fact that he was injury-prone shouldn't be much of a consideration.

It's not so much that he did not play enough career games - he did have a long career - it's that he didn't have enough high-impact seasons because he only had 7 seasons where he played 140 or more games. The result is that he has only 1 top-5 finish in MVP voting and 2 top-10 finishes in MVP voting. Voters look at that type of stuff, and that will probably affect Larkin's support.

I think Larkin is a deserving hall of famer, but I'm not really sure if he's going to be elected.

[Poulanc]

It's not so much that he did not play enough career games - he did have a long career - it's that he didn't have enough high-impact seasons because he only had 7 seasons where he played 140 or more games. The result is that he has only 1 top-5 finish in MVP voting and 2 top-10 finishes in MVP voting. Voters look at that type of stuff, and that will probably affect Larkin's support.

I think Larkin is a deserving hall of famer, but I'm not really sure if he's going to be elected.

I get that, but Cal Ripken Jr. only had 3 years where he was top-10 in MVP voting. Of course he won it twice and finished 3rd the other time, but other than that, he had a high of 12th. (On a side note, how did Ripken finish 3rd in MVP voting in a year that he hit .257/.317/.401???) I'm not trying to suggest that Larkin was as good as Cal Ripken Jr., but he hit just as well as Ripken did, if not better, and I think he was known as the best shortstop in his league for a long time. It seems like it should be a pretty easy case for him.

[Cougar]

(On a side note, how did Ripken finish 3rd in MVP voting in a year that he hit .257/.317/.401???)

Ripken was the best player on a surprise 87 win second place Oriole team, and there wasn't really a standout offensive player in the AL that season.

[Chadwick]

When he debuts, Larkin will be the most deserving candidate on the BBWAA ballot.

[Mike90]

I get that, but Cal Ripken Jr. only had 3 years where he was top-10 in MVP voting. Of course he won it twice and finished 3rd the other time, but other than that, he had a high of 12th. (On a side note, how did Ripken finish 3rd in MVP voting in a year that he hit .257/.317/.401???) I'm not trying to suggest that Larkin was as good as Cal Ripken Jr., but he hit just as well as Ripken did, if not better, and I think he was known as the best shortstop in his league for a long time. It seems like it should be a pretty easy case for him.

Ripken played over 800 more games in his career than Larkin and was able to hit the statistical milestones that voters love: 3000 hits, 400 HRs, 600 doubles, 1700 RBIs (almost) and The Streak. Larkin doesn't have any numbers that jump out at a voter.

Again, I think Larkin is deserving because he was truly great when he was healthy. I'm just pointing out what might hurt Larkin in the minds of the voters.

[jalbright]

Three Barry Larkin threads are now merged into one.

[Seattle1]

Three Barry Larkin threads are now merged into one.

Thank you very much for doing that.

Imho, Barry Larkin is another player who we can be pretty sure was never "on the juice."

[Chadwick]

Thank you very much for doing that.

Imho, Barry Larkin is another player who we can be pretty sure was never "on the juice."

Because....?

[Seattle1]

Because....?

Just one of those gut instincts.