Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barry Larkin

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

  • Mike90
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • philkid3
    replied
    Originally posted by henrich View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • henrich
    replied
    maybe Veteran's Committee for both

    Originally posted by philkid3 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mtortolero
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • philkid3
    replied
    Originally posted by JDD View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Second Base Coach
    replied
    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'.

    Leave a comment:


  • philkid3
    replied
    Originally posted by califangels72 View Post
    not before dave concepcion...!
    If Concepcion gets in before Larkin that will be a sad day indeed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Afterglow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Afterglow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • califangels72
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • jjpm74
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X