Comments on: Larkin and Parker on the 2010 Hall of Fame Ballot http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/ A Cincinnati Reds Blog | Dishing out hot, creamy bowls of bloggy goodness Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:19:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: pinson343 http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1907788 pinson343 Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:06:22 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1907788 @<a href="#comment-1907485" rel="nofollow">JasonL</a>: Bottom line, well said and I agree. But I'm still worried about the voters' emphasis on "counting stats" and the "new bar" for shortstops. @JasonL:

Bottom line, well said and I agree. But I’m still worried about the voters’ emphasis on “counting stats” and the “new bar” for shortstops.

]]> By: JasonL http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1907485 JasonL Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:43:48 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1907485 @<a href="#comment-1907092" rel="nofollow">pinson343</a>: I agree, durability is important, but I would add to your response to Dan that (and I've said this several times) Larkin played short. Short is a much harder position than second and Larkin played it brilliantly. I think most people know that Gold Gloves are a joke, but even so, Larkin would have won more than three if Ozzie hadn't been given several late career awards based on reputation more than performance. He also would have won more if he had played in the other league. Larkin was the second best fielder in the Majors for many years. I have to think it is important that the person he trailed was, quite possibly, the greatest fielder in the history of baseball. So, anyway, that's why I pull Larkin even with Alomar. Alomar has the counting stats, but Larkin played a hard position and he played it brilliantly. I think that makes them a wash. @pinson343: I agree, durability is important, but I would add to your response to Dan that (and I’ve said this several times) Larkin played short. Short is a much harder position than second and Larkin played it brilliantly. I think most people know that Gold Gloves are a joke, but even so, Larkin would have won more than three if Ozzie hadn’t been given several late career awards based on reputation more than performance. He also would have won more if he had played in the other league. Larkin was the second best fielder in the Majors for many years. I have to think it is important that the person he trailed was, quite possibly, the greatest fielder in the history of baseball. So, anyway, that’s why I pull Larkin even with Alomar. Alomar has the counting stats, but Larkin played a hard position and he played it brilliantly. I think that makes them a wash.

]]> By: pinson343 http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1907092 pinson343 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:19:29 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1907092 @<a href="#comment-1906930" rel="nofollow">Dan</a>: This is the durability argument again. (Not that it isn't relevant, it's highly relevant.) The career OPS+ of both Alomar and Larkin is 116. @Dan:

This is the durability argument again. (Not that it isn’t relevant, it’s highly relevant.) The career OPS+ of both Alomar and Larkin is 116.

]]> By: Mr. Redlegs http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906957 Mr. Redlegs Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:17:39 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906957 Alomar and Larkin are not in the same discussion unless you're futzing over first ballot. First, there's Dan's not-very-close stats comparison. Then, there's a camp that believes Alomar was the best all-around second baseman in history and, uh, no, Alomar doesn't get a nudge defensively because of any comparison between Ozzie and Larkin. Alomar was sensational and he played very significant role at the top of the order on two World Series champions and five other playoff teams. The spiting incident will probably cost him votes by newer voters who weren't around to know Hirschbeck called Robbie a sexual slur to instigate the whole thing. But there's a very, very strong argument for him as a first-balloter, even though middle infielders traditionally have a very difficult time getting the votes first time through. Alomar and Larkin are not in the same discussion unless you’re futzing over first ballot.

First, there’s Dan’s not-very-close stats comparison. Then, there’s a camp that believes Alomar was the best all-around second baseman in history and, uh, no, Alomar doesn’t get a nudge defensively because of any comparison between Ozzie and Larkin. Alomar was sensational and he played very significant role at the top of the order on two World Series champions and five other playoff teams.

The spiting incident will probably cost him votes by newer voters who weren’t around to know Hirschbeck called Robbie a sexual slur to instigate the whole thing. But there’s a very, very strong argument for him as a first-balloter, even though middle infielders traditionally have a very difficult time getting the votes first time through.

]]> By: brublejr http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906931 brublejr Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:52:13 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906931 Alomar gets more credit for his defense than Barry, because Barry is compared with Ozzie. Both are very worthy and both should get in at some point. The biggest negative against Alomar (which is why I don't think he will get in 1st ballot) is the spitting incident. He will never live that down, even with the Ump saying he doesn't hold it against him. Alomar gets more credit for his defense than Barry, because Barry is compared with Ozzie. Both are very worthy and both should get in at some point. The biggest negative against Alomar (which is why I don’t think he will get in 1st ballot) is the spitting incident. He will never live that down, even with the Ump saying he doesn’t hold it against him.

]]> By: Dan http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906930 Dan Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:50:49 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906930 Alomar - 2724 hits Larkin - 2340 hits Alomar - 10 Gold Gloves Larkin - 3 Gold Gloves Alomar - 5 MVP top 10's Larkin - 2 MVP top 10's Alomar - 1508 runs Larkin - 1329 runs Alomar - 1134 RBI Larkin - 960 RBI Alomar - 504 doubles Larkin - 441 doubles Alomar - 210 HR Larkin - 198 HR Alomar - 474 SB Larkin - 379 SB Alomar - 1032 BB Larkin - 939 BB As I said, this is coldly by the numbers... and I don't think the Gold Glove voting (in particular) is very meaningful... but you put it all together and it does mean something, I think. There's even the annoying little fact that shouldn't mean much but it probably does... that Alomar batted .300 for his career, and Larkin batted .295. It's all very close, but it seems like Alomar is coming out ahead every time. Alomar – 2724 hits
Larkin – 2340 hits

Alomar – 10 Gold Gloves
Larkin – 3 Gold Gloves

Alomar – 5 MVP top 10’s
Larkin – 2 MVP top 10’s

Alomar – 1508 runs
Larkin – 1329 runs

Alomar – 1134 RBI
Larkin – 960 RBI

Alomar – 504 doubles
Larkin – 441 doubles

Alomar – 210 HR
Larkin – 198 HR

Alomar – 474 SB
Larkin – 379 SB

Alomar – 1032 BB
Larkin – 939 BB

As I said, this is coldly by the numbers… and I don’t think the Gold Glove voting (in particular) is very meaningful… but you put it all together and it does mean something, I think.

There’s even the annoying little fact that shouldn’t mean much but it probably does… that Alomar batted .300 for his career, and Larkin batted .295.

It’s all very close, but it seems like Alomar is coming out ahead every time.

]]> By: JasonL http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906926 JasonL Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:20:57 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906926 @<a href="#comment-1906924" rel="nofollow">Dan</a>: Hey Dan, why would you put Alomar ahead of Larkin? (I'm curious, not trying to snipe.) I have a really hard time picking one over the other. Alomar played a bit longer, but Larkin was a shortstop and their numbers are REALLY similar. @Dan: Hey Dan, why would you put Alomar ahead of Larkin? (I’m curious, not trying to snipe.) I have a really hard time picking one over the other. Alomar played a bit longer, but Larkin was a shortstop and their numbers are REALLY similar.

]]> By: Dan http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906924 Dan Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:17:49 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906924 Just looking at the numbers, I'd put Larkin pretty safely ahead of Trammell. But I'd also put Alomar ahead of Larkin. Pretty interesting to see how this all plays out... I think we may all have on some rose-colored glasses as Cincinnati fans. I think Barry may turn out to be a very tough call. (I am fairly certain he will not get in on the 1st ballot. I think it could get close and interesting several years down the road.) Just looking at the numbers, I’d put Larkin pretty safely ahead of Trammell.

But I’d also put Alomar ahead of Larkin.

Pretty interesting to see how this all plays out… I think we may all have on some rose-colored glasses as Cincinnati fans. I think Barry may turn out to be a very tough call. (I am fairly certain he will not get in on the 1st ballot. I think it could get close and interesting several years down the road.)

]]> By: GRF http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906916 GRF Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:54:57 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906916 I think there are valid arguments for both Larkin and Trammel, but as Jason and Greg point out, the case for Larkin is slightly better. I think there are valid arguments for both Larkin and Trammel, but as Jason and Greg point out, the case for Larkin is slightly better.

]]> By: GregD http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906905 GregD Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:41:26 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906905 OPS+ for each player Larkin 116 Ripken 112 Trammell 110 OPS+ is OPS relative to the player's league, adjusted for ballpark. An OPS+ of 100 represents league average. Larkin had an OPS+ in excess of 100 in 13 consecutive seasons from age 24 to age 36. He put up an OPS+ over 100 a 14th time in his final season at age 40. Ripken did it 10 consecutive times from age 21-30, plus 3 additional times in the 2nd half of his career. Trammell had an OPS+ in excess of 100 9 times, but only strung together three consecutive seasons above average from age 28-30. OPS+ for each player
Larkin 116
Ripken 112
Trammell 110

OPS+ is OPS relative to the player’s league, adjusted for ballpark. An OPS+ of 100 represents league average.

Larkin had an OPS+ in excess of 100 in 13 consecutive seasons from age 24 to age 36. He put up an OPS+ over 100 a 14th time in his final season at age 40.

Ripken did it 10 consecutive times from age 21-30, plus 3 additional times in the 2nd half of his career.

Trammell had an OPS+ in excess of 100 9 times, but only strung together three consecutive seasons above average from age 28-30.

]]> By: GregD http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906901 GregD Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:29:50 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906901 The difference between Larkin and Ozzie offensively is greater than the difference between the two defensively. The difference between Larkin and Ozzie offensively is greater than the difference between the two defensively.

]]> By: jason1972 http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906870 jason1972 Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:55:50 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906870 They actually have pretty similar careers numbers-wise and as far as awards go. But in areas that are hard to count like clutch hits, great defensive range, and value to the team I think Larkin pulls ahead. <blockquote cite="comment-1906847"> <strong><a href="#comment-1906847" rel="nofollow">brublejr</a></strong>: @<a href="#comment-1906720" rel="nofollow">Mr. Redlegs</a>: Larkin is much better than Trammel, yet I think it is a shame that he is not in either because he was a great SS as well. </blockquote> They actually have pretty similar careers numbers-wise and as far as awards go. But in areas that are hard to count like clutch hits, great defensive range, and value to the team I think Larkin pulls ahead.

brublejr: @Mr. Redlegs: Larkin is much better than Trammel, yet I think it is a shame that he is not in either because he was a great SS as well.

]]> By: shane http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906866 shane Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:42:58 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906866 They won't vote him in because they don't want to have to sit through his acceptance speech. They won’t vote him in because they don’t want to have to sit through his acceptance speech.

]]> By: brublejr http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906847 brublejr Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:24:54 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906847 @<a href="#comment-1906720" rel="nofollow">Mr. Redlegs</a>: Larkin is much better than Trammel, yet I think it is a shame that he is not in either because he was a great SS as well. @Mr. Redlegs: Larkin is much better than Trammel, yet I think it is a shame that he is not in either because he was a great SS as well.

]]> By: JasonL http://redlegnation.com/2009/12/01/larkin-and-parker-on-the-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/#comment-1906840 JasonL Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:52:48 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/?p=10422#comment-1906840 @<a href="#comment-1906720" rel="nofollow">Mr. Redlegs</a>: I know we aren't supposed to respond to the crotchety old man, but this is a fail Mr. Redlegs. Go look at the career and single season numbers. Larkin is totally comparable and quite possible better than Ripken and Ozzie. What hurts him in the voters' eyes, I would guess, is being really good at everything. Instead of great at one or two things. Also, Ozzie didn't change how the position was played. He was just the epitome of how it was, at the time, supposed to be played. All field, almost no hit. Ozzie was great, I'm not arguing that, I'm just taking issue with your word choice. Also, I do tend to think that Trammell, while not quite as good as Larkin, should be in the hall. It's a shamed that he is so overlooked. @Mr. Redlegs: I know we aren’t supposed to respond to the crotchety old man, but this is a fail Mr. Redlegs. Go look at the career and single season numbers. Larkin is totally comparable and quite possible better than Ripken and Ozzie. What hurts him in the voters’ eyes, I would guess, is being really good at everything. Instead of great at one or two things. Also, Ozzie didn’t change how the position was played. He was just the epitome of how it was, at the time, supposed to be played. All field, almost no hit. Ozzie was great, I’m not arguing that, I’m just taking issue with your word choice.

Also, I do tend to think that Trammell, while not quite as good as Larkin, should be in the hall. It’s a shamed that he is so overlooked.

]]>