Cincinnati Reds and Barry Larkin

[STRIKE3]

If you guys remember that year, he was hitting over .300 going into the break.

Understand but in regards to your question, I believe his selection was "more" for sentimental reasons.

 

My stats that I listed, were for that season and goes toward my point of his lack of offensive numbers and he only played in 68.5% of the games, the REDS played....I could understand that % from a Catcher but not a SS.

 

All of this to me, says Larkin would be a "possible" can't miss....IF, he had played in more games over his career.

[IAmAFan]

Understand but in regards to your question, I believe his selection was "more" for sentimental reasons.

 

My stats that I listed, were for that season and goes toward my point of his lack of offensive numbers and he only played in 68.5% of the games, the REDS played....I could understand that % from a Catcher but not a SS.

 

All of this to me, says Larkin would be a "possible" can't miss....IF, he had played in more games over his career.

 

 

I've agreed with that too. However, for some (HSSB) people it's impossible to look at the arguement from both sides. B-Lark played for 19 seasons. The final 3 he came under HUGE scrutiny. He got 27 million (way over priced) to stay here. Smart fans and all sports writers were very hard on him. However, the Sports Writers Association dealt with Larkin for a LONG TIME. He was very popular and well liked. He never had anything negative (even though he was injury prone like ED who was constantly bashed in the media) until the final 3 years. Also, his numbers compare to those already enshrined in Cooperstown.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

I've agreed with that too. However, for some (HSSB) people it's impossible to look at the arguement from both sides. B-Lark played for 19 seasons. The final 3 he came under HUGE scrutiny. He got 27 million (way over priced) to stay here. Smart fans and all sports writers were very hard on him. However, the Sports Writers Association dealt with Larkin for a LONG TIME. He was very popular and well liked. He never had anything negative (even though he was injury prone like ED who was constantly bashed in the media) until the final 3 years. Also, his numbers compare to those already enshrined in Cooperstown.

I'm more than willing to listen to both sides, and have said since day 1 I think he has a solid case for the Hall. How is that not being receptive? I thought you would appreciate the opinion of someone who was around the team everyday for years. Apparently not, and that is fine.

 

Playing a "full" season 4 out of 19 times is enough for me to scratch a guy, but that is only one opinion and one without a BBWA vote. But again, for the umpteenth time, I think he has a solid case and had a very nice career. :thumb:

[AverageJoesGym]

Larkin's BA is 20 pts higher than Ripken. His OBP is 30 points higher. Ripken kills him in HR's and RBI's. Runs Ripken has 300 more. Steals Larkin has 300 + more. Larkin was a better defensive player. Both won MVP's but neither only B-Lark has a Ring. In 96 I would imagine Larkin was the best in NL. He batted 298 with 33 HR's 117 Runs, 89 RBI's, and 36 SB's. He was the MVP that year.

 

In 96 Larkin would have been the best in the game and IMO it isn't fair to punish him because A-Rod the best numbers any SS had ever put up in the history of the game.

 

You're wrong on that one. Cal Ripken won a ring in 1983 when the Orioles defeated the Phillies in 5 games.

[IAmAFan]

I'm more than willing to listen to both sides, and have said since day 1 I think he has a solid case for the Hall. How is that not being receptive? I thought you would appreciate the opinion of someone who was around the team everyday for years. Apparently not, and that is fine.

 

Playing a "full" season 4 out of 19 times is enough for me to scratch a guy, but that is only one opinion and one without a BBWA vote. But again, for the umpteenth time, I think he has a solid case and had a very nice career. :thumb:

 

 

:thumb:

 

Got ya.

[IAmAFan]

You're wrong on that one. Cal Ripken won a ring in 1983 when the Orioles defeated the Phillies in 5 games.

 

 

Good Call! :thumb:

[The Scribe]

It will actually be 2010 before he is able and here is a listed of those who also become eligable to get in:

Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Rod Beck, Ellis Burks, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros,

Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Shane Reynolds, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile.

That's an interesting bunch. McGriff deserves to be in, but Larkin and Alomar are on the fence.

[AverageJoesGym]

I think Larkin was a heck of a player who should get serious Hall of Fame consideration. That said I don't think I could vote for him mainly due to his lack of durability--its different in my mind when someone suffers a career ending injury that causes his overall numbers to come up a little bit short of the Hall's standards (a la Kirby Puckett). However, when a player simply can not stay healthy enough to play a full season several times over his career I would count that against them. There have been several comparisons on this thread to Cal Ripken and Robin Yount--Larkin had some great seasons but he just wasn't at their level. Here's a more accurate comparison.

 

 

Barry Larkin....................Tony Fernandez

Seasons 19....................17

Games 2180...................2158

At Bats 7937..................7911

Runs 1329.....................1057

Hits 2340......................2276

2Bs 441........................414

3Bs 79..........................92

HRs 198........................94

RBIs 960.......................844

SBs 379.......................246

Average .295............... .288

OB % .371.................. .347

Slg. .444................... .399

Gold Gloves 3.................4

Are Larkin's numbers superior? Sure, but they don't just blow Fernandez out of the water, escpecially since Larkin played 2 more seasons. Give Fernandez 2 more seasons he more than likely passes Larkin in hits, doubles and RBIs. I've not heard anyone heralding Fernandez as a Hall of Famer and I don't quite think Larkin is either. Of course I don't have a vote--I watched him in person a lot of games during the 90'a and I actually hope he gets the nod. I remember being disappointed if I made the trip to Cincinnati and Larkin wasn't in the lineup.

[IAmAFan]

I think Larkin was a heck of a player who should get serious Hall of Fame consideration. That said I don't think I could vote for him mainly due to his lack of durability--its different in my mind when someone suffers a career ending injury that causes his overall numbers to come up a little bit short of the Hall's standards (a la Kirby Puckett). However, when a player simply can not stay healthy enough to play a full season several times over his career I would count that against them. There have been several comparisons on this thread to Cal Ripken and Robin Yount--Larkin had some great seasons but he just wasn't at their level. Here's a more accurate comparison.

 

 

Barry Larkin....................Tony Fernandez

Seasons 19....................17

Games 2180...................2158

At Bats 7937..................7911

Runs 1329.....................1057

Hits 2340......................2276

2Bs 441........................414

3Bs 79..........................92

HRs 198........................94

RBIs 960.......................844

SBs 379.......................246

Average .295............... .288

OB % .371.................. .347

Slg. .444................... .399

Gold Gloves 3.................4

Are Larkin's numbers superior? Sure, but they don't just blow Fernandez out of the water, escpecially since Larkin played 2 more seasons. Give Fernandez 2 more seasons he more than likely passes Larkin in hits, doubles and RBIs. I've not heard anyone heralding Fernandez as a Hall of Famer and I don't quite think Larkin is either. Of course I don't have a vote--I watched him in person a lot of games during the 90'a and I actually hope he gets the nod. I remember being disappointed if I made the trip to Cincinnati and Larkin wasn't in the lineup.

 

I don't think that's a more accurate comparision because Larkin beats him in every stat but triples. Larkin had better numbers in some categories than Ripken and Yount.

[AverageJoesGym]

I don't think that's a more accurate comparision because Larkin beats him in every stat but triples. Larkin had better numbers in some categories than Ripken and Yount.

 

 

Read the last part of my post. Larkin beats him in those catagories but he played 2 more seasons than Fernandez. However, in 2 fewer seasons Fernandez was able to play more games and able to come close to Larkin's production in all stats save HRs, Rs and SBs. If you give Fernandez another 250 games he passes Larkin in most stats. What I'm getting at is you don't hear anyone promoting Tony Fernandez as a Hall of Famer yet there's been several pushing Larkin as having far better numbers than the other shortstops of his era. That simply isn't true, he beats Fernandez in most catagories but doesn't just blow him away. Fernandez was never really considered the best of his peers and he nearly equals Larkin. To me a Hall of Famer has to have numbers that put him head and shoulders above the people he played with and against, not barely surpass what was considered an above average shortstop that played 2 fewer seasons than him.

[IAmAFan]

Read the last part of my post. Larkin beats him in those catagories but he played 2 more seasons than Fernandez. However, in 2 fewer seasons Fernandez was able to play more games and able to come close to Larkin's production in all stats save HRs, Rs and SBs. If you give Fernandez another 250 games he passes Larkin in most stats. What I'm getting at is you don't hear anyone promoting Tony Fernandez as a Hall of Famer yet there's been several pushing Larkin as having far better numbers than the other shortstops of his era. That simply isn't true, he beats Fernandez in most catagories but doesn't just blow him away. Fernandez was never really considered the best of his peers and he nearly equals Larkin. To me a Hall of Famer has to have numbers that put him head and shoulders above the people he played with and against, not barely surpass what was considered an above average shortstop that played 2 fewer seasons than him.

 

 

Tony Fernandez was WAAAAYY better than average. Look at what's bold. IMO that's pretty important. Larkin played fewer games and beat him in EVERY category.

[IAmAFan]

The fact that Barry Larkin had a higher BA, higher OBP, and more stolen bases than Ripken or Yount is apparently a mute factor. IMO that's pretty good stuff.

[STRIKE3]

I think Larkin was a heck of a player who should get serious Hall of Fame consideration. That said I don't think I could vote for him mainly due to his lack of durability--its different in my mind when someone suffers a career ending injury that causes his overall numbers to come up a little bit short of the Hall's standards (a la Kirby Puckett). However, when a player simply can not stay healthy enough to play a full season several times over his career I would count that against them. There have been several comparisons on this thread to Cal Ripken and Robin Yount--Larkin had some great seasons but he just wasn't at their level. Here's a more accurate comparison.

 

 

Barry Larkin....................Tony Fernandez

Seasons 19....................17

Games 2180...................2158

At Bats 7937..................7911

Runs 1329.....................1057

Hits 2340......................2276

2Bs 441........................414

3Bs 79..........................92

HRs 198........................94

RBIs 960.......................844

SBs 379.......................246

Average .295............... .288

OB % .371.................. .347

Slg. .444................... .399

Gold Gloves 3.................4

Are Larkin's numbers superior? Sure, but they don't just blow Fernandez out of the water, especially since Larkin played 2 more seasons. Give Fernandez 2 more seasons he more than likely passes Larkin in hits, doubles and RBIs. I've not heard anyone heralding Fernandez as a Hall of Famer and I don't quite think Larkin is either. Of course I don't have a vote--I watched him in person a lot of games during the 90'a and I actually hope he gets the nod. I remember being disappointed if I made the trip to Cincinnati and Larkin wasn't in the lineup.

I think it's a great comparison and Fernandez, won't make the HOP....I will disagree, that Larkin's are "superior", better yes but not superior.

 

I watched Larkin and would say "Great player, just can't stay healthy"....Name me one person, who think Fernandez, is HOF worthy.

 

Key word I use, is Accomplished....Barry didn't accomplish enough offensively, over his tenure to convince me. For the record, this thread has been one of the most informative, well researched and very debatable, I can recall....:thumb: to all.

[AverageJoesGym]

Tony Fernandez was WAAAAYY better than average. Look at what's bold. IMO that's pretty important. Larkin played fewer games and beat him in EVERY category.

 

Larkin didn't play fewer games. He played 22 more, it just took him 2 more seasons to do it. Fernandez was better than average but I don't think there's a time that anyone just thought "Wow Fernandez is a sure fire Hall or Famer." He never drove in over 75 runs, never scored more than 91, never finished higher than 7th in the league in average or higher than 8th in MVP voting. He only made 5 All-Star games. Those are the numbers of a good, not great player--one that if given the 200-250 games that he would have played in those 2 season that Larkin played more than him would have been Larkin's equal or better in most catagories. Even if he had those numbers I don't think he would be a legit Hall of Fame candidate and for that reason I don't think Larkin is either.

[IAmAFan]

Larkin didn't play fewer games. He played 22 more, it just took him 2 more seasons to do it. Fernandez was better than average but I don't think there's a time that anyone just thought "Wow Fernandez is a sure fire Hall or Famer." He never drove in over 75 runs, never scored more than 91, never finished higher than 7th in the league in average or higher than 8th in MVP voting. He only made 5 All-Star games. Those are the numbers of a good, not great player--one that if given the 200-250 games that he would have played in those 2 season that Larkin played more than him would have been Larkin's equal or better in most catagories. Even if he had those numbers I don't think he would be a legit Hall of Fame candidate and for that reason I don't think Larkin is either.

 

 

You said it not me, but I see your arguement (same as HSSB's biggest concern and Strkie3's biggest concern).