February 9, 200719 yr A second basemen..... Good call.... Your right, their numbers historically are altogether different than SS. Feel better? Alan Trammell was a SS but you didn't like that comparison.
February 9, 200719 yr Your right, their numbers historically are altogether different than SS. Feel better? Alan Trammell was a SS but you didn't like that comparison. I would say Trammell and Sweet Lou got there fair share of votes so Larkin being better than both looks pretty good to me!!! :banana: Yes I do feel better.
February 9, 200719 yr :thumb: By the way, it's nice to have the "gun" back, Billy Bob was freaking me out.
February 9, 200719 yr I am aware of that. Do me a favor and look at the HOF SS's that are enshrined and tell me it isn't the HOVG. Larkin's numbers DESTROY well over half of them. Compare them to Smith's numbers and see what you come up with. Your logic is flawed in this regard. Its harder to compare him with players of different eras. He does compare favorably with several of those. When you compare him with players of his era he's closer to Tony Fernandez than to a Hall of Fame level.
February 9, 200719 yr I would say Trammell and Sweet Lou got there fair share of votes so Larkin being better than both looks pretty good to me!!! :banana: Yes I do feel better. Whitaker has fallen off of the ballot and Trammell got 18% of the votes cast this year so he's hanging on. :sssh: :thumb: ...and yes, in my gut, I feel like Larkin was a better player than those two.
February 9, 200719 yr That's the key part of the post. Pretty good, not great. If you want to compare that Fernandez has a higher BA, and OBP than Yount and is higher in all 3 catagories than Ripken. Alan Trammell beats them in every catagory too except for Yount's steals. The key difference is that neither Larkin nor Trammell have over 3000 hits or played in 2632 straight games. Lots of people have career batting averages better than Ripken's or Yount's, lots of people have higher on base percentages, lots have more stolen bases. Very, very few have over 3100 hits--thats the difference in someone being in the Hall of Fame. It isn't called the Hall of Very Good. It could be if you take in to account that people can accumulate stats over a lengthy career of being very good for a long period of time rather than great for a short period of time.
February 9, 200719 yr Did they always use wooden bats and wound baseballs????? Ernie Banks played in the 50's and his numbers are better than Larkins. They are WAY better. In that 35 year gap who was better than Barry? Ripken and Yount and Barry beat them in SEVERAL offensive categories. He's closer to Tony Fernandez than Ozzie Smith? I disagree.
February 9, 200719 yr Whitaker has fallen off of the ballot and Trammell got 18% of the votes cast this year so he's hanging on. :sssh: :thumb: ...and yes, in my gut, I feel like Larkin was a better player than those two. But I'd say they had several years where they were higher.
February 9, 200719 yr Here's the danger in comparing players from different eras when one or both of the players haven't reached an "automatic" Hall of Fame benchmark such as 3000 hits. Player A..................................Player B Games 1736............................1988 Runs 1390..............................1355 Hits 2214...............................2160 2Bs 389.................................471 3Bs 131.................................62 HRs 361.................................383 RBIs 1537..............................1311 SBs 30..................................230 BBs 790.................................913 BA .325................................ .313 OBP .398............................... .400 Slg .579............................... .565 Do either one of these players have a massive advantage over the other? Which one would you vote in if either? Let me know and I'll tell you who each player is.
February 9, 200719 yr But I'd say they had several years where they were higher. Funny you ask: Whitaker was on the 2001 ballot and got 2.91% of vote and was off the ballot. Trammell's voting history looks like this: 2002 -- 15.68% 2003 -- 14.11% 2004 -- 13.83% 2005 -- 16.9% 2006 -- 17.7% Larkin better be perceived a LOT better than these two. :sssh:
February 9, 200719 yr Did they always use wooden bats and wound baseballs????? Ernie Banks played in the 50's and his numbers are better than Larkins. They are WAY better. In that 35 year gap who was better than Barry? Ripken and Yount and Barry beat them in SEVERAL offensive categories. He's closer to Tony Fernandez than Ozzie Smith? I disagree. Ernie Banks: 1259 Games at First Base, 1125 Games at Shortstop, 69 Games at Third Base and 23 in the Outfield. He didn't even play half of his games at Shortstop. Ozzie Smith: 13 Gold Gloves, 15 All-Star appearances. Next argument.
February 9, 200719 yr Barry Larkin deserves to have his number retired by the Reds, and obviously in their Hall-of-Fame as soon as he is eligible. However, I don't think you'll ever see Larkin enshrined in Cooperstown, largely for a reson that IAMaFan touched on -- the shortstops that have come after him. Not to mention, if Davey isn't in, Barry shouldn't be in. I agree after all he did for The Reds Ball Club, and Major League Baseball why wouldn't he be in the Hall of Fame.
February 9, 200719 yr It could be if you take in to account that people can accumulate stats over a lengthy career of being very good for a long period of time rather than great for a short period of time. That's a good point. For some reason the Hall of Fame voters tend to put people into The Hall based on a few different methods. One of those is a player who was very good that played long enough to produce great career totals, someone like say, Robin Yount. Another is a player that was dominant in his era but had his career cut short due to injury, someone like Kirby Puckett. Outside if that you have a select few that are elected due to being exceptional at one phase of the game to the point that they changed how that position is viewed, perhaps Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith. Is one way more fair than the others? To be honest I'm not sure, I just don't see Larkin, Trammell, Whitaker or Fernandez to reach any of those criteria.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.