Cincinnati Reds and Barry Larkin

[IAmAFan]

Ozzie his down in the order....Larkin at top, offensive numbers should be higher.

 

It's like that adage, Clark Kellog says about field of 65....Body of Work and that is true, when players aren't exceptionally amazing, at one or the other. Offensively, Larkin doesn't pass the test. Defensively, I'm with you.

 

 

I would imagine Ozzie would have batted higher in the order if he could have batted 300.

[IAmAFan]

I just thinks its going to be a combination of the two stats that will do him in. His offensive numbers are only a little bit better than Fernandez and slightly better than Trammell's. You saw how low a percentage of the vote Trammell got--if Larkin's percentage is as small as his statistical advantage he's got no shot. As for defense you pretty much summed it up. Ozzie was the best defensive SS ever so Barry was unable to win the Gold Gloves that probably would have made the difference. Would I vote him in if he had his offensive numbers AND 10 Gold Gloves. In a heartbeat. As it is I just don't think his numbers are that much better than some of his comtemporaries. Fernandez, Trammell, even Jay Bell has comparable numbers. He just doesn't have that one thing that sets him aprart far enough to vote for him. I think you'll see that will be the thinking of the voters.

 

 

Good post!!!!

[pigman]

The year the Reds won it all he was the best player in baseball. He deserves to go to the HOF. Loved to watch him play always gave 100%.

[AverageJoesGym]

Anyone besides Strike-3 know who these two are or have an opinion?

 

Player A was Joe DiMaggio, considered an all-time great. Player B is Larry Walker, a very good player but one that probably won't get in the Hall. That's why its hard to compare players of different eras.

[mexitucky]

Player A was Joe DiMaggio, considered an all-time great. Player B is Larry Walker, a very good player but one that probably won't get in the Hall. That's why its hard to compare players of different eras.

 

Random thought...I wonder how the Coors Field factor is going to affect Walker and, eventually, Helton. Anyway, if you want to judge players from different eras, you must compare how player A ranked against the players in his era vs. how player B ranked against the players of his era. That's the only way to compare them. If you look at wins from different eras, todays pitchers are waaaaayyyy behind guys like Cy Young and Walter Johnson. Therefore, you must compare their number of wins, for example, over the league average. I know that this has been discussed before; just wanted to reiterate it.

[The Scribe]

Player A was Joe DiMaggio, considered an all-time great. Player B is Larry Walker, a very good player but one that probably won't get in the Hall. That's why its hard to compare players of different eras.

Correct. Think Phil Ruzzuto's stats would get him into the Hall today? Catfish Hunter? Likely not.