Cincinnati Reds and Barry Larkin

[YankeeFan22]

I dont think he will be a in on his first ballot but eventually.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

It's 5 years right and I'm pretty positive '03 was his last year. I cried that day. :cry:

Barry played in 2004.

[Neers 44]

Larkin was a great SS for his time, just average now.

[mexitucky]

Was he ever the best shortstop in baseball during his career? Did he ever lead the league in any major offensive category?

 

He didn't lead the league in any major offensive categories, however, he was the best shortstop in the National League throughout the 90's, and it could be argued, better overall than Cal Ripken during the same period. Regardless if he was or was not, the fact that you can argue that between the two says that Larkin is a surefire Hall of Famer based on the fact that Ripken was a first ballot selection.

 

He was on a World Series Championship team, was the leave MVP, played on 4 Division winners, was one of the most efficient base stealers in the majors and won multiple Gold Gloves. Bill James ranked him as the #6 shortstop of All-Time. He was the first 30/30 shortstop. He and Ripken set the table for the shortstops of today. His overall game is what makes him a Hall-of-Famer. Make a diving catch to end the inning and then rip a two out-two strike double down the line to drive two in.

 

"In his 18-year career with Cincinnati, Larkin batted for a .295 batting average, with 198 home runs, 960 runs batted in, 1329 runs scored and 379 stolen bases.1"

Awards:

All-Star (NL): 1988-1991, 1993-1997, 1999-2000, 2004

MLB Most Valuable Player Award (NL): 1995

Lou Gehrig Memorial Award: 1994

Roberto Clemente Award: 1993

Gold Glove (NL SS): 1994-1996

Silver Slugger (NL SS): 1988-1992, 1995-1996, 1998-1999

 

1. Courtesy of Wikipedia.org

[IAmAFan]

He was on a World Series Championship team, was the leave MVP, played on 4 Division winners, was one of the most efficient base stealers in the majors and won multiple Gold Gloves. Bill James ranked him as the #6 shortstop of All-Time. He was the first 30/30 shortstop. He and Ripken set the table for the shortstops of today. His overall game is what makes him a Hall-of-Famer. Make a diving catch to end the inning and then rip a two out-two strike double down the line to drive two in.

 

"In his 18-year career with Cincinnati, Larkin batted for a .295 batting average, with 198 home runs, 960 runs batted in, 1329 runs scored and 379 stolen bases.1"

Awards:

All-Star (NL): 1988-1991, 1993-1997, 1999-2000, 2004

MLB Most Valuable Player Award (NL): 1995

Lou Gehrig Memorial Award: 1994

Roberto Clemente Award: 1993

Gold Glove (NL SS): 1994-1996

Silver Slugger (NL SS): 1988-1992, 1995-1996, 1998-1999

 

1. Courtesy of Wikipedia.org

 

 

The more I look at it the more he should be a HOF. Not only do his numbers compared to other SS's in the HOF back it up, but he wore that C a long time. He hit behind runners like it was his job (it was). He always hustled and came up with a lot of big hits over his career.

[STRIKE3]

The more I look at it the more he should be a HOF. Not only do his numbers compared to other SS's in the HOF back it up, but he wore that C a long time. He hit behind runners like it was his job (it was). He always hustled and came up with a lot of big hits over his career.

I agree and strong case....Impressive research Mexitucky.

 

:thumb:

[mexitucky]

I agree and strong case....Impressive research Mexitucky.

 

:thumb:

 

I'm getting a lot of practice at researching.:creepy:

[h.s.sportsrbest]

and it could be argued, better overall than Cal Ripken during the same period.

That is an argument I'd love to see. Keep in mind, I'm a huge Reds' fan and was never a big Ripken fan, but that argument would be as one-sided as it gets.

 

Heck, you'd be spotting Ripken a bunch on dependability and durability alone.

 

Being a team captain, hitting behind runners, and hustling doth not a HOF'er make. Good team player...yes. Solid team-mate....probably. Hall-of-Famer...not necessarily.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Yes, hopefully, very soon on the # retired.

I hope yes on the HOF. I think he is deserving. The question is what he the best SS of his time and I think he was. The MVP is something that no other shortstop of his time save Cal won. That separates him from the crowd.

[mexitucky]

That is an argument I'd love to see. Keep in mind, I'm a huge Reds' fan and was never a big Ripken fan, but that argument would be as one-sided as it gets.

 

My argument was that during the 90's it could have been argued that Larkin was better than Ripken. During the 80's, Cal was the man, and Larkin only had 3 seasons. So, to present my argument:

Raw Offensive #s During the 90s:

ABs: Ripken - 5710 Larkin-4780

Runs: R- 811 Larkin- 834

Hits: R - 1589 Larkin - 1447

2Bs: R - 305 Larkin - 269

3Bs: R - 20 Larkin - 51

HRs: R - 198 Larkin - 137

RBIs: R - 827 Larkin - 639

BB: R - 527 Larkin - 544

Ks: R - 570 Larkin - 513

AVG. R - .278 Larkin - .302

OBP. R - .343 Larkin - .400

Slg. R - .449 Larkin - .468

SBs R- 17 Larkin - 266

SB% R - 53% Larkin - 85%

 

Basically, as we thought, Ripken leads in HRs, RBIs, Hits and 2Bs due to 930 more at bats. I was surprised to see Larkin had a higher slugging percentage more runs and more BBs. Ripkens k/ab ratio is pretty amazing. Ripkens speed categories are way behind Larkin's due significantly to the fact that Ripken's athleticism was on his way down in the late 90s and he was batting in the middle of the lineup where he didn't need to steal bases. Next up, Defense:

[h.s.sportsrbest]

My argument was that during the 90's it could have been argued that Larkin was better than Ripken. During the 80's, Cal was the man, and Larkin only had 3 seasons. So, to present my argument:

Raw Offensive #s During the 90s:

ABs: Ripken - 5710 Larkin-4780

Runs: R- 811 Larkin- 834

Hits: R - 1589 Larkin - 1447

2Bs: R - 305 Larkin - 269

3Bs: R - 20 Larkin - 51

HRs: R - 198 Larkin - 137

RBIs: R - 827 Larkin - 639

BB: R - 527 Larkin - 544

Ks: R - 570 Larkin - 513

AVG. R - .278 Larkin - .302

OBP. R - .343 Larkin - .400

Slg. R - .449 Larkin - .468

SBs R- 17 Larkin - 266

SB% R - 53% Larkin - 85%

 

Basically, as we thought, Ripken leads in HRs, RBIs, Hits and 2Bs due to 930 more at bats. I was surprised to see Larkin had a higher slugging percentage more runs and more BBs. Ripkens k/ab ratio is pretty amazing. Ripkens speed categories are way behind Larkin's due significantly to the fact that Ripken's athleticism was on his way down in the late 90s and he was batting in the middle of the lineup where he didn't need to steal bases. Next up, Defense:

 

As you yourself point out, Ripken leads in most offensive categories during a decade when he was declining and Larkin was in his prime. Their careers weren't close.

[mexitucky]

Defense during the 90s:

* I took out Ripkens games played at 3rd. He played 7 seasons at 3rd in the 90s.

Chances: R - 4690 Larkin - 5,515

POs: R - 1590 Larkin - 2072

A: R - 3100 Larkin - 3,543

Es: R - 71 Larkin - 128

Total Chances/Game: R - 4.47 Larkin 4.43

Fld. R - .985 Larkin - .977

 

For the 90s, and this shocked me, Ripken got to more balls per game and fielded them more cleanly. Both won one MVP during the decade.

 

Summary: It depends on what you want out of your Shortstop. If you want a power hitter that is a great fielder, go with Ripken. If you want an offensive catalyst that was a great fielder go with Larkin. Point being, an argument could be made for Larkin as better than Ripken. This begs the question, for how long do you have to be the best or second best at your position before you are HOF worthy?

[mexitucky]

As you yourself point out, Ripken leads in most offensive categories during a decade when he was declining and Larkin was in his prime. Their careers weren't close.

 

No, he leads in HRs, hits, and RBIs due to having more ABs. Look at OBP, steals, SLUGGING PERCENTAGE, 3Bs, RUNS. Ripken had more opportunities to drive runners in due to his spot in the line-up. Like I said before, Ripken had a better overall career, however, during the 90s, when Larkin was at his peak and Ripken was the best overall SS in the AL, Larkin was arguably just as good, if not better, depending on what you want your shortstop to do.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

I'll tell you why I disagree, in Larkin's 19 seasons he only played in 150 games 4 times. Heck he only had over 450 at-bats 9 times. Less than 50%. That lack of durability will hurt him, IMHO.

 

Was he ever the best shortstop in baseball during his career? Did he ever lead the league in any major offensive category?

 

I think his case is solid, but shaky enough that it won't happen (at least any time soon).

Mexitucky, I'm sticking with this. We'll see soon enough.

[YankeeFan22]

I believe he has a good case. For one he was a defensive machine at SS and that some times goes over looked. Also if you take a look at his postseason play his first series wasn't to hot he hit .261 but next 3 times he was in a series including that World Series he hit. .353, then in in '95 he hit .385 and .389. For 5 years in the early/mid 90's he was in the top 15 in voting for MVP winning it it '95. He also played in as an All-Star every year from '88 to '00 except for '92 which he still had a pretty good season. I think and hope that he will eventually get in. It will be a great day when it happens.