Cincinnati Reds and Barry Larkin

[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.

 

Also, define MOST. Per the categories, it seems that Larkin led in 9 out of 14 categories.

[YankeeFan22]

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.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

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.

Okay, so you're focusing on Ripken's declining decade and Larkin's pinnacle decade, and it's still not close. Don't forget A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar hit the scene in the 90's too. Larkin was never the best short-stop in baseball...no matter how you want to sort the stats on MLB. Davey was the best SS for a time in the 70's...and is still not in.

 

Larkin fans -- don't hold your breath. :thumb:

[YankeeFan22]

There is another great middle infielder on that list. Alomar. Who I thought they had a simlar playing style. I was always wanted Alomar to come South a bit and play with him in Cincinnati.

[STRIKE3]

You've got a valid argument and seems his offensives numbers, are more than comparable to most SS's.

[YankeeFan22]

You've got a valid argument and seems his offensives numbers, are more than comparable to most SS's.

Yeah, I think if anything brings him down it will be the offensive's numbers. If you look at defense I think he is clearly in the hall, also his numbers in the end of his career hurt him but o well.

[mexitucky]

Okay, so you're focusing on Ripken's declining decade and Larkin's pinnacle decade, and it's still not close. Don't forget A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar hit the scene in the 90's too. Larkin was never the best short-stop in baseball...no matter how you want to sort the stats on MLB. Davey was the best SS for a time in the 70's...and is still not in.

 

Larkin fans -- don't hold your breath. :thumb:

 

Still not close??? The only thing he's missing is home runs. From 94-96, Larkin was the best shortstop in the Majors. He has Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, and an MVP to at least show that he ruled the NL.

[YankeeFan22]

Still not close??? The only thing he's missing is home runs. From 94-96, Larkin was the best shortstop in the Majors. He has Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, and an MVP to at least show that he ruled the NL.

:thumb:

[h.s.sportsrbest]

While you're in search mode, I'd love to see Ripken's 80's v. Barry's 90's. Prime v. Prime. That should end this debate.

 

Heck, in 1995, you could make a solid case that John Valentin of the Bosox had the better year. So what year would that leave Barry to claim "Baseball's Best SS?"

[STRIKE3]

Yeah, I think if anything brings him down it will be the offensive's numbers. If you look at defense I think he is clearly in the hall, also his numbers in the end of his career hurt him but o well.

HSSB is right, in comparison to current day SS's, not in the same category but with previous HOF members, how does Larkin stack.

 

For example, against Ozzie Smith....I would imagine, his offensive numbers are much better and defensively, not far behind. Is this a reasonable comparison or am I reaching?

[IAmAFan]

HSSB is right, in comparison to current day SS's, not in the same category but with previous HOF members, how does Larkin stack.

 

For example, against Ozzie Smith....I would imagine, his offensive numbers are much better and defensively, not far behind. Is this a reasonable comparison or am I reaching?

 

 

He is in the same league as Ripken and Smith. :thumb:

 

What will kill him is Jeter, A-Rod, Nomar, and Tejada have put up HUGE numbers at the SS position.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

From 94-96, Larkin was the best shortstop in the Majors.

 

Disagree -- Ripken was still King in those years.

 

Listen, we can re-convene this argument in 2010 and if he gets in I'll (on bended knee) beg forgiveness and eat my crow happily. If not, we'll chat then. I don't even think he'll get 50% of the votes his first year.

[YankeeFan22]

For you STRIKE3 Ozzie Smith:

Played 19 seasons same as Larkin so this is good.

.262 average

281 errors and a .978 fielding percentage

.236 in the postseason

All-Star from 1981-1996 except for '93

1985 NLCS MVP, '89 Lou Gehrig, '94 Branch Rickey, '95 Roberto Clemente

Gold Gloves from '80-'92(when Larkin took over)

1987 Silver Slugger

Ranked in the top 20 for 5 years for MVP, but never won.

[YankeeFan22]

Disagree -- Ripken was still King in those years.

 

Listen, we can re-convene this argument in 2010 and if he gets in I'll (on bended knee) beg forgiveness and eat my crow happily. If not, we'll chat then. I don't even think he'll get 50% of the votes his first year.

He might not get in but he will get atleast 50%.

[IAmAFan]

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.