February 6, 200719 yr 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. In 94 and 95 Ripken had sub-par years (better than Larkin due to injury) and in 96' Larkin was clearly better.
February 6, 200719 yr 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. Thanks Tincup11....:thumb: Chances: Ripken - 4690 Larkin - 5,515 PO's: R - 1590 Larkin - 2072 Assists: R - 3100 Larkin - 3,543 E's: Ripken -71 · Larkin - 128 · Smith-281 Total Chances/Game: R - 4.47 Larkin 4.43 Fld. R - .985 Larkin - .977 He's got a valid argument
February 6, 200719 yr Author I'm not for sure what this is but it has something to do with chances to get into the HOF thought maybe someone(STRIKE3) could explain it to me. Gray Ink: Batting - 66 (367) (Average HOFer ≈ 144) HOF Standards: Batting - 46.9 (94) (Average HOFer ≈ 50) HOF Monitor: Batting - 118.5 (116) (Likely HOFer > 100) His overall rank in in the parentheses.
February 6, 200719 yr (better than Larkin due to injury) ...and that doesn't that perfectly sum up the Lion's share of Larkin's career. You can't punish Larkin because another SS had a better year...got it. I hope the voters are as "but and if" for Barry as you guys are. I'll take my chances...
February 6, 200719 yr I'm not for sure what this is but it has something to do with chances to get into the HOF thought maybe someone(STRIKE3) could explain it to me. Gray Ink: Batting - 66 (367) (Average HOFer ≈ 144) HOF Standards: Batting - 46.9 (94) (Average HOFer ≈ 50) HOF Monitor: Batting - 118.5 (116) (Likely HOFer > 100) His overall rank in in the parentheses. It's a statistical analysis, formula to measure accomplishments and assign a point value, accordingly for HOF comparison. Black-Ink Test All-Time and Active Leaders Named so because league leading numbers are traditionally represented with Boldface type. The definition for the test that I'm using here was written up in Bill James's The Politics of Glory, p. 65-67. The essential point is to measure how often a player led the league in a variety of "important" stats. This method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must lead the league in that category. Batting Statistics Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases One Point for games, at bats or triples Pitching Statistics Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts Note that Hall of Famers have a wide variety of values for the Black Ink Test, and the method is unforgiving of positional differences, but it is a neat little metric. Gray-Ink Test All-Time and Active Leaders Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the top ten of the league. For each appearance the values are below. As with the Black Ink, this method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must be in the top 10 in the league in that category. Batting Statistics Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases One Point for games, at bats or triples Pitching Statistics Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts Hall of Fame Career Standards Test All-Time and Active Leaders This test gives a score of 50 for an average Hall of Famer, with 100 as the max (note Babe Ruth is over 100 due to my simplistic addition of his pitching and batting values), though mine are lower due to some difference in positional adjustments that I'll explain below. It is used to measure the overall quality of a player's career as opposed to singular brilliance (peak value). Also, I require a minimum of 20 points in this metric before the value is displayed for a player. Anything below that is meaningless. This can be found in James's book on p. 174-176. All values are for career marks, and I've required 1000 at bats or 500 IP for the rate stats to kick in. Batting Statistics One point for each 150 hits above 1500, limit 10. One point for each .005 of batting average above .275, limit 9 One point for batting over .300 One point for each 100 runs over 900, limit 8. One point for scoring more than .500 runs per game. One point for scoring more than .644 runs per game. One point for each 100 rbi's over 800, limit 8. One point for driving in more than .500 runs per game. One point for driving in more than .600 runs per game. One point for each .025 of slugging percentage above .300, limit 10 One point for each .010 of on-base percentage above .300, limit 10 One point for each 200 home runs. One point if home runs are more than 10% of hits. One point if home runs are more than 20% of hits. One point for each 200 extra base hits over 300, limit 5. One point for each 200 walks over 300, limit 5. One point for each 100 stolen bases, limit 5. Hope this helps....:thumb:
February 6, 200719 yr 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. In 94 and 95 Ripken had sub-par years (better than Larkin due to injury) and in 96' Larkin was clearly better.
February 6, 200719 yr 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?" I gave you Ripken v. Larkin for their career due to durability. I never once said that Larkin had the better career, what I said was for a time it could be argued that Larkin was the best at his position. Having said that I have to get back to work. I do appreciate the John Valentin argument. That was well researched. Let's do '96 when he was the first 30/30 shortstop. Nothing personal on this, good debate. I do offer this up for everyone, is it enough to be one of the top 3 at your position for 10 seasons, or do you need to have more time? Was Larkin spectacular enough in his limited amount of games, or did his injuries cost him, like HSSB says? He makes a very strong point with durability questions. However, I think that Larkin did enough to make it into the Hall. He's not ARod, Jeter, nor Ripken in terms of all-time, but he's top 6 according to Bill James. I believe that should be enough. 'Til tonight.
February 6, 200719 yr Author Yeah STRIKE3, it helps alot just got to take the time to read it. But other than that, Thanks.:thumb:
February 6, 200719 yr ...and that doesn't that perfectly sum up the Lion's share of Larkin's career. You can't punish Larkin because another SS had a better year...got it. I hope the voters are as "but and if" for Barry as you guys are. I'll take my chances... In 96 there were 2 GREAT years by a SS. Before that how many were there? I have no clue what A-Rod has to do with Larkin. Mantle was great and Mays played at the same time and were compared. Are they in the HOF? Also factor in that A-Rod and Tejada had very large drop offs in performance after performance enhancing drugs became illegal. In 91' Ripken had the "best" offensive season a SS had ever had. Noone touched it until Larkin and A-Rod in 96'. (I forgot Ernie Banks who had several better years) At one time Larkin had the 3rd best season a SS had ever had. That's saying something. His career numbers are close, his accolades speak for themselves, and I see him in Cooperstown (not 1st ballot).
February 6, 200719 yr Barry Larkin has better numbers than Honus Wagner, Phil Rizzuto, Robin Yount (who crossed generations and played at the same time as Larkin), Bobby Wallace....... I'm sick of this. The only SS's in the HOF better than Larkin (no doubt in my mind) are Ripken, Banks, and that's it. Smith is argueable, but certainly not definetely better. IMO Larkin is a HOFer.
February 6, 200719 yr Author I think Smith and Larkin are close to the same player but Larkin has an edge over Smith. Did Smith get in on the 1st ballot, I can't remember?
February 6, 200719 yr I think Smith and Larkin are close to the same player but Larkin has an edge over Smith. Did Smith get in on the 1st ballot, I can't remember?Here is a link, to that ballot regarding Ozzie Smith http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/2002.htm
February 6, 200719 yr Author Here is a link, to that ballot regarding Ozzie Smith http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/2002.htm Thanks. :thumb: That was his 1st year on it right.
February 6, 200719 yr Author Well looking at that and seeing how easy Ozzie got in you think Larkin would have a good case but its not just dependent on him it also has some to do with who all is on that ballot with Larkin.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.