Barry Larkin Newest HOF'er
384292611.jpg)
Dboneesq
Posts: 18,219 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Just Barry. Nobody else.
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
0
Comments
Barry Bonds*
Roger Clemens*
Sammy Sosa*
Craig Biggio
Mike Piazza
Curt Schilling
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
congrats to Larkin, i guess
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>Could someone please tell me seriously how Larkin is a HOFer but Trammell isn't? Their stats are nearly identical in BA/Hits/RBIs/HR/Fielding%.....Both played entire careers with one team. Both were WS MVPs, but Tram got ripped from the 1987 league MVP and everyone at the time agreed. How does Larkin beat Tram THAT significantly in the voting??? Looking for serious replies on this!! Sorry for the hate, but I just can't stop comparing the two!! >>
You have to begin by realizing that the voters have always had a difficult time rating players who do everything well. ...see Tim Raines or Ron Santo. Sadly it's easier for voters to latch onto something such as one of the HOF milestone automatic triggers - 500 HRs, 3000 hits, 300 wins...or something in the realm of - Ozzie Smith was the great defensive SS of all-time...nevermind that he was a premier out-maker with zero power over the course of his career offensively. Outside of realizing that the majority of mainstream writers still don't understand relevant statistics other than the basics, I think the fact that Trammell was overshadowed by the likes of Ripken, Yount (early in Trammell's peak), and Tony Fernandez (at least defensively), while Larkin (outside of his short overlap with Ozzie Smith), had the likes of Shawon Dunston as his main competition as the premier NL SS of his peak. While there was larger gap between Ripken and Trammell, there was a very small to zero gap between Larkin and Ozzie depending on how much you value defense. So I suppose, in the end, Trammell should have learned to execute back-flips or display the kind of temperament on the field that the media ate up with Ozzie. In other words, Trammell (like Whitaker) didn't do a very good job of drawing attention to himself. Sandberg was able to get away with it because of the Chicago market/WGN. Trammell didn't. Let's face it, as good as some of those 80's Tigers teams were, Sparky Anderson was the face/star of those teams. In the case of Ripken, Larkin, or Yount, that wasn't the case...and it shouldn't matter, but to the dope voters, it tends to. Something needs to stick out, and with Trammell's personality and all-around game, nothing stuck out to the voters.
By BR- Barry Larkin had 68.9 WAR, Alan Trammell 66.9.
By FG - Barry Larkin had 70.6 WAR, Alan Trammell 69.5
Runs Created - Larkin - 1381, Trammell - 1255
WPA+ (Win Probability Added) - Larkin +180.9, Trammell - +173.1
SBs /Caught stealing - Larkin - 379 SBs, 77 CS (83%), Trammell - 236 SBs, 109 CS (68%)
Outside of the large edge in base stealing prowess, Larkin and Trammell couldn't be more similar.
edit to add: here's an excellent article displaying how Trammell's peak stacks up against Yount's peak. To me there is very little difference between Yount and Trammell as well. Yount was just more health fortunate thus enabling him to reach the 3000 hit trigger. It would have been in Trammell's best interests to start showing a marked defensive decline so the Tigers could have moved him to the OF to help prolong his career like Yount...or just become completely defensively inept like Molitor so Trammell could slide to DH.
a better shortstop.
neither guy is HOF-worthy, IMO.
Lanemeyer make a great point in that if there is one dominant player during his career in a league, the bandwagon fills up. Two or three comparable players divide the opinions and votes.
I like Jack Morris, and the Twins won a World Series because of him, but I have a hard time thinking of him as a HOFer, but the argument is there that he was "the best of his era".
Of course you have a lot of people who want to just lock the doors of the Hall of Fame................after throwing about half of the players in there out!
Joe
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>Vizquel is a no-brainer Hall of Famer. >>
a no brainer? If Rabbit Maranville was a no brainer then I suppose you're correct. Seems people have forgotten how awful of a hitter Vizquel was. Ozzie Smith was a terrible hitter and was still 100 runs more valuable than Vizquel. 23 years in the bigs and Omar has a offensive WAR of 29. Ozzie banked 43. (60 WAR is typically a borderline HOFer) Add in 13.3 WAR for Omar's defense and he's a 42.3 career WAR player. He had 160 or more hits in a season twice in 23 years. He had no power, and he wasn't stellar swiping bases (71%) either.
Erik