Tweet
Barry Larkin Dominated His Era
This one is a bit tricky and multi-layered, but it's true. The tricky part, is Larkin's career crossed two era's.
Larkin broke in and played some prime years towards the back end of the Cal Ripken/Alan Trammell/Robin Yount/Ozzie Smith era, which was really the era that broke the offensively challenged SS mold. He played the second half of his prime in the steroid era, with Arod/Nomar/Jeter/Tejada, the group unfairly credited with breaking the SS mold.
When looking at that list of eight Larkin contemporaries (and forgive me if I forgot one or two guys, but I believe those would be the consensus eight best aside from Larkin), you will notice that seven of those players were AL players (Nomar and Tejada had cups of coffee in the NL, far past their primes and after Larkin retired). The only NL SS, Ozzie Smith, was 33 years old by the time Larkin played his first full season, and was a part time player while Larkin was peaking. Therefore, there is no question, no reasonable debate, that Barry Larkin was the dominant NL SS for almost his entire career.
But fuck that W2BTD, being better than Jeff Blauser & Jay Bell doesn't mean all that much in the context of being an all time great. Agreed. Let's compare Larkin to the entire field. This is where you may be surprised.
From 1988 - 1993, the five years prior to the steroid era, and Larkin's age 24-28 seasons, Larkin had the highest OPS and OPS+ among all shortstops in baseball:
Higher than Ripken, you say? Yes, higher than Ripken. And Ripken was hardly an old man by this point (age 27-31).
Also interesting, is Larkin tops Ripken in OPS & OPS+, despite Ripken's huge edge in HR's (113-55). In fact, Larkin tops Ripken across the percentage board, with his .306/.365/.443 line, compared to Ripken's .270/.345./.437. Furthermore, Larkin has the highest AVG/OBA/SLG/OPS/OPS+, across the board, of any SS during this period. (And for the record, he tops Robin Yount in every one of those categories as well, but Yount was a full time CF by this point).
Ok, so what do we have so far? Larkin was with very little debate the dominant SS in the NL for almost his entire career, and Larkin was with very little doubt the best SS in all of baseball from the start of his career until the start of the steroid era, edging out Ripken.
So let's look at the steroid era.
From 1994-2000 (the end of his prime) Larkin's OPS+ rose to 126, peaking in 1996 with a 154, which is one of only 15 seasons in modern baseball that a SS topped 150. He also won the NL MVP in 1995, smack dab in the steroid era. Although some claim he didn't deserve the award, according to Bill James Win Share system, only one player (Barry Bonds) topped Larkin's 30 WS that season, and Bonds played for a last place team. Larkin's Reds won the NL Central.
So while I won't attempt to argue that Larkin was a better player from 1994-2000 than the likes of A-Rod, it's not as if he did not hold his own, and in fact, most years he was the best SS in the NL, and a top 5 SS (or better) in all of baseball. Larkin put up three consecutive .900+ OPS seasons during this period, which is rare air for the SS position unless you are talking about Honus Wagner, A-Rod, or Ernie Banks.
Dominant NL SS for essentially the entirety of his career, dominant SS in all of baseball from the start of his career until the start of the steroid era, and a top 5 SS in all of baseball nearly every season from 1994-2000.
Barry Larkin dominated his era.
Larkin Compares Favorably To Other HOF Shortstops
There are 22 shortstops in the HOF. Here is a quick snapshot of Larkin compared to some of the more predominant, modern era players (at least 8 out of the 22 played in the deadball era or pre 1901):
Career OPS+
Larkin 116
Ernie Banks 122
Cal Ripken 112
Lou Bourdeau 120
Joe Cronin 119
Pee Wee Reese 98
Robin Yount 115
Luke Appling 113
Honus Wagner, at 150, is far and away the highest among HOF SS, and is probably the greatest SS of all time since A-Rod will have played around half of his games at 3B by the time he retires. I did not include guys like Ozzie Smith, Rabbit Maranville, Luis Aparicio, etc because those guys are in strictly for defense (more on that later).
The point here, is using the blanket stat of OPS+, you can see that Larkin is higher than some, lower than others, but would rank higher than most of the 22 if you include the defensive minded guys who all come in at well below 100. He ranks higher than Ripken and Yount, and is in the ballpark of everyone aside from Wagner.
Barry Larkin Compares To Other Hall Of Famers, Period
WAR!
Larkin ranks 61st all time in WAR among position players. Take a look at the players in his neighborhood:
59. Luke Appling (20) 69.3
60. Brooks Robinson (23) 69.1
61. Barry Larkin (19) 68.9
62. Tony Gwynn (20) 68.4
63. Jesse Burkett (16) 68.0
All four of those players are in the Hall of Fame, and quite frankly, all four are no brainers. Appling, a SS, was inducted in 1964 on 189 out of 204 ballots.
Fielding, Stats, and Intangibles
Yeah, that's right. Intangibles. Pure SABR heads can leave now and skip to the end if you like, but baseball is more than stat computations whether you like it or not.
Larkin was a three time gold glove winner, missing out early due to an old Ozzie Smith stealing awards from Larkin and Jay Bell, and the overrated Rey Ordonez stealing some later. Some metrics treat Larkin better than others, but he generally rates as well above average at best, to slightly above average at worst. He was generally considered a very good fielder, with great range and smooth hands.
Larkin finished with 2340 hits, 198 HR, 960 RBI, 379 SB. He was only CS 77 times, making him one of the most efficient base stealers of all time. His 12 All Star games is a record for shortstops (further demonstrating his positional dominance). No player has ever played in at least 12 All Star games and not made the HOF. For his career, Larkin only struck out 817 times compared to 939 walks.
Larkin was the ultimate team player and leader who did whatever was needed to win. Some years the Reds asked him to leadoff and take pitches, other years they asked him to hit third or cleanup and hit for power. And he did. In 1996, a year after his MVP season in which he mostly lead off or hit second, the Reds asked him to bat third and hit for more power, and he doubled his HR total from 15 to 33.
Larkin was a .338 hitter in the postseason, including a .353 average in the World Series. He was the best player, according to WAR, on a World Series winning team (4.8 WAR for the 1990 Reds).
What Works Against Him
If you want to make a case against Larkin, good luck. But here is some ammo.
Durability. Larkin topped 150 games played only 4 times in 19 seasons. He was constantly injured. This hurt some of his counting stats, and is really the biggest knock you can make on his career.
Larkin barely missed a few notable milestones. .298 lifetime average. 198 HR's. 960 RBI.
Aside from his MVP year of 1995, his next highest finish was 7th.
The offensive numbers of the steroid era shortstops are better.
Summary
Larkin's numbers take a hit when compared to the guys who came after him, but compare more than favorably to the guys who came before him. He bridged the gap between two distinct eras for his position. He was a complete player in his time who has an MVP, World Series win, and a mantle full of Gold Gloves, All Star appearances, and Silver Slugger awards. He easily ranks among the best shortstops to ever play the game, ranking as high as #6 by one source (Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract). James also ranks Larkin as one of the best 100 players of all time, with fantastic hidden metrics in his Win Shares and Secondary Average categories. Larkin was a very good fielder at worst, and is considered one of the best baserunners in the history of the game.
In many ways, Larkin is a less durable, FAR better fielding version of Derek Jeter (a no brainer HOF choice).
Honus Wagner & Ernie Banks are definitely better. Arky Vaughn is probably better. A-Rod is definitely better if you count him as a SS, which is fair. You can debate that Larkin is better than some of the other best of all time, which includes Ripken, Yount, Jeter, etc, and he could reasonably fall on either side of any of those debates. Larkin is better than Trammell, Cronin, Aparicio, and any of the one dimensional stellar fielders like Smith, Maranville, etc.
Barry Larkin belongs in the Hall of Fame.
This one is a bit tricky and multi-layered, but it's true. The tricky part, is Larkin's career crossed two era's.
Larkin broke in and played some prime years towards the back end of the Cal Ripken/Alan Trammell/Robin Yount/Ozzie Smith era, which was really the era that broke the offensively challenged SS mold. He played the second half of his prime in the steroid era, with Arod/Nomar/Jeter/Tejada, the group unfairly credited with breaking the SS mold.
When looking at that list of eight Larkin contemporaries (and forgive me if I forgot one or two guys, but I believe those would be the consensus eight best aside from Larkin), you will notice that seven of those players were AL players (Nomar and Tejada had cups of coffee in the NL, far past their primes and after Larkin retired). The only NL SS, Ozzie Smith, was 33 years old by the time Larkin played his first full season, and was a part time player while Larkin was peaking. Therefore, there is no question, no reasonable debate, that Barry Larkin was the dominant NL SS for almost his entire career.
But fuck that W2BTD, being better than Jeff Blauser & Jay Bell doesn't mean all that much in the context of being an all time great. Agreed. Let's compare Larkin to the entire field. This is where you may be surprised.
From 1988 - 1993, the five years prior to the steroid era, and Larkin's age 24-28 seasons, Larkin had the highest OPS and OPS+ among all shortstops in baseball:
Player - OPS - OPS+
Larkin .808 124
Ripken .782 120
Trammell .759 113
Blauser .759 109 (launching pad!)
Fryman .755 108
Larkin .808 124
Ripken .782 120
Trammell .759 113
Blauser .759 109 (launching pad!)
Fryman .755 108
Also interesting, is Larkin tops Ripken in OPS & OPS+, despite Ripken's huge edge in HR's (113-55). In fact, Larkin tops Ripken across the percentage board, with his .306/.365/.443 line, compared to Ripken's .270/.345./.437. Furthermore, Larkin has the highest AVG/OBA/SLG/OPS/OPS+, across the board, of any SS during this period. (And for the record, he tops Robin Yount in every one of those categories as well, but Yount was a full time CF by this point).
Ok, so what do we have so far? Larkin was with very little debate the dominant SS in the NL for almost his entire career, and Larkin was with very little doubt the best SS in all of baseball from the start of his career until the start of the steroid era, edging out Ripken.
So let's look at the steroid era.
From 1994-2000 (the end of his prime) Larkin's OPS+ rose to 126, peaking in 1996 with a 154, which is one of only 15 seasons in modern baseball that a SS topped 150. He also won the NL MVP in 1995, smack dab in the steroid era. Although some claim he didn't deserve the award, according to Bill James Win Share system, only one player (Barry Bonds) topped Larkin's 30 WS that season, and Bonds played for a last place team. Larkin's Reds won the NL Central.
So while I won't attempt to argue that Larkin was a better player from 1994-2000 than the likes of A-Rod, it's not as if he did not hold his own, and in fact, most years he was the best SS in the NL, and a top 5 SS (or better) in all of baseball. Larkin put up three consecutive .900+ OPS seasons during this period, which is rare air for the SS position unless you are talking about Honus Wagner, A-Rod, or Ernie Banks.
Dominant NL SS for essentially the entirety of his career, dominant SS in all of baseball from the start of his career until the start of the steroid era, and a top 5 SS in all of baseball nearly every season from 1994-2000.
Barry Larkin dominated his era.
Larkin Compares Favorably To Other HOF Shortstops
There are 22 shortstops in the HOF. Here is a quick snapshot of Larkin compared to some of the more predominant, modern era players (at least 8 out of the 22 played in the deadball era or pre 1901):
Career OPS+
Larkin 116
Ernie Banks 122
Cal Ripken 112
Lou Bourdeau 120
Joe Cronin 119
Pee Wee Reese 98
Robin Yount 115
Luke Appling 113
Honus Wagner, at 150, is far and away the highest among HOF SS, and is probably the greatest SS of all time since A-Rod will have played around half of his games at 3B by the time he retires. I did not include guys like Ozzie Smith, Rabbit Maranville, Luis Aparicio, etc because those guys are in strictly for defense (more on that later).
The point here, is using the blanket stat of OPS+, you can see that Larkin is higher than some, lower than others, but would rank higher than most of the 22 if you include the defensive minded guys who all come in at well below 100. He ranks higher than Ripken and Yount, and is in the ballpark of everyone aside from Wagner.
Barry Larkin Compares To Other Hall Of Famers, Period
WAR!
Larkin ranks 61st all time in WAR among position players. Take a look at the players in his neighborhood:
59. Luke Appling (20) 69.3
60. Brooks Robinson (23) 69.1
61. Barry Larkin (19) 68.9
62. Tony Gwynn (20) 68.4
63. Jesse Burkett (16) 68.0
All four of those players are in the Hall of Fame, and quite frankly, all four are no brainers. Appling, a SS, was inducted in 1964 on 189 out of 204 ballots.
Fielding, Stats, and Intangibles
Yeah, that's right. Intangibles. Pure SABR heads can leave now and skip to the end if you like, but baseball is more than stat computations whether you like it or not.
Larkin was a three time gold glove winner, missing out early due to an old Ozzie Smith stealing awards from Larkin and Jay Bell, and the overrated Rey Ordonez stealing some later. Some metrics treat Larkin better than others, but he generally rates as well above average at best, to slightly above average at worst. He was generally considered a very good fielder, with great range and smooth hands.
Larkin finished with 2340 hits, 198 HR, 960 RBI, 379 SB. He was only CS 77 times, making him one of the most efficient base stealers of all time. His 12 All Star games is a record for shortstops (further demonstrating his positional dominance). No player has ever played in at least 12 All Star games and not made the HOF. For his career, Larkin only struck out 817 times compared to 939 walks.
Larkin was the ultimate team player and leader who did whatever was needed to win. Some years the Reds asked him to leadoff and take pitches, other years they asked him to hit third or cleanup and hit for power. And he did. In 1996, a year after his MVP season in which he mostly lead off or hit second, the Reds asked him to bat third and hit for more power, and he doubled his HR total from 15 to 33.
Larkin was a .338 hitter in the postseason, including a .353 average in the World Series. He was the best player, according to WAR, on a World Series winning team (4.8 WAR for the 1990 Reds).
What Works Against Him
If you want to make a case against Larkin, good luck. But here is some ammo.
Durability. Larkin topped 150 games played only 4 times in 19 seasons. He was constantly injured. This hurt some of his counting stats, and is really the biggest knock you can make on his career.
Larkin barely missed a few notable milestones. .298 lifetime average. 198 HR's. 960 RBI.
Aside from his MVP year of 1995, his next highest finish was 7th.
The offensive numbers of the steroid era shortstops are better.
Summary
Larkin's numbers take a hit when compared to the guys who came after him, but compare more than favorably to the guys who came before him. He bridged the gap between two distinct eras for his position. He was a complete player in his time who has an MVP, World Series win, and a mantle full of Gold Gloves, All Star appearances, and Silver Slugger awards. He easily ranks among the best shortstops to ever play the game, ranking as high as #6 by one source (Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract). James also ranks Larkin as one of the best 100 players of all time, with fantastic hidden metrics in his Win Shares and Secondary Average categories. Larkin was a very good fielder at worst, and is considered one of the best baserunners in the history of the game.
In many ways, Larkin is a less durable, FAR better fielding version of Derek Jeter (a no brainer HOF choice).
Honus Wagner & Ernie Banks are definitely better. Arky Vaughn is probably better. A-Rod is definitely better if you count him as a SS, which is fair. You can debate that Larkin is better than some of the other best of all time, which includes Ripken, Yount, Jeter, etc, and he could reasonably fall on either side of any of those debates. Larkin is better than Trammell, Cronin, Aparicio, and any of the one dimensional stellar fielders like Smith, Maranville, etc.
Barry Larkin belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Comment