Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Barry Larkin is perhaps the most anonymous great player of our time. That's not a selling point when the time comes for him to be considered for a ticket to Cooperstown. In 2004, he performed exactly how a great 40 year old shortstop should, providing below average but not horrible defence and hitting .289/.352/.419. Not that this performance affects his Hall chances one iota.

Larkin, a Cincinnati native, was the 4th overall pick of the 1985 draft by the Reds, out of the University of Michigan. He spent the remainder of 1985 in double A, and then went .329/.373/.525 in triple A Denver in 1986 to earn a late season call-up to the big club. After an adjustment year in 1987, he emerged as a fine shortstop in 1988. He was consistently great from 1988-2000, hitting .300 with fine plate discipline and medium range power. He was a prolific and effective basestealer, succeeding on 83% of his attempts. His bugaboo has been injuries. He has played 150 games or more only 4 times in his career.

Placing him offensively among the great shortstops is fairly easy. He was clearly better than Alan Trammell, and comparable to Joe Cronin. For his chart, we have these greats for career comparison, and also a comparison with his contemporaries Jeter and Garciaparra as of age 30.

Player    G      AB     H     HR    W     BA     OBP    SLUG    OPS+     
Larkin-40 2180 7937 2340 198 939 .295 .371 .444 116
Trammell 2293 8388 2365 185 850 .285 .352 .415 110
Cronin 2124 7579 2285 170 1059 .301 .390 .468 119


Larkin-30 1045   3933   1164   87   388   .296   .360   .431    116
Jeter 1366 5513 1734 150 559 .315 .385 .465 121
Nomar 1099 4133 1330 182 295 .322 .370 .549 133


Larkin had a fine defensive reputation, and won 3 Gold Gloves from 94-96 (when he was 30-32 and probably past his defensive prime). With the help of Jonny German and using the files of retrosheet.org, I decided to see if I could get an objective read on his defensive performance in his prime, using a play-by-play evaluation. I chose his 1991 season, as the information was readily accessible and Larkin was 27 during that year. The results are described here. Taking into account only his efficiency at turning ground balls in the hole, up the middle and at him into outs, Larkin recorded 12 more assists than would be anticipated. This may be converted into 9 runs in a 119 game season. As we shall see later in our series, Larkin was also above average at turning the double play.

We do not have a play-by-play analysis of Larkin's defence from 1987-1990, but each year his assists/game ranged from 3.01 to 3.26 whereas the league average ranged between 2.74 and 2.83. After 1991, his assists/game dropped to the 2.8 to 2.9 range until 1996.



Putting offense and defense together

As Larkin has essentially completed his career, we will attempt to apply the standards described in my initial shortstop Hall watch article. Larkin has 271 Runs Created Above Average, according to Lee Sinins' Baseball Encyclopedia. How many Runs Saved Above Average has he on defence? It seems likely that he saved 15-20 runs per 150 game season during his prime, taking into his above-average fielding percentage, and his out conversion rate on ground balls, and his double play performance. His prime lasted from age 23-27 (1987-1991), and taking into account his lost time accounted for approximately 4 seasons; he appears to have been a modestly above average defensive shortstop from age 28-31 (1992-1996) and perhaps saved 5-7 runs per season. I estimate that he saved about 100 runs above average over his career.

Adding the two together, we have a total of 371 Runs Created and Saved Above Average. This places him clearly behind Honus Wagner, Arky Vaughan and George Davis. We do not have enough reliable historical defence data for others to run totals. However, for any other retired shortstop, from Banks, Cronin and Boudreau to Yount, Cal Ripken Jr. and Alan Trammell, there are solid arguments that Larkin was as good or better. My best estimate is that Larkin is in a close knot with Boudreau and Ripken for 4th best shortstop, leaving aside the trinity (A-Rod, Garciaparra and Jeter) currently in their prime. To give a flavour of the argument, Ripken had 161 Runs Created Above Average, but appears to have been a superior defender to Larkin. Whether he was 110 runs better is dubious, and it is hard to know absent play-by-play information from Ripken's defensive prime in the early 1980s.

Obviously a player who is at the end of his career arguably the fourth best of all time at his position should go into the Hall of Fame. Will Barry? That's a tough one. There is precedent for him to be excluded by the writers. Arky Vaughan was at the time of his retirement the 2nd best shortstop of all time, and clearly one of the top 3-4 players of the 30s, and yet the BBWAA passed him by. Fortunately, he was picked up by the Veterans Committee many years later. In 2010 or so, when Larkin becomes eligible for the Hall, the comparisons will be made with A-Rod and Nomar (with glossier power numbers), and Jeter (with all those rings and the hype). I can see Larkin being passed by, as Vaughan was. And then, it will be left to the Veterans Committee after 2025.
Hall Watch 2004-The Shortstops- Barry Larkin | 9 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_John Northey - Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 11:19 PM EST (#2620) #
I don't see Larkin being passed by too easily. He might have a few years to wait ala Sandberg but, like Ryno, was clearly one of the best of his time and a no-doubt HOF'er up until the trinity appeared.

Since the 80's will be very underrepresented by the time Barry is elgible I suspect voters will start to be kinder to him than they were to Trammell.
Gitz - Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 01:09 AM EST (#2621) #
In 2010 or so, when Larkin becomes eligible for the Hall, the comparisons will be made with A-Rod and Nomar (with glossier power numbers), and Jeter (with all those rings and the hype).

You've left out Miguel Tejada in that tidy equation. By 2010, he'll have better counting stats than Jeter and Nomar, and no doubt he will also have one thing those two don't: an MVP. I'm not suggesting where Tejada should rank, but if he keeps knocking in 120 runs a year, that's going to get some HOF votes when he's done. Throw in Tejada's generally good defense, and you're looking at him being the best shortstop of this decade, rather comfortably, unless the Yankees move back A-Rod to SS.
_Mick - Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 09:56 AM EST (#2622) #
"Jeter and all those rings" ... I know it's hard to remember, but Larkin was the captain of one of the best single-season teams of the 1990's, the '90 Reds, who went wire-to-wire and blew out the massively heavily favoured A's in the World Series.

Eerily similar to Trammell's role on one of the best single-season teams of my lifetime, the '84 Tigers. Larkin deserves to be in the Hall, but if he gets in, in retrospet Trammell is even more hosed.
_Jonny German - Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 10:24 AM EST (#2623) #
Larkin deserves to be in the Hall, but if he gets in, in retrospet Trammell is even more hosed.

I don't get that Mick - I agree that Trammel is HOF material, but are you saying that he's equal to or better than Larkin? Like Ripken, he's 110 RCAA behind Larkin (Trammel played 113 more games to this point in Larkin's career). Larkin has 3 Gold Gloves, Trammel 4. Larkin has an MVP and a World Series ring, Trammel a World Series MVP and a ring.

Did Trammel have a big enough defence advantage to make up the rather large offensive superiority of Larkin? I think Mike nailed it in his opening sentence: Barry Larkin is perhaps the most anonymous great player of our time.
Mike Green - Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 10:30 AM EST (#2624) #
Gitz, I thought that it was a little early to guess where Tejada might end up. He just finished his age 28 season, and he's got some obvious plusses-power, durability, solid defence.

You are right thought that he's likely to put large home run and RBI numbers for a shortstop, and that will impress many voters, perhaps more than Larkin's broad-based offensive and defensive excellence.
Mike Green - Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 10:35 AM EST (#2625) #
You are right though. We don't discuss right thoughts or left thoughts here.
Mike Green - Monday, January 09 2012 @ 09:29 PM EST (#250336) #
On the occasion of Larkin's election, I thought that this thread should get a final look-see. I am glad that I was wrong about how Hall voters would react to him. Youneverknow.
John Northey - Tuesday, January 10 2012 @ 11:42 AM EST (#250349) #
Nice to see my comment at the time was dead on :)

Also glad my Raines prediction didn't occur (that he'd risk being a 1 and done due to voters not noticing how good he is - near 50% gives him a real shot now).
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, January 11 2012 @ 05:54 PM EST (#250428) #

And I see I've been saying the same exact damn things about Trammell for at least eight years. <<<sigh>>>

The projection on Tejada fell off a cliff, though, huh, Mike?

Hall Watch 2004-The Shortstops- Barry Larkin | 9 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.