The Greatest Reds: #4
4. Barry Larkin
| Played as Red | Primary Position | Career Rank | Peak Rank | Prime Rank |
| 1986-2004 | SS | 3 | 10 | 11 |
| Percent Breakdown of Value | Best Season | Best player on Reds | ||
| Hit | Field | Pitch | 1992 | 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998 |
| 71% | 29% | 0% | ||
| Awards/Honors as a Red | Leading the League | On the Reds Leaderboard | ||
| Most Valuable Player – 1995 Roberto Clemente Award – 1993 Lou Gehrig Award – 1994 Silver Slugger – 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999 Gold Glove – 1994, 1995, 1996 All Star – 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2004 |
N/A |
-2nd in career doubles |
||
In 19 seasons, all with the Reds, the injury-prone Larkin had just four years where he played in 150 games or more. Similarly, over the 13 consecutive year stretch in which Larkin posted a 100 OPS+ or higher every single season, he averaged just 126 games played. While this depressed Larkin’s counting numbers and peak impact, he was an impressive player nonetheless, with seemingly no weakness: he had speed (5 different times with at least 30 steals), he had power (consistently reaching 30 doubles, once hit as many as 33 home runs), and he provided solid defense (note the Gold Glove awards, although the specific years he won were probably make-up awards for the years where the Ozzie Smith inertia screwed Larkin out of winning).
From a less quantitative standpoint, Larkin was also one of the smartest players I’ve ever seen; this too is evidenced to some degree by the numbers (83% steal percentage, 15% more walks than strikeouts). In 1995, Larkin won the NL MVP due to his award-winning defense, his 51 stolen bases (against just 5 times caught), and his 133 OPS+ bat from the shortstop position. While there were possibly more worthy recipients that year, Larkin quieted doubters by following up with a monster 1996, in which he hit the aforementioned 33 dingers, scored 117 runs, and posted a 154 OPS+. Naturally, he finished 12th in MVP voting that year. In a note that reflects both on Larkin and on the teams for which he played, no Reds player has been the singular best player on the team in as many seasons as Larkin (8 different seasons, by my count), and no Reds player’s stretch of inter-team dominance spanned as long (11 years from 1988 to 1998). In that time, Larkin managed a 130 OPS+ or higher seven different times, which was obviously an incredible asset from such an important defensive position. Larkin made the most of his limited postseason opportunities, hitting 338/397/465 in 78 plate appearances. For his regular-season career, Larkin finished with over 9000 plate appearances and a 116 OPS+.
The Top 15 Shortstops in Reds history
1 Barry Larkin
2 Dave Concepcion
3 Leo Cardenas
4 Roy McMillan
5 Tommy Corcoran
6 Germany Smith
7 Billy Myers
8 Eddie Miller
9 Buck Herzog
10 Larry Kopf
11 Eddie Joost
12 Hod Ford
13 Felipe Lopez
14 Ike Caveney
15 Tom Downey
66 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
First ballot HOF
Should be anyway.
First time I shot her, shot her in the side.
Hard to watch her suffer, but with the second shot she died...
And you are 100% correct about Ozzie screwing Larkin out of a couple GGs
“Look, Ozzie did a backflip! GOld GLove!”
First time I shot her, shot her in the side.
Hard to watch her suffer, but with the second shot she died...
Barry Larkin
singlehandedly prevented a decade’s worth of Reds fans from jumping off the Roebling Bridge.
In the days of Marge and Benzinger, you could always fall back on, “Yeah, but at least we have Larkin.”
"The USA despite its flaws and corruption and overall messiness is still a great and powerful instrument of freedom and hope for the entire world." - Madville
what do you got against Benzinger ?!
careful..he’s a local boy
Nobody listens to Andrew
by nlt-andrew68 on Dec 15, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
1989-91 OPS+ of 82
to be fair, half of ’91 went down for KC.
It’d be nice to get a bit more offense out of 1b.
"The USA despite its flaws and corruption and overall messiness is still a great and powerful instrument of freedom and hope for the entire world." - Madville
I wonder how many players have an "Awards/Honors" column like Larkin without ever leading the league in a single category
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
Ivan Rodriguez
If you don’t count GIDP as a category.
My absolute favorite baseball player of all time, the one who got me to start watching baseball
Prime rank: 11. Seems fitting.
I know the end of his career was a little contentious, but I’m proud that he only played for the Reds.
Also, how spoiled were we
To have roughly 40 continuous years of the two best shortstops in team history. And followed up by a couple years of #13.
Actually
we had about 53 years straight of the top 4 SS in team history. From 1952 to 2004, 6650 of 9520 games (70%) were started by the top 4 shortstops in team history.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
I still remember the day when we got Royce Clayton
There have been some shitty days in this decade (Election night 2000, Sept. 11, 2001, Election night 2004), but I think the day I realized I had to root for Royce Clayton makes the top 5 pretty easily.
by Brendanukkah on Dec 15, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
fixed that for you
“To have roughly 40 continuous years of the two best shortstops in team history.”
by Daedalus on Dec 15, 2009 12:23 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
I'll rec that
It smacks of blatant homerism, but hell if that’s not what being a fan is all about!
by Brendanukkah on Dec 15, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
more on perez
by the way, something that was not mentioned about tony perez is how reds management could so mistreat by all accounts a totally stellar guy. the 1976 trade was ridiculous, they forced his retirement in a bungling manner in 1986 and then, worst of all, fired him after only 44 games in his first year as manager. Even with baseball as a business, you don’t do that to someone like tony. if they didn’t want to take a chance on a rookie manager, then don’t hire him, that’s fine. but once you commit to someone the stature and decency and legendary status as tony, give him a legitimate chance. that was so pathetic that i, as a lifelong reds fan who stayed loyal through 102-loss seasons, etc. stopped rooting for them for many years after, until jim bowden left. ron oester’s stock went way up in my book when he quit in disgust after doggie’s firing. no way was i going to back an organization that could do that. sorry for the bitterness, but this has to be mentioned. of course, tony took his firing with as much dignity as possible, but it hurt to see him so upset. nothing could justify it.
by Big Red Machine on Dec 15, 2009 12:35 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Then he, like Jack McKeon, won a World Series with the Marlins
by Brendanukkah on Dec 15, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
I wonder how instrumental Larkin was in getting Perez fired too.
by Brian B on Dec 15, 2009 1:36 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
are you serious?
i mean, i’ve never heard any stories, but he and leatherpants are buddies, so…i sure hope not!
I would never have thought it at the time
But Barry had a ton of pull in the front office, and then he played the fans on multiple occasions to get more lucrative contracts for himself. Including the famous living room press conference, which was disgusting. And it worked.
I love me some Larkin..but its hard to see how he could be better than Robby
Although I’m sure the figures don’t lie.
There is an overriding misconception that Clutch is an overriding misconception.
Figures don't lie?

Wear something sexy to my funeral.
by Pops Daniels on Dec 15, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions
What the fuck is her problem?
And why is she dressed like a black-faced clown?
Start SEEing motorcycles
I believe that the Amirites lived about 100 years before the Sumerians...
The Sumerians ate them alive, literally, because they refused to recognized them as their equals as human beings..now that’s racism
There is an overriding misconception that Clutch is an overriding misconception.
stupid question
this photo is faked right?
by Eastwindquinn on Dec 15, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
A couple of things come to mind
1. Robinson was a better hitter, but not as much as you’d think. Yea, he was great out of the box and Larkin was 24 before he hit like “Larkin” (as opposed to 20 year old Robinson), but Lark was pretty good – over the next 10 seasons his OPS+ was 128. Not Robinson’s 150, but a big step up from his career 116.
1a. Career length. Larkin had 2600 more PA than Robinson. (and a note – while still not exactly the picture of health, Larkin’s average games/yr is skewed because of the strike/lockout of 94/95 – he played in 110 out of 114 in ’94 and 131 out of 144 in ’05)
2. Defense. Larkin was a legitimate Gold Glover playing the 2nd toughest defensive position; Robinson…..wasn’t. While he won the one GG, he really wasn’t that good of a fielder, even though he spend his entire career playing the 3 easiest positions. As good of a hitter/baserunner as Larkin was, almost 30% of his value came from fielding.
3. Baserunning. 379 steals at an 83% clip compared to 161 at 74% is a big difference; from 88-97, Larkin swiped 260 at an 84.4% rate.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
i know i'm not supposed to mention things like these on this site (ha ha)
but i’m wondering about frank’s rep on the team. you know, lark got to wear a C on his chest for a reason. he led the team in four remarkable seasons but got screwed by the strike and al leiter. his mvp was as much a testament to his carrying the 95 team on his shoulders as it was about numbers.
i just know nothing about frank aside from his numbers.
He wasn't all that great as a manager of the Nationals
by Brendanukkah on Dec 15, 2009 9:17 PM EST up reply actions
Was that him, or was that the fact
that he managed the Nationals?
"If it wasn't this, it'd be something else."
by ZJiff30 on Dec 15, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Shortstops
Agreed, this is a Larkin love-fest. I am not as high on him as some of you are. He deserves a spot in the top 10.
But I did notice on the list — Roy McMillan. Interesting career (traded to Milwaukee for Joey Jay btw) and I wonder how his numbers would stack up if overlaid against today’s talent. That guy could play short for anybody, period.
Couldn't hit like today's guys and he wore glasses
There is an overriding misconception that Clutch is an overriding misconception.
Larkin rules
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Dec 15, 2009 2:38 PM EST reply actions
stats
I enjoy reading the statistical comparisons but for purposes of being obstinate, I would rather you not compare defensive talent when comparing apples to oranges. A shortstop’s defense is measured far differently than that of an outfielder.
To say one is better defensively than the other has no bearing on practice.
Also on stolen bases, Robby played on a team that was made up of mashers in an era of the home run. Crosley and the teams the Reds built were not connected to stolen bases (hence, see the impact Vada Pinson had when he came up.)
I am not bashing Larkin at Robinson’s expense, but to compare them statistically doesn’t yield the data you think it should.
The games played is perhaps of value. I can’t recall Robinson being injured all that much but he was a hardnosed guy who got hit by a lot of pitches.
just want to point out the "reply" link below each post
try to use that when you are replying to a specific comment so that we can keep track of who you are conversing with.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
unless it's not working
which has been a problem of late.
"If it wasn't this, it'd be something else."
It doesn't work for some people in the threads that have a sortable table in them
I imagine most of you that are having that problem are using Internet Explorer.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
The only browser to ever give me serious problems
is Firefox. I seriously can’t get it to work properly for me. Crashes all over the place, etc. I can’t understand it, but I certainly don’t use it.
"If it wasn't this, it'd be something else."
Try Chrome or Opera then
I’m a huge FF fan (just ask ‘tHan), but I understand that some people don’t like it.
"Santa Claus doesn't use Craigslist." -- 'tHan
I also use adblock btw, Fantastic add-on
jch, try new tab king… It does stuff.. and isn’t really in the way unless you want to use it like every other add-on.
Yes, I got paid for this comment.
Start SEEing motorcycles
AH!
yes, it happened to me earlier! i wondered what happened.
(and i use firefox for the facebook dislike button that doesn’t work properly.)
Except, of course, that defense counts alot
You have to outscore the other team. If you score 500 runs in a game, but the other team scores 501, you lose just like if you lost 1-0.
And basestealing counts, too. I don’t know the numbers in Robinson’s era, but in Larkin’s era stealing at a 70% rate was considered “effective”; Larkin obviously was well above that rate. It also points towards (but obviously doesn’t prove) better speed and decisionmaking on the basepaths.
And we aren’t comparing apples and oranges; we’re comparing apples to apples – who were the best players for the Reds as measured by Win Shares. Win Shares has problems that make some distrust it, but it clearly considers hitting, pitching, and defense as a total measure of a player’s value.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
according to Sean Smith's WAR numbers
Larkin was worth about 60 more runs than Robinson on base running. Robinson was worth about 2 runs more on defense (before positional adjustment). Larkin gets a large boost in value because of his position (about 195 runs worth), which makes up for the 182 runs that Robinson beats him on offense.
These numbers don’t apply to Win Shares, obviously, but I like how Smith breaks them out so that you can compare each segment.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
baserunning
I don’t even think the stolen base was a priority at all in the 1950s. If you look at the old films of how the pitchers “held” runners with those long loping windups and leg kicks … it’s a wonder they didn’t get stolen blind. Few runners even bothered. Think of when Mays had 25 or so steals and was considered very efficient.
So the style of play changed and that would have had an impact on how an infielder played his position. The threat of a steal was as effective sometimes. Then again, the game changed. In the 50s, the sacrifice bunt was an art form. Now you wonder.
Yes, we do get to Bench.
But some folks are more inclined to measure these data than I am. Larkin would have excelled in any era. Robinson might have been reduced to career DH status after his first few seasons.
No way ,,,Robinson might have been reduced to career DH status after his first few seasons.....
Triple crown winner at like 33 years old etc etc
Robby hit off guys like Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Vida Blue, Spahn, Burdette and McClain..
I am pretty sure Larkin would have done reasonably well back in the day too, but prolly not as well as Robby.
there’s always that question of how players would have fared in another era…I happen to think the pitching during Robby’s time was better, more up and inside and dirtier.
There is an overriding misconception that Clutch is an overriding misconception.
Yes he would have done just fine. But certainly no better than Robby.
There is an overriding misconception that Clutch is an overriding misconception.
Larkin also had to play on turf and hit in a bigger park
He also had to face Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Brown, Drabek, as well as Pedro and Johnson for some years.
Should have been able to get a few more hits on turfs
And yes there were some fine pitchers in his day too, just not as mean.
There is an overriding misconception that Clutch is an overriding misconception.
I meant the turf was harder on his legs
He probably had a slightly higher average but played in fewer games because of the toll it took on his legs.
pitchers
I got to thinking about this and who were the pitchers our favorite Reds had to face. We mention the toughest of the bunch and overlook the dozens of guys who weren’t all that tough. Pitchers who make the Hall of Fame get there because they get good hitters out.
It’s the bad pitchers that send good hitters to the Hall of Fame.
For every Sandy Koufax, there are a dozen Dallas Greens.

by 

























