We are the 86%: Where does Barry Larkin rank among HOF SS?
Barrington Cincinnatus Larkin (mostly not his real full name) is now a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, set to be cast in bronze and officially inducted into the Hall of Fame on July 22, 2012. Among his earliest remarks on the Hall of Fame conference call shortly after the announcement was a thank you:
"I'd like to just thank all the Baseball Writers who definitely voted for me and I'd like to thank all the guys that went out there and they campaigned for me and gave me so much support."
Besides the inadvertently comical phrasing (does Larkin want to be sure you definitely voted for him before he thanks you?), this reads as classic Barry. And trust us, because we know Larkin: we interviewed him this one time last year. But thanking his supporters doesn't come off perfunctory the way it might in many celebrity acceptance speeches. He's a sympathetic and affable guy - or is very good at faking it. It's evident in his on air mein; his banter with Brandon Phillips during the Gold Glove awards presentation was a prime example. It's a quality that likely played a role in the hyper-extroverted Phillips citing Larkin as his idol.
If you add character/nice-guy-tude/smiling to Dusty Baker's assertion that Barry was "a six-tool player because of his intelligence," then we're looking at a designation for Barry well beyond "tool shed." Machine tool plant?
What was Barry Larkin's career, beyond one traced by a well-rounded player and general nice guy? He's the 25th short stop to be enshrined in Cooperstown (depending on how you qualify a "career at short stop") - the latest in a lineage that reaches back to Honus Wagner. Unlike Robin Yount, who played just 54% of his games at SS, Larkin played all but 18 innings of his career at the position. With the positional adjustments in a statistic like WAR, we can give credit Larkin for talent scarcity at his position.
We can also conveniently ignore Yount, since he built nearly half of his value playing in the offense-rich pastures of the outfield. Besides the argument over relative wear and tear between the positions, there has to be a cut-off somewhere. This article is about Hall of Fame career short stops after all. Yount gets position-adjusted for playing in the outfield in his WAR total, but the value of sustained, Hall of Fame-level performance at one of the hardest positions to replace All Star-level talent has a distinct value to a team.
By Baseball Reference's formulation of WAR, Larkin ranks fifth among Hall of Fame short stops who played at least 75% of their career at the position in career WAR:
| Player | Career | WAR |
| Honus Wagner | 1897-1917 | 134.5 |
| Cal Ripken | 1981-2001 | 89.9 |
| Arky Vaughan | 1932-48 | 75.6 |
| Luke Appling | 1930-50 | 69.3 |
| Barry Larkin | 1986-2004 | 68.9 |
Using Baseball Projection's historical WAR gives very similar results. Larkin is also fifth, in a nearly dead heat with Appling:
| Player | Career | WAR |
| Honus Wagner | 1897-1917 | 134.7 |
| Cal Ripken | 1981-2001 | 89.8 |
| Arky Vaughan | 1932-48 | 75.6 |
| Luke Appling | 1930-50 | 68.9 |
| Barry Larkin | 1986-2004 | 68.8 |
On Bill James' win shares metric, Larkin also ranks fifth among Hall of Famers, though he'd be sixth if Bill Dahlen had been admitted:
| Player | Career | WS |
| Honus Wagner | 1897-1917 | 655 |
| Cal Ripken | 1981-2001 | 427 |
| Bill Dahlen | 1891-1911 | 394 |
| Luke Appling | 1930-50 | 378 |
| Arky Vaughan | 1932-48 | 356 |
| Barry Larkin | 1986-2004 | 346 |
Historical value stats aren't anything close to gospel, but I'd say there's a virtual statistical consensus that Larkin is in the upper quartile among Hall of Fame short stops. And probably the upper quintile if you want to get more strict about playing time, as I have. Derek Jeter's inevitable election (just go ahead and get it out of the way before the season starts) will likely put Larkin down a peg - although you can still make a very compelling argument that Barry is just as good or slightly better than Jeter based on defense and era. It's just that no one will listen.
But what about criticisms that Barry wasn't "the best in class" and didn't have a Hall of Fame worthy peak, partially due to injury? Aside from being especially arbitrary standards, those arguments - if you accept them as crucial to Hall worthiness - have a little bite. Larkin's 1996 season, arguably his best, registers only 43rd in Baseball Reference WAR on the list of seasons by players who played at least 75% of a season at SS. He fares a little better if you consider him as a predecessor to the Alex Rodriguez-led era of shortstop offense: 35th best. Still, not elite.
The more important point seems to be that Larkin logged 7 seasons above 5.0 WAR, as many as Cal Ripken - and averaged 5.1 WAR from 1988 to 1999. What Larkin lacked in touching Honus Wagner heights at his peak, he made up for in sustained All Star-level play. Any criticisms of Larkin's Hall worthiness seem to come from a lofty standard that he didn't have a dominating prime. But Larkin still fares well in peak-weighted WAR: 9th among Hall eligible short stops.
Defending Larkin's record is no longer necessary. He's in. In fact, he became a relatively mainstream candidate in short order, taking 86.4% of the vote for election in his third year of eligibility. It remains impressive to think that the Cincinnati native put together one of the greatest careers ever played at one of the sport's hardest positions to play. A sport whose major league professional history spans over 130 years.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think the career metrics do a pretty good job
Wagner’s numbers, both his peak success and his sustained greatness (he was a legit great player at age 38, and still productive at age forty-freaking-two, when he played 92 games at SS) make him pretty much the permanent #1.
Ripken always seemed a little overrated to me, but he was insanely durable and hit like a steroid-era shortstop for a few years long before the steroid era.
Arky Vaughan is one of the greatest players no one ever hears about. After that, I think Barry stacks up pretty well against just about anyone else. I don’t think he is clearly better than Jeter or Appling or if you really love defense) Ozzie, but I son’t think they are clearly better than him, either.
And fentanyl ain't that like super-morphine for elephants and soldiers with their head blown off
by RoastBeefKazenzakis on Jan 13, 2012 1:16 PM EST reply actions
Ripken was a great player, and tremendously overrated because of The Streak
He won his second MVP in 1991 as a 30 year-old, and was done as an elite player. From 1992 through 1996, he OPS+’d 98. He played out the string at Third with a 95 OPS+.
90 WAR career
How many ballplayers in history have more?
“tremendously overrated” is not an accurate statement. He was definitely an all-time great.
Buy RED: My Uncensored Life in Rock by Sammy Hagar, today
Yeah, a 98 OPS+ over 5 years as a SS is not underwhelming.
If he were a really good defensive SS during that time, he could still have been an elite player.
Tremendously overrated is too strong. Slightly overrated perhaps, but universally beloved, which is a different thing entirely.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
I think it's more that he was one of the best players of the 80s
and just kinda strung along solidly in the 90s. It’s very similar to Derek Jeter in that regard.
"You said 'walks' twice."
"I like walks."
by Cy Schourek on Jan 14, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that plus the whole "universally beloved" thing
After ‘91 he was living off his reputation for another ten years. He was elected to start the All-Star Game through ’99, well after his best days. Guys like John Valentin and Travis Fryman passed him, but Ripken lucked out that a true SS star didn’t emerge in the AL until ’96, his last year at the position. Ripken also got some MVP votes in the ’90s despite fairly pedestrian numbers.
I don’t know if you remember the fawning over Ripken during The Streak, but it got to be nauseating. He was credited far and wide with resurrecting the nation’s love of baseball. Bullshit. Baseball regained its popularity post-strike by the Yankees’ renaissance and especially the home run races. The only people who cared about The Streak were O’s fans and the media.
While all this is true
that doesn’t diminish that he was probably the best the ’80s had to offer.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Jan 14, 2012 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
Ken mentioned it above
But ‘91 was his best season, and by a few metrics, it’s one of the best seasons of all time
The secret, is to hit the computer with a hammer
Can't really go wrong with any of these guys...
Barry alongside other SS greats…
Trying to pull off "having no money and talking to no one" as well as the Reds have.
by badenjr on Jan 13, 2012 1:24 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I was just fixin' to post something like that
But mine’s a bit different.
Did you realize that Cal Ripken had TWO seasons with higher WAR than A-Rod’s best season?!? Insane. I always thought of Ripken as just being an ironman, but he really brought the hammer.
Barry pretty much equals Jeter, offensively. Pretty clear he was a lot better defensively.
"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
By rate stats, Larkin is pretty close to Jeter offensively
but Jeter has had a better offensive career than Larkin, I don’t think it’s really too debatable, my friend.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
This isn't even what I posted!
to finish: Jeter pretty clearly has had a better offensive career than Larkin did. And I don’t think that’s too debatable, my friend.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
well, fine
But in my mind (and perhaps only there) Larkin was robbed of many at-bats by freak injuries and work stoppages. Had he had the opportunity, his rate stats were comparable, so his cumulative ones would have been comparable too.
"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
You can't exactly do that, bb
you know so, but you wanna praise Larkin. In your mind they were equal offensively, and that’s as real as anything else.
Also, that’s some weirdness what happened to my posts…
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
Yeah, the playing time difference is just too big to ignore
Still, it’s interesting to note how close the two are by rate. Larkin hit .295/.371/.444 for a 116 OPS+, Jeter’s currently at .313/.383/.449 for a 117 OPS+. Larkin’s edge with baserunning and especially defense probably make them a push.
stop bringing reality into this!
Larkin’s the SNAX, man!
Actually, I think that defense is a big part of it. They don’t have advanced metrics for Larkin’s time, and of course even the advanced metrics are suspect. But there’s general agreement that Larkin was above average, and Jeter has been a wooden post for most of his career.
"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
He's playing the field.
And his game has slipped.
But he’s still a five tool player.
How about you agree to waive the fine and I promise not to email you the remaining eighty six photos of my dog dressed as a bear.
by Fat Vegas Alan on Jan 15, 2012 10:31 PM EST up reply actions
Honus Wagner didn't get good until he was 30
Dude must have been on ’roids!! Throw him out of the Hall!
"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
Old gal in the pic with Barry looks like Walt in drag.
How about you agree to waive the fine and I promise not to email you the remaining eighty six photos of my dog dressed as a bear.
by Fat Vegas Alan on Jan 13, 2012 3:04 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Barry Larkin
5th in SS WAR
1st in my heart
by Charlie Scrabbles on Jan 13, 2012 3:10 PM EST reply actions
Second in your heart?
Mookie Wilson.
by Cuetotally Amazing on Jan 13, 2012 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
When people say that Barry didn't have the peak or didn't have the value to be a HOFer
it really goes to prove how true all-around talents get underappreciated in the mainstream. If you don’t do anything spectacular, but do everything way above average, you are guaranteed to be underrated, I think.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
.

How about you agree to waive the fine and I promise not to email you the remaining eighty six photos of my dog dressed as a bear.
by Fat Vegas Alan on Jan 13, 2012 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think his durability quotient impacted that as well
Buy RED: My Uncensored Life in Rock by Sammy Hagar, today
by obc2 on Jan 14, 2012 8:12 AM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
you are right
but despite the durability issues, he’s a top-10 SS all time, if not top-5. No one thinks of him that way though because of how he accumulated his value.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
Who did not vote for Barry?
Is there a voter out there who has publically said they did not vote him? 70 writers did not put Barry Larkin on their ballot.
Who are these people and what is their argument…
Barry" HOFer"
Barry, in my list, would be right there with Cal at a tie for # 1. Not to take away from any of the other SS on the list but Barry and Cal are the only ones that could hit todays pitchers. Put even “The Babe” up against modern fireballers of the modern era and the game has just changed too much….
This is a question that has always driven me nuts
How good would the old-timers be if you plopped them into today’s game (in their primes)? It’s something we’ll never know the answer to, I guess.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
On the other hand, how good would Roger Clemens have been if he had pitched 500-600 innings a year?
by Cuetotally Amazing on Jan 15, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
Given the diet and training back then, that's not completely fair to the old-timers
Though they certainly had less competition for jobs back then. A tough question for sure.






























