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.

Continue reading this post »

Today at 2:00, we'll find out whether Barry Larkin becomes a baseball immortal or if he has to wait another year. I've already expressed my cautious optimism on Barry's chances based on him being the top returning candidate. But there are a few other characters with him on the ballot worth mentioning. Below are my hypothetical choices, which include six "yes" votes in addition to Larkin. The "ahead in line" guys are better players who aren't in the Hall, while the "better than" crew is my stab at similar but inferior players who are already enshrined.

"YES"

Jeff Bagwell: 80 WAR, 2,150 games, .297/.408/.540, 149 OPS+.
His numbers are rock-solid, so let's get right to the PEDs issue. What we know about steroids as it pertains to Bagwell is: (1) he's a pretty big dude who displayed HOF power over a 15-year career; (2) he was not a ballyhooed minor league prospect; (3) there's no evidence whatsoever that he used; and (4) MLB did not test for PEDs until 2006, after Bagwell retired. The last point is easily the most important to me. While I'm not happy with the rampant use of steroids during the Selig Sillyball era, it's hypocritical to now punish players suspected of juicing when the league, players, media, corporate sponsors, fans - everybody - all willingly turned a blind eye to it. If voters want to ding those that have actually tested positive under the official program implemented in 2006, then fine. But withholding votes for the merely suspected players represents a discomforting whitewashing of baseball history. If I visit the Hall in ten years and guys like Bagwell and Barry Bonds aren't in the plaque room, it will feel disingenuous.

Ahead in line: Nobody. Bagwell is pretty clearly the best 1B not yet in the Hall, McGwire included.

Better than: Plenty, including Eddie Murray, Willie McCovey, and Tony Perez.

Alan Trammell: 67 WAR, 2,293 games, .285/.352/.415, 110 OPS+
You probably know that Trammell compares well with Larkin, falling just behind Barry in WAR (by two wins) and OPS+ (by six points). Trammell in fact comes up as the most similar player in baseball history on Larkin's bb-ref page. It's a mystery why he has done so poorly with the voters, but my guess is that stiffer competition during Trammell's prime made him look worse than he was. Larkin passed Ozzie Smith for good as the NL's best Shortstop around 1990 and didn't have a serious challenger for the rest of the decade. And from 1992 to 1996, Larkin was the best Shortstop in the game. Meanwhile, Trammell's peak (1980-1990) almost perfectly coincided with Cal Ripken Jr.'s (who won MVPs in 1983 and 1991). Through 1984, Trammell was also overshadowed by Robin Yount, the AL MVP in 1982.

One other point - Trammell finished his career much worse than Larkin. Larkin accumulated 32 WAR after turning 30, while Trammell tallied only 18. It's possible that Trammell's final, mediocre impressions haven't sat well with the writers.

Ahead in line: Nobody. And unless Trammell starts making a serious run in his last few years on the ballot, he'll remain the standard for Shortstops on the outside looking in.

Better than: Luis Aparicio, Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzuto, probably others.

Continue reading this post »

Barry Larkin is the top returning candidate on this year's Hall of Fame ballot. The writers have elected at least one player in every year since 1996. So this must mean that Larkin's getting elected, right?

Well, I hope so. Larkin appeared on 62.1% of the ballots last year, up from 51.5% in his 2010 debut. Getting another 13% is certainly attainable and perhaps even likely, but it's far from certain. Here's what's going in his favor:

• He's incredibly well-qualified. You probably agree if you're reading this blog, but if you're looking for a robust, objective analysis, JinAZ made a strong case here.
• He was recognized as a great player during his career. Some players are diamonds in the rough who generate interesting HOF discussions because they were much more valuable than their lack of All-Star Game appearances and postseason hardware suggest (see Tim Raines). Larkin is not one of those cases. He made the All-Star Game twelve times, won nine Silver Sluggers, three Gold Gloves, and an MVP. That's a pretty good indication that he was correctly recognized as among the best for a very long time. Interestingly, no eligible player picked for at least 12 NL all-star teams has failed to make the HOF.
• Much of the HOF dialogue should focus on Larkin because he is the top returning candidate and the only one with a puncher's chance of enshrinement this ballot cycle. This is key for Larkin, since he did many things well but nothing that screamed "Hall of Famer" (like Tony Gwynn's batting average, or Ozzie Smith's defense). Last year, Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe wrote that he changed his vote to a "yes" for Larkin, an "acquired taste for me because he is not the kind of player you automatically ascribe Hall of Fame status to. Some voters believe that if you have to think about it, the player isn't worthy. But we owe it to the process to think about it.... From 1986-2004, Larkin was pretty much the most productive shortstop in all of baseball. That's a long time at a premium position." Hopefully other writers give it some thought and reach the inevitable conclusion that Larkin, among the ten best Shortstops in the game's history, is a no-brainer.
• The writers' HOF ballot this year is particularly weak. After Larkin, the top returning candidate is Jack Morris with 53.5%. I don't see much growth for Morris because he seems to be a litmus test on pitcher clutchiness, the kind of guy people have a strong opinion about one way or the other. The top debut on the ballot is Bernie Williams, a very good outfielder before he fell off a cliff in his early 30s. You might think he'll get a bump as a True Yankee, but that sure hasn't helped Don Mattingly. As I mentioned above, the writers are known for agreeing on at least one guy. They haven't pitched a shutout since 1996, when Phil Niekro topped the balloting with 68%.

via farm8.staticflickr.com

Continue reading this post »

Last week, Joe Posnanski blogged about the use of the Designated Hitter in World Series.  One of the takeaways is that since the DH was first alternated by home park in 1986, NL teams have scored shockingly fewer runs in AL parks (4.15 at home versus 3.4 on the road).   You would think that designating your fourth outfielder or backup firstbaseman to bat instead of your pitcher would boost the NL's offense in World Series play, but that generally hasn't been the case.  The Reds have had mixed success at the DH but they've also won all eight WS games in the DH era, so it hasn't exactly been to their detriment:

1976 was the first World Series that used the DH.  From then through 1985 the DH alternated by year, so that it was used in both parks only in even-numbered years.  Thus the BRM had to use a DH at home and on the road when they defended their crown.  Of course, that team was so deep that finding a capable hitter beyond the Great 8 wasn't a problem.  The 24 year-old Driessen was the obvious choice as a defensively limited player with a career 113 OPS+ up to that time. Though he may have been a turd in Sparky's eye, Driessen was one of several Reds to smoke the ball in the WS, leading the team to a sweep and an aggregate run differential of 22 to 8.  I wonder if Driessen's WS performance gave the team a slight push towards trading 35 year-old Tony Perez, who'd been rumored as trade bait for years.  The Reds dealt Perez that December to Montreal with Will McEnaney for Woodie Fryman and Dale Murray, who combined to give the Reds about 200 well below-average innings in a little more than a year.  

There was no single obvious choice for the Reds' DH in 1990, which featured a more traditional "National League" roster built on pitching, defense and speed.  Lou Piniella tabbed Hal Morris, normally his starting 1B, as the DH.  In the process of gaining a defensive edge at 1B by using Todd Benzinger, Piniella passed over Glenn Braggs as a potential DH.  The decision to play Benzinger over Braggs seems curious now.  Both were 27, but Braggs had about a 30-point OPS advantage in his career and had played exceptionally well (123 OPS+) after arriving in Cincinnati that June.  He was presumably familiar with the A's staff after having spent his entire career in Milwaukee up to the trade.  Meanwhile, Benzinger had endured a particularly bad offensive year in 1990, hitting .253/.291/.340.  He was a switch-hitter but without a pronounced platoon advantage.  And he certainly lacked Braggs' raw power and intimidating physique.

Regardless of the rationale, Piniella's decision worked out beautifully.  Benzinger went 2 for 5 in game 3, though it didn't really matter since the Reds took the game easily after scoring seven runs in the third.  But having Braggs on the bench in Game 4 would prove to be a lifesaver.  As Slyde has pointed out, the Reds ran into serious trouble early in Game 4 when injuries forced out both Eric Davis and Billy Hatcher.  Piniella had little choice but to use his only remaining outfielders, Herm Winningham and Braggs, in center and left.  The Reds were mostly able to hold serve during the game and found themselves down 1-0 entering the eighth.  They then loaded the bases with no outs and Braggs and Morris due up.  Both sacrificed in a run to tally the deciding runs of the game and series. 

Continue reading this post »

"That was probably one of the longest home runs I've seen in a very long time," said Dusty Baker.  Juan Francisco violently jerked a low Rodrigio Lopez fastball in the second inning on Monday, depositing the ball some 502 feet away.  The ball easily cleared the RF wall, then the bleachers, and then the moon deck.  There's already controversy about the precise length of Juan's blast - 482 feet according to Hit Tracker.  But for now I'm comfortable saying Francisco's shot is just the second 500-footer in GABP history.  

Uncertainty and controversy over home run length is certainly nothing new.  Part of the game's draw is its equal connection to fact-based history and myth.  We're happy to see our hitters channel Ted Williams and pitchers emmulate Bob Gibson, but who we really want to see are Roy Hobbs and Sidd Finch.  The Reds have seen and hit their own share of towering and possibly exaggerated long balls, though none to my knowledge have short-circuited the stadium's lighting system.  Since home run distance is not one of those numbers that you can investigate in a central repository like baseball-reference.com, the below list of pre-GABP mythic round-trippers is almost certainly incomplete.  Let me know what jaw-droppers I've omitted.   Also, check out the video of Jimmy Wynn's shot - that thing sailed.   

Date	Hitter	Distance	Opponent	Notes
5/5/00	Mark McGwire	473	Reds	Longest Riverfront HR, per Wiki*
5/13/93	Kevin Mitchell	-	Padres	Hit 2 HRs in the red and yellow seats
8/11/70	Tony Perez	-	Mets	1st Riverfront red seat HR
6/11/67	Jimmy Wynn	-	Reds	Over the Crosley LF scoreboard, on I-75
4/14/61	Wally Post	569 (!)	@ St. L	Off the Budweiser sign atop the St. L scoreboard
Unk.	Ernie Lombardi	30 miles	Unk.	Ball landed in and was carried by a moving truck

Continue reading this post »

Happy Hall of Fame weekend!  On Sunday, the Hall inducts Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven and Pat Gillick.  Twenty-five years ago, the bronze plaque of former Reds Catcher Ernie Lombardi was placed along side the other immortals of the game.  In honor of the silver anniversary of his induction, here are 25 fun and not-so-fun facts about the Catcher they called the "Schnoz," "Lumbago," and plenty of other nicknames.   

1. Ernesto Natali Lombardi  was born on April 6, 1908 in Oakland, California.  His parents ran an Italian grocery store.  He excelled in bocce.  At 12, he played baseball for Ravioli's Meat Market.  It is difficult to imagine a more quintessentially Italian-American upbringing.
   
   
2. "Bocci" was a very large man, particularly for his position and the era.  He was listed at 6'3", 230 lbs. but was closer to 300 in his later playing days.  Only two other catchers even approached Lombardi in physical stature in the first half of the 20th century.  One of them, Larry McLean, caught for the Reds for seven years in the teens.
   
   
3. He was infamously slow.  And not just catcher-slow, but s  l  o  w  slow.   Arthur Daley of the NYT once noted that Lombardi "ran on a treadmill and couldn't outrace a snail, even with a headstart."  Bill James said Lombardi's "center of gravity was four feet behind him."

  
Big bat, big hands, big lungs.

Continue reading this post »