Barry Larkin Voted Into Cooperstown

[dabuddha]

You know you're getting old when players you watched as a kid are getting into the HOF.

That was my first thought lol :/

 

[paperfist]

How does Larkin get in but not Mattingly?

Mattingly
GP=1785 AB=7003 R=1007 H=2153 2B=442 3B=20 HR=222 RBI=1099 BB=588 SO=444 SB=14 CS=9 AVG=.307 OBP=.358 SLG=.471 OPS= .829

Larkin
GP=2180 AB= 7937 R=1329 H=2340 2B=441 3B=76 HR=198 RBI=960 BB=939 SO=817 SB=379 CS=77 ABG=.295 OBP=.371 SLG=.444 OPS=.815

 

[foghorn67]

You know you're getting old when players you watched as a kid are getting into the HOF.

oh, fuck no. I'm denying that feeling.

 

[SP33Demon]

How does Larkin get in but not Mattingly?

Mattingly
GP=1785 AB=7003 R=1007 H=2153 2B=442 3B=20 HR=222 RBI=1099 BB=588 SO=444 SB=14 CS=9 AVG=.307 OBP=.358 SLG=.471 OPS= .829

Larkin
GP=2180 AB= 7937 R=1329 H=2340 2B=441 3B=76 HR=198 RBI=960 BB=939 SO=817 SB=379 CS=77 ABG=.295 OBP=.371 SLG=.444 OPS=.815

Dude, that speed difference is huge! Mattingly wasn't a threat to steal, which adds another "tool" to Larkin's arsenal. If we look at WAR values, how many times was Larkin 4.0 or higher WAR vs Mattingly? Roughly 9 times to 4 (or 10 to 5 if you want to count 3.9 for each). Total WAR for Larkin, 68.9 vs Mattingly's 39.8, this is especially obvious when you focus on "replacement" by position for that era. A slugging first baseman like Mattingly wasn't rare, but who could hit for power and average and speed at shortstop like Larkin? Very few for that era.

Range Factor, both finished 1st at their position 2-3 times (depending on /game or /9 innings), with Mattingly having a better fielding percentage. However, Larkin played a tougher position so that is a moot point. I put more value on Range (ability to get to a ball) vs their peers since it's different positions. All in all, Mattingly in total def WAR edges out Larkin 3.1 to 2.3 which may as well be a push.

Batting wise, Mattingly did have a higher OPS+ (127 to 116). However, Mattingly only surpassed this average 6 times, but Larkin passed it 7 times (and another very close @124). The main difference is that Mattingly had a steeper dropoff from his monster years whereas Larkin did it for a couple seasons longer with consistency. Also, Larkin finished in the top 10 Power/Speed#, 3 times and Mattingly 0. It shows in Offensive WAR too: 5 top 10 finishes for Larkin, 4 for Mattingly. That speed also translates to Top 10 finishes in Runs scored for Larkin: 4, 3 for Mattingly. Top 10 finishes in Stolen Bases: Larkin 5, Mattingly 0.

In a nutshell, Larkin played a harder position with just as much range as Mattingly with around double the length of offensive prime (10 years to 5) where speed is the decisive distinguishing factor. Had Mattingly had speed, he would definitely be in the Hall but as a middle of the order slugger, he simply did not play long enough to amass the numbers to make up for it.

 

[Perknose]

How does Larkin get in but not Mattingly?

Mattingly
GP=1785 AB=7003 R=1007 H=2153 2B=442 3B=20 HR=222 RBI=1099 BB=588 SO=444 SB=14 CS=9 AVG=.307 OBP=.358 SLG=.471 OPS= .829

Larkin
GP=2180 AB= 7937 R=1329 H=2340 2B=441 3B=76 HR=198 RBI=960 BB=939 SO=817 SB=379 CS=77 ABG=.295 OBP=.371 SLG=.444 OPS=.815

1B is universally considered the least important defensive position. You had better produce offensively at 1B, and with power.

SS is considered either the most important defensive position, or the second most behind catcher. That's why you see so many backup catchers and utility infielders stick in the bigs even though they struggle to stay above the Mendoza line.

Yes, Mattingly was a great defensive first baseman. However, this is so far less crucial than Larkin's defensive prowess at SS that its not even funny.

If you have the time and energy and desire, read this entire sabermetric article, which, while about catchers, will give you a good idea of why Barry Larkin's production at SS was far more important than Don Mattingly's production at 1B.

Perhaps the better question is why aren't you touting John Olerud, who arguably had a much better career than Mattingly did?

In terms of career WAR, Mattingly finished at 39.8 while Olerud finished at 56.8. Olerud had about 17% more plate appearances than Mattingly, but had about 43% higher WAR, which I think makes a pretty clear case that Olerud had the more productive career.

[...]

Olerud also had higher individual WAR seasons. His 1993 and 1998 (8.2 and 8.1 WAR, respectively) were higher than any of Mattingly's individual seasons, the highest of which was 6.9 in 1986.

[...]

Olerud's years in Toronto may really hurt him here in terms of national recognition.

[...]

Both guys won multiple Gold Gloves and had good defensive reputations. Mattingly, widely regarded as one of the best first basemen of all time, finished with a dWAR of just 3.1 while Olerud's was 9.7.

Just saying. :whiste:

 

[paperfist]

Neither of them obtained typical magic Hall numbers like 500 HRs, .300++ AVG, 3,000 hits, etc.

I wasn't really trying to say Mattingly was vastly superior, but he's on par with what Larkin did minus the SBs, but he did so with almost 1,000 fewer ABs. It's not a stat, but considering the environment Mattingly played in should count for something.

At first glance Olerud looks like he's in the same mix as these two guys. Not really outstanding like a HoF guy should be, but pretty damn good.

 

[preslove]

Because I feel that the whole era was subpar. He was above-average in my opinion, not great. That's just what I think. There was Ripken, then everyone else.

Considering the idiotic, racist post you made in the Tebow, and the fact that Larkin was better than Ripken at defense, at bat, and at base stealing, I'm going to chock this ignorant comment up to the fact that you are a fucking racist.

Go away, mr. white trash.

 

[Chess]

Glad to see Larkin made it in

 

[preslove]

Neither of them obtained typical magic Hall numbers like 500 HRs, .300++ AVG, 3,000 hits, etc.

I wasn't really trying to say Mattingly was vastly superior, but he's on par with what Larkin did minus the SBs, but he did so with almost 1,000 fewer ABs. It's not a stat, but considering the environment Mattingly played in should count for something.

At first glance Olerud looks like he's in the same mix as these two guys. Not really outstanding like a HoF guy should be, but pretty damn good.

Uh... Don Mattingly and Olerud played first base. Comparing a First base player to a SS is pretty damn stupid. First base is where you stick a good/power hitter with a good glove, but who is too slow to play another position. SS has always been a defense-first position. The fact that Larkin's career BA is only .12 under Mattingly's is a very good speaks well for Larkin.

 

[umbrella39]

This recent article makes a strong case for Alan Trammell as well.

As stated here:

And for me, you can't mention SS Alan Trammell without mentioning his long-time infield partner, ROY and 5 time All Star 2B Lou Whitaker. They played together in the bigs for 18 years, and are arguably among the all time keystone combos in MLB history.

I have a TON more baseball respect for these two guys and their careers than I could ever have for some bloated steroid abuser and former headline grabber like Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire.

This. Trammell and Whitaker went out there and did their jobs with class and pretty darned good numbers for 18 years. At the very least, Trammell deserves the nod, only a few years left.