Alomar or Larkin?? - Page 2 - Hardball Dynasty

Posts: 1970 (0)

Hall of Famer

90 1 58 77

Prospect

In their primes, both were great players. Larkin was the best NL SS during his time and, when healthy, you could argue he was the best SS in the ML. Alomar was the best AL 2B during his time and you could argue the best 2B in the ML.

Both were great baserunners, and their hitting rate numbers are similar. They have the same OPS+. Each made 12 All-Star games. Larkin has 9 silver sluggers and 3 gold gloves. Alomar has 10 gold gloves and 4 silver sluggers.

162 game averages
.300/.371/.443., 103 runs, 34 2B, 5 3B, 14 HR, 77 RBI, 32/40 SB
.295/.371/.444, 99 runs, 33 2B, 6 3B, 15 HR, 71 RBI, 28/34 SB

Pretty damn similar, but when push comes to shove, I have to take Alomar because he was the much more reliable player since he managed to avoid injuries (or play through them, or whatever). Larkin played 130+ games 8 times in 19 years. Alomar did it 14 times in 17 years.

It's a closer call than I'd have expected, but I have to give the nod to Alomar. On a more anecdotal level, there was a time (circa 2001), when people could legitimately make an argument that Alomar was among the very best 2B to ever play the game, at least in the modern era (to exclude Hornsby). Such discussions ceased, of course, when his career fell off the cliff in NY. As much as I like Larkin, I can't recall anyone making a similar case for him at SS.

And, finally, is no one going to question the "SS get way more chances" stuff that keeps getting thrown out here? We're talking about baseball here - they keep track of such things. For his career, Alomar's RF/9 at 2B is 4.97; Larkin's at SS is 4.62. Yes, different leagues for much of the career, but just take a look at the league-wide RF/9 for the positions of SS/2B, in either league and you'll find the same thing.

1/7/2010 1:10 PM

disaacs

Posts: 223 (0)

Hall of Famer

18 88 94

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 1/07/2010
Larkin hit better than Ozzie by a bigger margin than Ozzie fielded better than Larkin.

I disagree with that as well. Larkin was a good hitter for a SS, but he didn't have nearly the range nor the fielding ability that Ozzie Smith had. Ozzie was a once in a generation-type defensive SS. Barry Larkin was a good SS, not a great one.

And the 3 GGs that Larkin won were towards the end of Smith's career, when he lost a lot of the range he had. In his prime, Smith was a far superior defender than Larkin was when he was in his prime.

But, on topic, still, if you compare Larkin and Alomar, I'd still give the significant advantage to Alomar.

1/7/2010 1:14 PM

jjboogie

Posts: 48 (0)

Hall of Famer

72 6

Prospect

for what it's worth, i am not a big fan of the 162 game average as it can really discredit the peak year runs that players have - especially if they started their career slow or ended it poorly. there's some value there sure.

and not saying sticking too long shouldn't hurt a guy - but if the question is who do you want to base your franchise around - I tend to look at their 3, 5 and 7 best seasons

Alomar's 3 best years:

.323avg, 120rbi, 24 HR, 138r, 37sb, .955OPS
.336avg, 100rbi, 20 HR, 113r, 30sb, .956OPS and 12 triples
.328avg, 94rbi, 22 HR, 132r, .938OPS

he batted over .300 9 times in 10 years, typically had 30 and even 40 doubles, scored over 100 runs 6 times, and over 180 hits 7 times

there are 4-5 other seasons that are really good - close to, but not quite as good as those 3 above

Larkin's peak years don't come close in Runs, RBIs, hits, OPS, and even HRs (with exception of two good Larkin years)

i think you can discount some of the discrepancy when considering Larkin was a SS after all - and the Jays had some pretty potent teams at the plate too

still - if you take the 5-7 best years at the plate, Alomar - to me at least - was a noticeably better hitter

one final point - hindsight is 20/20 and someone mentioned this earlier i think - but there's a pretty big health difference between these guys too

Alomar was good for 140+ games 13 times

Larkin - only 140+ games 7 times

that's nearly twice as many seasons to Alomar's advantage

1/7/2010 2:53 PM

erffdogg

Posts: 0 (0)

Hall of Famer

57 1 114

Prospect

Quote: Originally posted by leyenda on 1/07/2010alomar has aids.

great first post

1/7/2010 3:14 PM

iain

Posts: 1864 (0)

Hall of Famer

35 1 1 18 1 278

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/07/2010Insanity. Larkin was the best NL SS, and arguably the best ML SS, for many years.

Alomar was the best 2B for his generation, bar none.

Best player on back-to-back World Series champions.

A pile of Gold Gloves, with a top notch bat to boot.

If Robbie had played his prime in a major US market, he have been a 1st ballot HOFer.

1/7/2010 3:35 PM

iain

Posts: 1864 (0)

Hall of Famer

35 1 1 18 1 278

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By zbrent716 on 1/07/2010
In their primes, both were great players. Larkin was the best NL SS during his time and, when healthy, you could argue he was the best SS in the ML. Alomar was the best AL 2B during his time and you could argue the best 2B in the ML.

Both were great baserunners, and their hitting rate numbers are similar. They have the same OPS+. Each made 12 All-Star games. Larkin has 9 silver sluggers and 3 gold gloves. Alomar has 10 gold gloves and 4 silver sluggers.

162 game averages
.300/.371/.443., 103 runs, 34 2B, 5 3B, 14 HR, 77 RBI, 32/40 SB
.295/.371/.444, 99 runs, 33 2B, 6 3B, 15 HR, 71 RBI, 28/34 SB

Pretty damn similar, but when push comes to shove, I have to take Alomar because he was the much more reliable player since he managed to avoid injuries (or play through them, or whatever). Larkin played 130+ games 8 times in 19 years. Alomar did it 14 times in 17 years.

It's a closer call than I'd have expected, but I have to give the nod to Alomar. On a more anecdotal level, there was a time (circa 2001), when people could legitimately make an argument that Alomar was among the very best 2B to ever play the game, at least in the modern era (to exclude Hornsby). Such discussions ceased, of course, when his career fell off the cliff in NY. As much as I like Larkin, I can't recall anyone making a similar case for him at SS.

And, finally, is no one going to question the "SS get way more chances" stuff that keeps getting thrown out here? We're talking about baseball here - they keep track of such things. For his career, Alomar's RF/9 at 2B is 4.97; Larkin's at SS is 4.62. Yes, different leagues for much of the career, but just take a look at the league-wide RF/9 for the positions of SS/2B, in either league and you'll find the same thing.

...exactly.

If he had his prime as a Met, and stank the joint out as a Blue Jay, he'd be their rebuttal to Jeter.

1/7/2010 3:38 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 1/07/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/07/2010
Insanity. Larkin was the best NL SS, and arguably the best ML SS, for many years.
Alomar was the best 2B for his generation, bar none.

Best player on back-to-back World Series champions.

A pile of Gold Gloves, with a top notch bat to boot.

If Robbie had played his prime in a major US market, he have been a 1st ballot HOFer.

Incorrect. It's not like people don't know who he is. Or that he played largely unrecognized for most of his career. He spit in an ump's face. Otherwise, he's first ballot.

But that wasn't the question. The question was "Starting a franchise from scratch, do you take Larkin or Alomar?" You take Larkin because teams have proven they can play Jeff Kent at 2B and win. Their hitting is similar and SS is more important in the field.

1/7/2010 4:07 PM

jsturgis5866

Posts: 528 (0)

Hall of Famer

196 31 1 1 225

Prospect

Spitting didn't keep Gaylord Perry out of the Hall, but then he didn't do it in umps' faces. In *front" of their faces, but not *in* them.

I like both players a lot, but I'd take Larkin, too, simply because I'd take a shortstop, everything else being equal.

1/7/2010 4:14 PM

shobob

Posts: 3403 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 370

Prospect

spitting

1/7/2010 5:08 PM

gjello10

Posts: 164 (0)

All Star

6 26

Prospect

I go with Larkin (though both should have been 1st ballot guys in my opinion) for 2 reasons:

(1) I think you guys are discounting how much more difficult it was for Larkin to put up those numbers in the NL, and with a worse lineup around him for most of his career.

(2) The Value-Above-Replacement of Larkin's offense was among the highest in baseball for most of his career. It's just so much easier for a good GM to fill that 2B spot with a soild-or-better bat than the SS spot.

1/7/2010 5:34 PM

travisg

Posts: 2146 (0)

Hall of Famer

11 268

Prospect

Larkin (doy). Jayson Stark makes the case:

Larkin's career batting average -- over 19 seasons, remember -- was .295. The average shortstop in that time hit .256. That's a difference of 39 points -- or 15 percent.

Larkin's career on-base percentage was .371. The average shortstop's OBP was .317. So Larkin beat that by 54 points -- or 17 percent.

Larkin's career slugging percentage was .444. The average shortstop slugged .361. So that's an 83-point gap -- or 23 percent.

And that brings us to OPS. Larkin (.815) was 137 points -- or 20 percent -- better than the average shortstop of his time (.678). The only two shortstops in the past 35 years who had an OPS that much better than the rest of their generation were A-Rod (31 percent) and Nomar Garciaparra (25 percent). But both of them moved to other positions before end-of-career declines shrunk those gaps.

All right, let's spring a little quiz on you: What names weren't on that list? How about Ripken's, for starters? He beat the average by "only" 18 percent. Other names you didn't find: How about Robin Yount, Alan Trammell, Miguel Tejada and Ozzie himself? Perhaps you've heard of them.

The next-closest National League shortstop? That was Concepcion -- who outperformed the competition by only 8 percent. So friends, there's only one word for how Barry Larkin compared to the other shortstops of his time: Domination.

1/7/2010 5:53 PM

travisg

Posts: 2146 (0)

Hall of Famer

11 268

Prospect

Another stat:

Larkin was so good for so long, he created 488 more runs during his career than the average shortstop, according to one of my favorite inventions -- Lee Sinins' Complete Baseball Encyclopedia. Know where that ranks in the history of baseball?

How about fourth -- behind only Honus Wagner, Arky Vaughan and Derek Jeter, who just passed Larkin this year. Among shortstops who started their careers since the end of World War II, just seven other men even got halfway to 488.

1/7/2010 5:57 PM

iain

Posts: 1864 (0)

Hall of Famer

35 1 1 18 1 278

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/07/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 1/07/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/07/2010
Insanity. Larkin was the best NL SS, and arguably the best ML SS, for many years.
Alomar was the best 2B for his generation, bar none.

Best player on back-to-back World Series champions.

A pile of Gold Gloves, with a top notch bat to boot.

If Robbie had played his prime in a major US market, he have been a 1st ballot HOFer.

Incorrect. It's not like people don't know who he is. Or that he played largely unrecognized for most of his career. He spit in an ump's face. Otherwise, he's first ballot.

But that wasn't the question. The question was "Starting a franchise from scratch, do you take Larkin or Alomar?" You take Larkin because teams have proven they can play Jeff Kent at 2B and win. Their hitting is similar and SS is more important in the field.

I'll concede the spitting thing. That's probably it.... but hyperbole's more fun, isn't it?

But I'd argue that Alomar won two WS with the likes of Manny Freakin' Lee and Tony Fernandez (hardly in the class of Kent) turning double plays with him.

1/7/2010 6:01 PM

rls1

Posts: 2304 (2)

Hall of Famer

322 1 124 145

Rookie

Quote:

It's a closer call than I'd have expected, but I have to give the nod to Alomar. On a more anecdotal level, there was a time (circa 2001), when people could legitimately make an argument that Alomar was among the very best 2B to ever play the game, at least in the modern era (to exclude Hornsby). Such discussions ceased, of course, when his career fell off the cliff in NY. As much as I like Larkin, I can't recall anyone making a similar case for him at SS.

let's ask Joe Morgan what he thinks of this.

1/7/2010 7:40 PM

jjboogie

Posts: 48 (0)

Hall of Famer

72 6

Prospect

i would take Alomar over Morgan any day to be honest

1/7/2010 8:17 PM

Forums

Alomar or Larkin?? Topic

Search Criteria