I recall Larkin being great but hurt all the time. I'm surprised to look back and see he played 19 seasons. Looks like he did miss a lot of time - averaged less than 115 games and less than 500 PA per year.

oops, looks like zbrent already brought that up.

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

I'll never figure out why anyone thinks that someone being the best of a mediocre group somehow qualifies them for sainthood. Answer me this: who would you rather have on your team, Rabbit Maranville (almost indisputably the greatest SS of his era) or Fred McGriff (who didn't even sniff the Hall of Fame this year and was maybe in the top 10-15 first basemen during his era)? Just because a guy was better than his competition doesn't make him any good.

Good point. Larkin sucked. Couldn't play a bit. No idea how he stuck around.

Or.....you can only compare players to their contemporaries. 40 homers in 2000 doesn't compare to 40 homers in 1973. Therefore, all 40 homer hitters weren't the same. So, since I can't transfer Rabbit Maranville to 1998, I'll have to guess if he's HOF-worthy.

Quote: Originally Posted By jjboogie on 1/07/2010i would take Alomar over Morgan any day to be honest

I would have agreed in 1993, since Alomar was having an MVP-caliber season and Morgan was 50 years old and saying stupid things on ESPN... seriously, it's not close between Morgan and Alomar. Morgan is the best 2B of all time, including Hornsby.

Alomar and Larkin are very similar caliber players at two key positions-- but Larkin's position is more key. I'd take him over Alomar.

Slight edge to Alomar, but I'll take Tim Raines over either

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

dedelman - i have a hard time conceding Morgan as the best 2B ever - although some people would agree with you.

i think hornsby probably takes the prize - although i think his defense is a bit of an factor that hurts him

that said, what's your case Morgan is better than Alomar?

in my opinion Alomar was the better defender - i think you would be hard pressed to find a better defender than Alomar at the position ever really

so if we compare offensive numbers - they were both different types of players at the plate but i don't see either of them having a clear advantage over the other

some of it depends on what you value because there are some areas where one was definitely better than the other

but comparing the two side by side and best seasons by best seasons i don't see a clear winner

i think you could say Morgan was better in areas that are harder to find (BBs, SBs, OBP) but i just don't see the areas he was better in offsetting the areas Alomar was better in (AVG. defensively, hits per season)

convince me why it's not even a close call - i just don't see it but am open to listening

What does this have to do with HBD? Assholes.

ozzie smith's .650 OPS: fail. he was essentially Adam Everett. only romanticized by back flips and a cool nickname. i'd take the slight downgrade in fielding for Larkin's 800 OPS.

They did play in different times. Ozzie's OPS+ won't impress anyone at 87 but Everett's is 67. Ozzie also has 13 more Gold Gloves and 500+ more SB. Not exactly the same.

Speaking of OPS+-- jj, here are Alomar's 5 best OPS+ numbers: 150, 141, 139, 136, 131. Joe Morgan: 187, 169, 159, 154, 149.

Alomar was a sick percentage basestealer, right? 474 for 588, or 80.6%. Morgan? 689 for 851, or 80.9%.

Alomar was a little better fielder-- but both reporters of the time and metrics indicate that Morgan was a top fielder at 2B as well; 10 Gold Gloves to 5 is hardly a huge difference. Morgan's also got the 2 MVPs...

The point isn't that Alomar sucked. Biggio and Alomar, not necessarily in that order, are probably the 4th and 5th best 2B of all time, arguably better than Sandberg and Gehringer and Lajoie, among others. But Morgan, Hornsby, and Eddie Collins, in my opinion in that order (but it's clearly arguable) are measurably ahead of the rest of the field.

Quote: Originally Posted By zbrent716 on 1/08/2010Don't want to hijack the thread, but Morgan over Hornsby? You need to go check out exactly what Hornsby did with the bat. He's one of the greatest hitters of all-time, regardless of position. Morgan may or may not be the second best 2B ever, but he couldn't hold Hornsby's jockstrap

Dude, Morgan could hold, and throw, and get to, most anything. It's Hornsby who would have dropped Morgan's jockstrap, or just watched it roll into right field...

Seriously? Hornsby was no doubt a better hitter than Morgan-- the 4 OPS+ > 200 don't lie. But it's close than you think, given the offensive stats of their eras. And Hornsby really was a LF trying to fake it at 2B...

Using advanced metrics like WARP (Baseball Prospectus) or Win Shares and trying to balance the offense and the defense, Morgan and Hornsby grade out about the same over their careers. James takes Morgan over Hornsby but it's mostly because he dislikes Hornsby as a person; BP likes Hornsby but it's within the margin of error.

I'd take Morgan because I tend to think that in general, we underrate how much more competitive the game has become over time. That's just my opinion, but I think I'm on pretty solid ground when I argue that Morgan could at least hold Hornsby's jockstrap.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.