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

Alomar

I think Larkin was among the best to ever play at SS.. The point has been established by many in this thread.. I feel Larkin was just overshadowed in general compared to the rest of the stars of the time.. On his own team even with the "Nasty Boy" thing going on... So many guys on the Reds at the time were pretty good players and contributed enough to make Larkin get lost in the mix to most "Casual" baseball fans..

A) I think a problem for Larkin is that, for much of the rest of the country, there's a part of the back of our minds that just says "If it took place in Cincinatti, it must be crap." If he had played in, say, San Francisco, he'd be a legend.



B) As to the Hornsby/Morgan debate, I think the pro-Morgan crowd is resting its argument primarily on one thing: If Hornsby wouldn't be a 2B in today's game, it's hard to call him the best 2B ever. And whether old Rogers could handle 2B is an unanswerable question, really.



Additionally, I would add that OPS+, while it does attempt to measure offense against contemporaries and across time, I have seen some argument that it does a poor job of really accounting for the dead-ball period of the 70's and early 80's, before they lowered the mound. Joe Morgan was more feared by his contemporaries than his stats would indicate.

Quote: Originally posted by gjello10 on 1/10/2010<snip>

Additionally, I would add that OPS+, while it does attempt to measure offense against contemporaries and across time, I have seen some argument that it does a poor job of really accounting for the dead-ball period of the 70's and early 80's, before they lowered the mound.  Joe Morgan was more feared by his contemporaries than his stats would indicate.

The mound was lowered in 1969, and Morgan had only 3 full seasons prior to 1969. OK seasons, but nothing really special. It wasn't until 1972 that his bat really took the leap forward that has him considered among the best ever at 2B.

Quote: Originally Posted By zbrent716 on 1/09/2010The cool thing about OPS+ is that (in addition to factoring in ballpark) it compares a player to his contemporaries. As hitters, they simply aren't close. You mentioned Hornsby's 4 seasons of an OPS+ of 200+, but I think you underestimate how impressive that is. For example, Ty Cobb - a fantastic hitter - had only 3 such seasons. Stan Musial did it once. Joe Dimaggio never did it.

This is a fair comment Two counters: (1) Morgan had a lot of offensive value not captured by OPS+ in his basestealing, and (2) as play gets better, the standard deviation of the quality of players goes down; that almost defines better quality of play. Restated, the quality of replacement value comes up more as leagues get stronger, as compared to the quality of superstars. So it's somewhat easier to dramatically outplay your colleagues in a weaker league than a stronger league.

I actually agree that just at the plate, not on the bases or in the field, Hornsby was a top 5 player, probably 4th behind Ruth, Bonds, and Williams. I'm not just convinced it makes him a clearly better overall player than Morgan.

Quote: Originally posted by gjello10 on 1/10/2010
I think a problem for Larkin is that, for much of the rest of the country, there's a part of the back of our minds that just says "If it took place in Cincinatti, it must be crap."  If he had played in, say, San Francisco, he'd be a legend.

Hey, I'm from Cincinnati! Is this really what you people think about us???

But your larger point re: Larkin's national reputation stands. Also, his prime was obscured by the strike era, when people were less interested in baseball, and took place between the age of the all-defense SS and offensive beasts like A-Rod and Nomah. He's terribly underappreciated – even here in Cincy.

Why does everyone make such a big deal about the spitting? What happened before and after the incident makes Alomar a HoF'er. Everyone has already talked about his numbers as a player and alot of people bring up the spitting incident. After that incident, when Alomar was playing for Cleveland, John Hirschbeck asked one of the Indians clubhouse attendants (who was a personal friend of Hirschbeck) what he thought of Alomar. The response was that he was one of the two nicest people he knew. The other was Hirschbeck himself. The next game Hirschbeck was umping 2nd base. As Alomar was running out to his position they struck up a conversation and to this day they are good friends. Alomar has since contributed significant amounts of money to an organization started by Hirschbeck after the death of his young son, who's death Alomar attributed to Hirschbeck losing his touch with the game of baseball.

If these two guys can get past this why in God's name are other people still holding it against Alomar? Seems to me the punishment does not fit the crime in this case. But then again, the media don't like to report on feel good stories like this, they prefer to report on stories like some idiot basketball player having guns in his locker, or another athlete driving drunk. For this very reason I will make the assumption that most of you on here did not even know Alomar and Hirschbeck have patched things up and are now very good friends.

Alomar over Larkin in a heartbeat.

And to the poster who said Larkin was better than Ozzie Smith, you are clearly not a baseball guy to make a statement like that. If Larkin ever makes the HoF, you can have that conversation, until then, it's not close.

I was aware that they had patched things up, but that doesn't excuse what a dispicable act that was!

I'm just not sure it's a good reason to keep him until the second ballot, but it's probably what did it.

The idea that we're talking about Alomar in the same category as Morgan should be enough of a point in and of itself.

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