Barry Larkin retires

[VPI97]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Shortstop Barry Larkin, a 12-time all-star who spent his entire 19-year career with the Cincinnati Reds, has retired and joined the Washington Nationals in their front office as a special assistant. "While his tasks and challenges will be different than he experienced as a player, Barry's presence coupled with an eagerness to be involved in all facets of our operations will undoubtedly yield positive results for both Barry and the Nationals," Washington general manager Jim Bowden said in a statement Sunday.

Larkin, in an Associated Press interview in late January, said he would like to play another season, but could not commit himself to play for anyone other than the Reds, his hometown team. The Reds had rejected his overtures to return for a 20th season, deciding to turn the position over to younger players.

Larkin, 40, said he had turned down offers to start for several other teams because he could not envision himself playing for a different club.

"I thought eventually I'd be able to say, yeah, I can do this," he said in the interview. "But I'm big on loyalty. I couldn't come to grips with making a 100-percent commitment (to another team)."

Larkin's 19-year tenure with the Reds was the longest streak among active players who had been with just one team.

Over 2,180 games, he hit .295 with 441 doubles, 76 triples, 198 home runs, 960 RBI and 379 stolen bases. He helped the team win the World Series in 1990 and was National League MVP in 1995.

Larkin batted .289 in 111 games last season and was chosen for his 12th All-Star team, prompting him to re-evaluate his decision to retire after 2004. He wanted to stay with the Reds for another season, but they decided to turn the position over to younger players.

Until Sunday's announcement, Larkin was managing a sports complex in Orlando, Fla., working in a development management group, spending time with his family and considering his options for playing one more season.

He long had dreamt of working in the Red's front office, but that chance disappeared when he and the team's chief operating officer, John Allen, clashed over a take-it-or-leave-it contract offer late in the 2003 season. Larkin was prepared to leave then; the team reconsidered and negotiated a one-year deal for 2004.

Bowden was the Reds' general manager from 1992-2003.

"I have long admired Barry's on- and off-field knowledge and judgment of the game," Bowden said.

In the Nationals' front office, Larkin is joining a former Reds' manager, Bob Boone, and teammate, pitcher Jose Rijo, as special assistants to Bowden.

Although, I would have liked for him to stay with the Reds in a front office position, it's good to see him go to Washington and be with Bowden, Boone & Rijo.


P.S. Fuck John Allen.

[korme]

Same sentiments here, VPI. Only player I've ever been able to really call a 'favorite' through childhood and all of my teenage years. Out of any sport, he is the player I will most miss now that his career is over.

Thanks for the memories Barry.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Although, I would have liked for him to stay with the Reds in a front office position, it's good to see him go to Washington and be with Bowden, Boone & Rijo.


P.S. Fuck John Allen.

Two interesting quotes from the article:

"I just felt it was time," Larkin said when reached Sunday at his home in Orlando, Fla. "I had some opportunities with other teams to play, but I didn't feel that I could make the commitment as a player with another team."

And:

Larkin, 40, said he had been interested in working in a team's front office and perhaps eventually managing a team and that his new position would allow him to gain necessary experience. He also said joining a new organization appealed to him.


Barry's full of shit. And exactly how was it John Allen's fault that Barry decided to change horses in mid stream last year? First telling the Reds he wanted to retire, then after making the all star team (because he was retiring), he thinks he can play more. Then he calls off his retirement day the Reds had set up for him, saying there will be plenty of teams that would want him as a starting SS. I liked Larkin, been a Reds fan all of my life, but he was pulling some shit the last 3-4 years here.

[korme]

shutup

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

I liked Larkin, been a Reds fan all of my life, but he was pulling some shit the last 3-4 years here.

Maybe, maybe not. But I've been a Reds fan all my life, too, and at this point, all we really have going for us is a sense of history. Barry Larkin is the Mr. Red of my lifetime and the organization should have bent over backwards to accomodate him with whatever he wanted to do. What we didn't need was John Allen basically telling him to hit the road two years ago...it's not like we had to make room for a high priced free agent or a stud rookie. When you have someone like Larkin who has meant so much to Reds fans, you can't treat him that way.

Edit - Fuck John Allen for the Bowden mess, too.

[mhass]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

Then he calls off his retirement day the Reds had set up for him, saying there will be plenty of teams that would want him as a starting SS. I liked Larkin, been a Reds fan all of my life, but he was pulling some shit the last 3-4 years here.

The last few years notwithstanding, Barry was a class act. Not many guys of his caliber stick with one club for their entire career. Bon voyage.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

shutup

No.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Maybe, maybe not. But I've been a Reds fan all my life, too, and at this point, all we really have going for us is a sense of history. Barry Larkin is the Mr. Red of my lifetime and the organization should have bent over backwards to accomodate him with whatever he wanted to do. What we didn't need was John Allen basically telling him to hit the road two years ago...it's not like we had to make room for a high priced free agent or a stud rookie. When you have someone like Larkin who has meant so much to Reds fans, you can't treat him that way.

Edit - Fuck John Allen for the Bowden mess, too.

I'd be inclined to agree with you if Barry would have been willing to be a utility type player, or switch positions. But he made it clear that he wasn't happy in that role (back up) the last couple months of last season. He said he wanted to explore other oppurtunities, so the Reds just left it at that. You don't think Felipe Lopez or Rich Aurilia is a stud?

[oykib]

I'm a big Larkin fan.

I also think that Sandberg's election punched Larkin's ticket to the Hall of Fame.

I used to think that he'd have a tough time getting in.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by oykib

I'm a big Larkin fan.

I also think that Sandberg's election punched Larkin's ticket to the Hall of Fame.

I used to think that he'd have a tough time getting in.

I agree, he might not be in on the first ballot, but he will get in.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by oykib

I'm a big Larkin fan.

I also think that Sandberg's election punched Larkin's ticket to the Hall of Fame.

I used to think that he'd have a tough time getting in.

Not a rhetorical question because I don't know the answer, but are there any 12-time all-stars who didn't make the Hall of Fame?

[hhiipp]

I met Barry for a brief moment at his brother Byron's wedding and he told me when he retired I could have his position. Guess I'd better start working out.

[korme]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Not a rhetorical question because I don't know the answer, but are there any 12-time all-stars who didn't make the Hall of Fame?

Well it's interesting because the general consensus that people felt not even 2 years ago was that Larkin was maybe another few good seasons away from being a lock. Now this opinion seems to be different.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by oykib

I'm a big Larkin fan.

I also think that Sandberg's election punched Larkin's ticket to the Hall of Fame.

I used to think that he'd have a tough time getting in.

We'll see. Ryno had some pop that Larkin never really had (1 season over 20 homers). Also, a better fielding reputation. I've never really thought about Larkin as a HoF candidate but I guess in 5 years, people will have to. He's close and had a great career- as for HoF, we'll have to see.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/larkiba01.shtml

At a quick glance, only three of his top 10 comprables are in the HoF and both Pee Wee Reese and Joe Cronin played in the 40's and 50's (Ryno being the other HoF'er). That said, another 3 of his are still playing (wait, is Jay Bell still in the league?) and two of those (Alomar, Biggio) have shots at the hall.

That said, I dunno. Either way, any franchise would have been happy for him to have played for them for as long as he played with the Reds. This is your day to celebrate his career, Cincy fans.

SI

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

Well it's interesting because the general consensus that people felt not even 2 years ago was that Larkin was maybe another few good seasons away from being a lock. Now this opinion seems to be different.

Shorty, that was the consensus of idiots - Larkin is one of the top 15 SS of all time. There is no way he shouldnt be in.

[Crapshoot]

Dola, OPS+ of 116 for a SS is pretty amazing, especially someone with his defensive skill. Take the fact that he stole 379 bases at 75% clip - what a player.

[korme]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Shorty, that was the consensus of idiots - Larkin is one of the top 15 SS of all time. There is no way he shouldnt be in.

i'll have to agree

[Glengoyne]

Damn, when I saw the thread title I thought someone had bumped an old thread.

I guess I haven't followed all that closely.

I always thought he was a great player. He is the kind of guy that I'd like to see in the Hall, I'm just not certain he'll get in. Meaning I always felt he was one of if not the best Short Stops in the league. He just never seemed to attain SuperStar status.

[WSUCougar]

I've always respected the guy. Sorry to see him go.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

We'll see. Ryno had some pop that Larkin never really had (1 season over 20 homers). Also, a better fielding reputation. I've never really thought about Larkin as a HoF candidate but I guess in 5 years, people will have to. He's close and had a great career- as for HoF, we'll have to see.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/larkiba01.shtml

I disagree with that particular statement. Other than the faithful who worshipped the ground Sandberg walked on, I don't think anyone would compare the two as far as defense.

Larkin was a superior defensive player at a more important position. You can put converted third basemen at second and win (Sandberg, Kent, and Alfonso being recent examples). But the same is not true of short.

Anyway-- just because it's so fun-- KELTNER TIME!

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

Well, I doubt he was ever characterized as the best player in baseball. But he did win the MVP award in 1995. But I am forced to put a no here.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes. There is no five seson stretch from the start of his career to about the time he hit 36 that he wasn't the best player on his team. He was also clearly the best in most of those individual seasons.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Yes. He was a twelve-time All-Star. He was widely regarded as the best shortstop in the league for most of his career-- taking the title from Ozzie Smith fairly early in his career and not giving it up until fairly late. When you include the American league he is not so fortunate-- having had the misfortune to have played in the same era as Ripken and--later on-- the big three. He almost certainly was the best overall in '95 and '96. He probably was also number one in '90 and '92.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes. The Reds were a good team in his prime. He was top ten in the MVP voting in both of the years that his Reds made the post season.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Yes. That's been true for the last five years.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

By the time he's eligible, he might be. But as of this moment he would play second fiddle to Bert Blyleven among guys who are eligible now. He'd also fall behind a bunch of other pitchers if he doesn't make it in in his first year of eligibility or two (Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, Glavine). But his likeliest thunder stealer will probably be Tim Raines who'll be eligible a year or two before him and who will suffer from the short-sightedness of baseball writers-- at the very least in his first year of eligibility. I'd have to say no here.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Like many (most) truly great players, Larkin doesn't have very good comparables. Only Alan Trammell and Ryne Sandberg pass the 850 threshold. Both of them are contemporaries. One of them is in the Hall. The other is on the outside looking in. But I'll give him a positive here.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Larkin falls just short on the HoF Standards test: 46.9, where the mark for average HoFers is 50. He clears the HoF monitor, however: at 118.5 vs. 100.
His grey ink numbers are good for a SS, but poor as compared to HoFers: 66 vs. 144. So I give him a very weak yes here.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

He was regarded by his peers as and the media as an outstanding defensive player. But he had the misfortune of playin most of his prime with Ozzie Smith in the league. He won three Gold Gloves after Ozzie retired and many observers felt that he should have a few of the ones Ozzie had toward the end there. His resume would look a lot different with the six or seven gold gloves that he might have won in any other era.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

Yes. At least he will be when he's eligible because Cal Ripken'll get in on the first-ballot three years ahead of his eligibility.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

He won the MVP in 1995. But he was even better in '96. He had borderline great seasons in '91, '97, and '98.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

He had All-Star type seasons every moderately healthy year before he got old. He made twelve midsummer classics. Just about everyone with that many is in the Hall. Yes

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

It happened twice that he was the best player on his team and they made the playoffs. So I'll give him a yes here.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

None that I'm aware of.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Yes. He was captain of his Reds team for a long time. He took-- what was at the time considered-- a hometown discount to finish his career with the Reds. He has always been well-respected in baseball and the community..

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by oykib

I disagree with that particular statement. Other than the faithful who worshipped the ground Sandberg walked on, I don't think anyone would compare the two as far as defense.

Larkin was a superior defensive player at a more important position. You can put converted third basemen at second and win (Sandberg, Kent, and Alfonso being recent examples). But the same is not true of short.

I don't worship the ground he walked on, but to suggest that Sandberg and his nine consecutive Gold Gloves was not an outstanding defensive player is just flat wrong in my opinion.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I don't worship the ground he walked on, but to suggest that Sandberg and his nine consecutive Gold Gloves was not an outstanding defensive player is just flat wrong in my opinion.

I don't think the suggestion is that Sandberg wasn't an outstanding defensive player...but it's second base. Comparing second base to shortstop is like comparing first base to center field in terms of what is needed to play great defense.

FWIW, I've always hoped that Barry would go to the Hall of Fame, but as oykib mentioned, he had a career that saw him being measured against Ripken & Ozzie at the start...and A-Rod, Jeter, Nomar at the end. I've figured that people were too short sighted to see past those contemporaries and that Barry wouldn't get the respect he deserved once he retired. It's nice to see such good thoughts about him now that he's out of the game. I said it above, but as a Reds fan for 30 years, Larkin is Mr. Red to me and I couldn't have been happier as a fan for him to have respresented the Reds for nearly 20 years.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by oykib

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

None that I'm aware of.

He was the first shortstop to be in the 30/30 club, I think.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I don't think the suggestion is that Sandberg wasn't an outstanding defensive player...but it's second base. Comparing second base to shortstop is like comparing first base to center field in terms of what is needed to play great defense.

Relative to their HOF worthiness, I think it is a fair comparison. Sandberg's total package as a secondbaseman was quite rare, and stellar defense was a part of that. He set the standard at 2B for a decade.

Larkin was very good defensively, but can you say the same thing of him? Of course shortstop is a tougher position, but he's mainly going to be measured against other shortstops.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Relative to their HOF worthiness, I think it is a fair comparison. Sandberg's total package as a secondbaseman was quite rare, and stellar defense was a part of that. He set the standard at 2B for a decade.

Larkin was very good defensively, but can you say the same thing of him? Of course shortstop is a tougher position, but he's mainly going to be measured against other shortstops.

This is where I think shortstops are hurt in these kinds of comparisons. Most people look at second and short and think middle infield. We've all seen the Joe McEwings and Placido Polancos and Melvin Moras who could fill in at either position. But they're really not the same.

Short is to second what centerfield is to rightfield-- maybe even left. Ther is a significant difference between the two. Plenty of winning managers sacrifice defense at second for a bat. Very few will sacrifice it at short.

You can basically look at any second baseman and see a failed shortstop (most of them) or hopped-up first baseman (Rod Carew). Most of the time it happens in the minors, or even before that, so you aren't aware. But there is something special about a SS, just as there is with a CF-- a fact that many voters will overlook when Bernie Williams comes up in six or seven years.

[WSUCougar]

I agree with everything you just stated. However, the key point in terms of discussing HOF consideration is that Sandberg set the defensive standard for secondbasemen of his era (well, him and Frank White). Regardless of how much you downgrade secondbasemen for the relative ease of their position, Sandberg was the best of the bunch.

Larkin played in Ozzie Smith's shadow for a long chunk of his career. Despite Larkin's excellence (and again, I respect him a great deal), I don't think you can say he set the defensive standard for his position. So in that sense - relative to Sandberg - he may get dinged by a few voters.

[Bad-example]

Sandberg was a great player but he has more than one gold glove award that probably should be in Robby Thompson's house.

It is sad to see Larkin go out while he still has something left in the tank, but if that is what it takes to keep him out of Yankee pinstripes or Dodger blue, so be it.

[miked]

Why the animosity...it seems like this announcement is about 5 years too late. Seems to me he was screwing the Reds by forcing his way on to a team that was better without him. His last full season, which was 2002, he batted .245 with barely a .300 OBP. His fielding was still good, but clearly his presence wasn't helping the team in both his production and his keeping a spot occupied that could've gone to a youngster.

He was a great player and should be an MVP considering his era, but he is full of crap if he thinks he'd be starting for several teams.

Edit: Not to mention he pulled 27M from the Reds from 2001-2003.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I agree with everything you just stated. However, the key point in terms of discussing HOF consideration is that Sandberg set the defensive standard for secondbasemen of his era (well, him and Frank White). Regardless of how much you downgrade secondbasemen for the relative ease of their position, Sandberg was the best of the bunch.

Larkin played in Ozzie Smith's shadow for a long chunk of his career. Despite Larkin's excellence (and again, I respect him a great deal), I don't think you can say he set the defensive standard for his position. So in that sense - relative to Sandberg - he may get dinged by a few voters.

I disagree. The key point in the Hall discussions is whether the player is an all time great. We come to this conclusion by evaluating his contributions on the field.

A good center fielder makes more of a contribution than a very good right fielder for instance. With Larkin and Sandberg its not even a question. Larkin was a better SS than Sandberg was a 2B. And SS is a significantly harder position to fill adequately than 2B.

Sandberg's got eight gold gloves as much because there was no name talent for him to compete against as his defensive skills. Larkin only recieved three gold gloves because he was in the same league as Ozzie Smith. He was really a guy who'd have picked up a bunch in any other circumstance. He certainly would have beat out Cal Ripken in most of those same year, and no one would ever have heard of Omar Vizquel had he played in the AL.

Rating players aainst their peers is a useful tool. But it can't be used by itself. If it is you get absurdities like people campaigning for Mark Grace and more support for Jack Morris than Bert Blyleven.

The same applies to raw numbers. But they are much safer because they are less subjective to begin with.

I haven't heard anyone say that Rhino could have won even one of those gold gloves had he been a second baseman. Does anyone doubt that Larkin would have picked up just as many as a second baseman.

It was much more valuable to have Larkin playing second fiddle (to Ozzie Smith) defense at short to the Reds than Sandberg being the premier 2B was worth to the Cubs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Why the animosity...it seems like this announcement is about 5 years too late. Seems to me he was screwing the Reds by forcing his way on to a team that was better without him. His last full season, which was 2002, he batted .245 with barely a .300 OBP. His fielding was still good, but clearly his presence wasn't helping the team in both his production and his keeping a spot occupied that could've gone to a youngster.

Nicely put.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by oykib

Larkin was a better SS than Sandberg was a 2B.

No *bleep*ing way. If you want to say 2B is easier to defense and thus downgrade Sandberg's defensive accomplishments, so be it. That's a philosophical argument. But there's no way you can argue this point.

SI

[oykib]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

No *bleep*ing way. If you want to say 2B is easier to defense and thus downgrade Sandberg's defensive accomplishments, so be it. That's a philosophical argument. But there's no way you can argue this point.

SI

I most certainly can. Larkin was a better hitter, a better overall offensive weapon, and he won more (for people who care about that sort of thing).

1. OPS

Sandberg .795 for his career of 2164 games
Larkin .815 for his career of 2180

LArkin was higher overall. But the breakdown is really that Sandberg hit for more power (SLG) and Larkin had more patience (OBP). If we were to use adjusted OPS, which gives more weight to the more valuabe (OBP), Larkin would be further ahead.

2. OPS+ (which is park-adjusted and measures against league)

Sandberg 114
Larkin 116

Again, this is not an immense difference, but it favors Larkin.

3. Speed

Sandberg 344 SB (76%) - 76 triples
Larkin 379 SB (83%) - 76 triples

These numbers look similar, but they magnify the difference in outs created between the two. That seven percentage point difference means a fair amount of outs when you're talking over 400 attempts.

The argument that Sandberg was a clubhouse leader and did more that you couldn't see doesn't hold water. They were both team captains and both made it to the playoffs twice and both played well. Larkin has a ring, however, and Sandberg never won a playoff series.

I don't personally believe that is all that important. But that's just to show the hero worship for Sandberg could equally be used for Larkin.

Basically, Sandberg is better than Larkin in one area, he hit eighty-four more homers. Larkin is his equal or better in all the other pwer numbers.

But Larkin walked more, struck out less, and was a much better baserunner.

Sandberg has some big number seasons and won an MVP. But all his big numbers are seperated. He hit 40 dingers one year. He stole fifty bases one year. He did this or he did that. But he wasn't able to combine them into some incredibly big number year that'd raise his evaluation.

Larkin's individual highs are not as big as Sandberg's. But he did have a greater number of all-around excellent seasons.

I haven't even talked about defense yet. Larkin was a more valuable defender. Good shortstops are always more valuable than comparable second baseman.

[Glengoyne]

I think the silliest notion asserted so far in this thread is that Gold Gloves have something to do with defensive ability. The award is a popularity contest, mostly based on offense, and not much more than that.

The second silliest notion is that Short Stop is somehow light years more difficult and more important than second base. It's the middle infield fellas, there isn't that great a difference between the two. I'll grant that a short stop is expected to cover more ground, but it isn't that big of a difference.

Oh there was a third silly thing. That idea that somehow Larkin wasn't a better short stop than Ripken. If Ripken takes a few days off in the eighties there's no way he plays as long as he did, and little chance he makes the Hall. Barry Larkin OWNS Cal Ripken.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think the silliest notion asserted so far in this thread is that Gold Gloves have something to do with defensive ability. The award is a popularity contest, mostly based on offense, and not much more than that.

The second silliest notion is that Short Stop is somehow light years more difficult and more important than second base. It's the middle infield fellas, there isn't that great a difference between the two. I'll grant that a short stop is expected to cover more ground, but it isn't that big of a difference.

Oh there was a third silly thing. That idea that somehow Larkin wasn't a better short stop than Ripken. If Ripken takes a few days off in the eighties there's no way he plays as long as he did, and little chance he makes the Hall. Barry Larkin OWNS Cal Ripken.

Yeah, I agree with you about GG, but 2b is slightly easier on the defensive spectrum than SS is, because the latter has a longer throw to first, and because the majority of hitters and RH, he is likely to see more action. But the difference is certainly overstated at times.

I dislike Cal Ripken more than the most, but the second statement is false. Ripken is inanely overrated because of the "Streak", but he has a similar OPS+ to Larkin, and had more games played - he maintained the level for a lot longer. Total games played for example - Ripken had almost 40% than Larkin.
I think they're closer than most would have em, but I think Ripken still has the edge.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think the silliest notion asserted so far in this thread is that Gold Gloves have something to do with defensive ability. The award is a popularity contest, mostly based on offense, and not much more than that.

The second silliest notion is that Short Stop is somehow light years more difficult and more important than second base. It's the middle infield fellas, there isn't that great a difference between the two. I'll grant that a short stop is expected to cover more ground, but it isn't that big of a difference.

Oh there was a third silly thing. That idea that somehow Larkin wasn't a better short stop than Ripken. If Ripken takes a few days off in the eighties there's no way he plays as long as he did, and little chance he makes the Hall. Barry Larkin OWNS Cal Ripken.

I disagree with all three of these assertions.

1. Gold gloves do have something to do with defensive ability. There are plenty of flubs in the selections. But do you refute the notion that Brooks Robinson, Jim Kaat, Mike Schmidt, Bill Mazeroski, or Ozzie Smith were great defensive players.
They are not the end all be all. But they do help frame the argument.

2. Shortstops are not light years ahead of second baseman. But they are doing a job that most second baseman can't do. It has historicaly been a position that has had weaker bats than second for a reason.
That throw is a big deal. Those extra chances and extra wear and tear on the players' bodies are also significant.

When you look at the historic DP combinations, it's not or nothing that the better hitter is the second baseman almost every time (Robinson-Reese, Gordon-Rizzuto, Morgan-Concepcion, yadda-yadda-yadda). The SS makes up for his lack of value at the plate, in the field. Great second baseman have to be more productive than great shortstops.

I don't think anyone made the assertion that SS was light years more difficult or valuable. But it is a more difficult position, and therefore more valuable. No winning team ever had a Mark Belanger at second.

You only find that kind of player at catcher and short.

3. While I might take Larkin over Ripken for their careers if you said they'd be equally durable, the fact is they were not. Durability counts for something. The Orioles never lost anything because Ripken couldn't perform. The same probably can't be said of Larkin, who had durability issues.

You could expect Larkin to give you 135 games of great play. You could expect Ripken to bring his great game to the park every day. I'd say that extra month of service per season is pretty significant.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by oykib

{Snip Long Post}

I thought you meant that *defensively* Larkin was a better SS than Sandberg was a 2B. Say what you will about second base, but Sandberg was easily the best of his era. Never mind the errorless streak but he had really good range for a 2B until later in his career and the Range Factor numbers bear that out. Larkin didn't nearly have the % over league Range Factor that Sandberg did nor the fielding percentage (admittedly, SS is a harder position to field than 2B).

SI

[PilotMan]

I heard an interview with Bouton yesterday where he said that Larkin will be both front office and on - field backup. Said that he has a uniform and locker. So, perhaps you may see him pinch hit, or be a late inning substitute. Mainly he said that he was there to mentor to Guzman, and work with SS throughout the entire organization. As well as do special projects like working with prospects an young players to work a pitching count, get on base, and be team players, and leaders. A very fluid, undefined role in the organization.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Say what you will about second base, but Sandberg was easily the best of his era.

Thompson and Jose Lind were both superior defenders. Sandberg was a great player but he wasn't even the second best fielder in the national league.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Thompson and Jose Lind were both superior defenders. Sandberg was a great player but he wasn't even the second best fielder in the national league.

I'm pretty sure you can't prove that in any way shape or form: range factor, zone rating, gold gloves, or any other metric. Maybe for a couple of seasons toward the end of his career but not over the length of his career.

SI

[Crapshoot]

hmm - I wish I had access to the UZR's or Fielding Win Shares for Sandberg's career...

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm pretty sure you can't prove that in any way shape or form: range factor, zone rating, gold gloves, or any other metric. Maybe for a couple of seasons toward the end of his career but not over the length of his career.

I don't have numbers to back this up but I was under the impression that it was the general consensus outside Chicago that Sandberg's gold gloves were more about the attention his bat generated than his defensive skills.