2010 HoF Ballot

[JoeDirt]

Let's face it--people expect offense out of every position these days...save for the P in the NL.

Baseball was better when defense at ss and C were valued above hitting from those positions, imo. 

[Darky]

Fair enough edfan. We have different philosophies in that regard.

:firm handshake:

[edfan]

Let's face it--people expect offense out of every position these days...save for the P in the NL.

Baseball was better when defense at ss and C were valued above hitting from those positions, imo. 

You're probably right about that.

[Darky]

Let's face it--people expect offense out of every position these days...save for the P in the NL.

Baseball was better when defense at ss and C were valued above hitting from those positions, imo. 

Great post btw...

[Barton]

Ozzie is far more deserving than Larkin, Conception, or anyone else. He redefined the position.

If anyone redefined (whether for good or for bad) the position of SS, it was probably Cal Ripken.  Ozzie did what most SS did historically.  He fielded his position well and, if he could hit that was a bonus.  Ripken put a premium on offense and was a big guy rather than being a wiry, light-hitting/slick fielding Ozzie Smith, Mark Belanger, Luis Aparicio, or Dave Concepcion.  

Credit for this should/could probably go to Ernie Banks for this had he played more of his career at SS.

I don't think that Ozzie redefined SS by any means.  He was just an outstanding example of what was expected at SS in his time.  

Wait, Ripken redefined the SS position? When one of his contemporaries was equal to or better than him?

And what made Ripken that much better than Larkin offensively? His power numbers? Besides home runs and RBI's, Ripken doesn't have Larkin beat by a large margin anywhere. Surprisingly, Larkin has the higher OPS and OPS+. And I think we can all agree Larkin was the better baserunner/stealer and defensive SS.

If Ripken hadn't had the consecutive game streak, he'd be a borderline hall-of-famer. His making the 3,000 hit club and all that were all due to his longevity, and the streak made him TERRIBLY overrated.

All bias aside, I'd take Larkin over Ripken AND Smith.

Comparison (Ripken on top, Larkin on bottom):

[Darky]

Aren't you a Reds fan Barton? I find it hard to believe that you really mean " All bias aside".

[Nacho]

Really.  I don't think you can say "bias aside" and then go on to pick a guy from your team.  Of course you will be biased.  I also don't think that career averages are a good basis of comparison, considering some guys stick it out too long, come up early and don't produce for a while, etc. etc.

I'm biased and I'd go Smith, Ripken, Larkin.

[Gantry]

I am completely shocked that Ripken & Larkin have the same career SLG

[Barton]

Um, I said "all bias aside," and then put up the comparison, which backs up my point. What's the argument here?

[JoeDirt]

Yeah, but Ripken has twice has many HRs and over 50% more RBI...and was far less injury prone.  Ripken in a landslide.

[Nacho]

I'd be more convinced by a comparison of their best 10-year stretch rather than their career averages.

[Barton]

Yeah, but Ripken has twice has many HRs and over 50% more RBI...and was far less injury prone.  Ripken in a landslide.

Yeah, and I'd rather have Larkin's average and speed numbers. And defense.

I'd be more convinced by a comparison of their best 10-year stretch rather than their career averages.

I also would like to see their 10-year stretches. But this did also have their 162-game average, which is, I believe, in Larkin's favor. But I guess I'm biased. 

[Darky]

defense people, defense.

[Shooty]

Wait, Ripken redefined the SS position? When one of his contemporaries was equal to or better than him?

What contemporary are you taking about?  

Larkin?  Even if you make the case that you'd rather have Larkin over Ripken, he didn't redefine the position at all.  A decent hitting SS with moderate power and good defense is not redefining the position.  In fact, if anything he's probably close to the first great SS, Honus Wagner who hit for average, had decent pop for his era (150 OPS+), and stole a shit ton of bases.

Even if you misued the word contemporary and meant Banks, he didn't redefine the position.  Even though he was like no other SS before him with that kind of power, no other SS followed along that path for another 20+ years.  He was the pioneer, but no other player followed suit so you can't say it redefined the position.

Either way, I'm not sure what your point is.

[BeefMaster]

I also would like to see their 10-year stretches. But this did also have their 162-game average, which is, I believe, in Larkin's favor. But I guess I'm biased. 

162-game average is incredibly unfair to Ripken in this comparison because of Larkin's durability problems.  While I agree that the streak was overrated, there's something to be said for the fact that Ripken played over 800 more games in just two more seasons.

Regardless, I think Larkin should be a Hall of Famer.

[ryno]

the shortstop from Stockholm belongs in the Hall

have you seen his vorp+ in late games when trailing by 2 runs on a friday?  That guy is horrible!  No HALL for him!

[nomaaa]

all i know is that i could field much better than a lot of the college recruits i was up against at shortstop, but being a singles hitter pretty much solidified that i wasn't getting any scholarships (save like d3)

[ultimate7]

first play, try to watch it in slow motion

where?  I didn't see it in this thread? 




i posted that one, damnit!!!

[ultimate7]

His making the 3,000 hit club and all that were all due to his longevity

longevity is huge for the HOF, that's why 3000H, 400HR are huge numbers.  OPS+ says they had basically the same career offensive numbers, but Ripken did it for 6 more seasons.  That is a huge difference.

[Darky]

Ozzie...