I’ve been planning to write something touting Barry Larkin’s Hall of Fame candidacy because he’s one of several deserving players on this year’s ballot not getting enough love, but in the meantime here’s the next best thing (or maybe even the slightly better thing) …
ESPN.com’s Jayson Stark used some numbers from an article I wrote several years ago to help him make the compelling case for Larkin:
In my book, I cited a study done by Aaron Gleeman, over at the ever-thoughtful hardballtimes.com, after Larkin retired. What he found was another important fact that’s been lost on the masses–that very few shortstops in history have ever outperformed their peers to the extent Larkin did. Here’s the breakdown:
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.
One, obviously I agree 100 percent with Stark. Larkin should not only be a Hall of Famer, he should be a relatively easy pick for the reasons laid out in the above excerpt and many other factors.
Two, let this be a lesson to any other national writers with huge audiences out there: Mentioning me and citing my previous work is basically guaranteed to get you a link back in this space, in much the same way that flashing the bat signal will summon Batman or putting a microphone in front of Scott Boras will produce a quote about how one of his .250-hitting clients is better than Albert Pujols and Zack Greinke, combined.
Jon Heyman reports that the Cardinals do not plan to exercise Matt Holliday‘s $17 million option for 2017.
And, not surprisingly, will not extend him a similarly priced qualifying offer, either.
Holliday will be 37 when spring training begins and he is finishing his worst season as a major leaguer, having hit .242/.318/.450 with 19 homers over 424 plate appearances.
Injuries have not helped him — he’s missed the last six weeks with a fractured thumb — but it’s not like guys het healthier the older they get. Holliday will likely be looking at a massive pay cut for next year and a competition to make an Opening Day roster.
The Blue Jays are poised to make the playoffs for the second year in a row and are playing a critical series with the Orioles, the outcome of which will likely determine who gets to play at home for that one-and-done game next week. Big stakes! Must keep focused!
Or, alternatively, maybe it’s time to have a silly, juvenile feud with the press. Here’s Steve Buffery of the Toronto Sun, asking why the Jays are doing stuff like this while fighting for the playoffs:
Why, for example, would the leaders on the team allow someone to put up on a wall photos of two Toronto sports writers with an ‘X’ scratched on their face and the a message written on top reading, ‘Do not grant them interviews’ (or words to that effect)? . . . Things like: Someone cranking up the music just when the media arrives to conduct pre-game interviews.
Not that the Jays have been treated wonderfully by the press themselves:
There was an incident the other night when a couple of journalists tried to corral struggling closer Roberto Osuna for an interview, but he kept blowing them off. Finally, one reporter followed him right into a private part of the clubhouse and told him off.
That’s . . . not what you’re supposed to do.
Still, there is zero point to get into silly feuds with the media. If they overstep their bounds, there are a TON of Jays officials and, I suspect, newspaper editors, who will quickly and eagerly discipline the reporter. You don’t have to make wanted posters and act like children. Partially because it’s just a bad look. But also, because it leads to news stories about it like the one in the Toronto Sun.