Pat no need for personal insults. It's just baseball you know..

Here's another thing to keep in mind -- Larkin played most of his career on the artificial turf of Riverfront Stadium. That by itself raises a guys average substantially -- all Yankee fans remember how Chuck Knoublach went from being a .330 hitter on the turf in Minnesota to a .280 hitter on the grass at Yankee Stadium. A ground ball up the middle often becomes a double.

Subtract that from Larkin's lifetime .295 average and what do you have? Really, what do you have?

A very, very good player. An all-star. A borderline hall of famer. But not a shortstop that transcended the game or ranked with Jeter. And that's what Larkin was regarded as during his playing days. There was a reason for that.

I didn't look back far enough when I said this. Looks like Zachary is trying to make the argument Larkin is better than Jeter. It's not an argument I believe can be supported. Larkin's superiority in some rate stats is offset by Jeter's greater playing time. Sure Larkin may have a higher OPS+ in some seasons, but it's a slight advantage and not enough to offset the higher PA's Jeter had.

For example, their five best seasons by OPS+ with PA's for the season look like this, with Larkin first and Jeter second:

154 - 627
143 - 527
138 - 276
134 - 626
133 - 567

153 - 739
132 - 716
132 - 715
128 - 679
127 - 694

Now Jeter does get some extra PA's thanks to the Yankees generally being a great offensive team and to batting higher in the order (I think Larkin batted 3rd more often than leadoff though I could be wrong), but it's clear that does not explain the difference in PA's and that 3 of Larkin's best 5 seasons were injury shortened. Looking at their second best seasons, a 143 OPS+ in 200 fewer PA's than Jeter's 132 is not really a better season, IMO.

I think it's clear Larkin could be as good offensively and that he was better defensively and on the basepaths, but Jeter makes up for these by being on the field and thus providing more value. It's clear when you look at WAR. Jeter's best seasons are better than Larkin's even with his defensive shortcomings.

Except no one is trying to answer that question. The only thing people have tried to point out, myself included, is Larkin is pretty close to Jeter in terms of performance, and more specifically in terms of peak/prime performance. I don't think people are even trying to say Larkin was better than Jeter, except defensively, which he clearly was. Definitely no one, other than Lou, is saying either one of them is the greatest ever.

IS that why Jeter has a lifetime .317 batting average and Larkin is only .295????"

Oops. I thought I was having a rational discussion with an intelligent baseball fan. My mistake.

In baseball I think such debates are all pretty much unable to be settled except maybe who was the best major-league power hitter from before 1950, which is clearly Babe Ruth. But you can't even say all time because I don't know how Ruth would hit against today's pitchers (although I tend to think he'd probably be the greatest power hitter even of he played today.)

Let me take the case of Jeter vs Larkin specifically. I don't think that anybody would argue against the facts that both players had immense talent and both played very hard.

But there are so many factors that affect the final numbers of these players, the vast majority of which were out of their control. Here are some examples:

- Per 162 games played, Larkin had 673 PAs and Jeter currently has 743. It's way easier to get to 3000 hits when you have 60 more plate appearances per season. Why does Jeter have so many more PAs? Because his career is entirely within a higher-scoring era plus he has played on most excellent teams with above-average run production. (Also because he batted higher in the lineup.) So Jeter gets more PAs and can get more hits with the same batting average. Note I'm not saying he's a better or worse hitter than Larkin--my observation is merely a fact that favors Jeter.
- Jeter has had 2431 PAs (our of 9809) with runners in scoring position, which is 24.8% of his career PAs. For Larkin, the numbers were 2335/9057, or 25.8%. Historically across baseball, batting averages are higher with RISP than without, so this number favors Larkin. (Incidentally, I think Jeter actually bats with runners on far more often if one ignores his PAs leading off the first inning, when of course there is never anybody on base.)
- Each guy came up with a totally different set of coaches--people who had significant influences on the players. I recall that Jeter committed a ton of errors as a shortstop in the minors but the Yankees refused to change his position, forcing him to battle through until he improved. Maybe this had a tremendous positive influence on Jeter. Did Larkin have a similar experience? What if Jeter came up with a different team and made a ton of errors? Maybe they would have moved him to 3B in the minors and he never would have been forced to work through a tough problem.

My point with these few examples is that if you switch a guy's circumstance (meaning move his career by a few years or to a different team) I think the variables change so dramatically that it's very tough to compare two similar guys directly. Sure, we can look at their final numbers objectively, ignore all the underlying circumstances, and make a purely statistical analysis. But in my opinion, such an analysis is almost worthless. In the case of both Larkin and Jeter, they were fantastic players who excelled within their own eras for their own teams. Which guy was better? I don't know---but I can tell you that I have loved watching both of them play.

IS that why Jeter has a lifetime .317 batting average and Larkin is only .295????

I've got news for you -- Jeter, more than any player of his era -- constantly played THROUGH injuries. Because he stands so close to the plate, Jeter is CONSTANTLY getting hit on the hands. ALmost every year, there comes a time when Jeter is really hitting lights out; his average at .340 or something, and then bam -- hit on the hand. And every year, he PLAYS THROUGH IT. And his average drops. And a month and a half later he's at .270 but still playing; still helping to win games.

If Jeter had sat out whenever he was injured, then he'd have a .340 lifetime average!!!!!

Maybe Larkin's injuries were due to steroids?

Ballplayers rate themselves on how the play through injury. Jeter is held highly. Larkin, maybe not so highly.

Dan was on the money above. Jeter: first time hall of famer. Larkin: borderline. Personally I'd put him in. But I'd put Graig Nettles in too. (Not Mattingly nor Bernie Williams.)

PS: Tomepp and Pat -- you defeat yourself with your own statistics; if you've got to dig that much and bring up acronymns like WAR to make your case, you've lost. Barry Larkin hit xxx on Tuesdays after a groin injury, and he fielded 22 more balls to his left when an offspeed pitcher was pitching on a Saturday night with a full moon.

Larkin was very, very good. Jeter transcended the game and is arguably the best shortstop of all time. Will get 3,000 hits. Great defense. 4 gold gloves -- voted by the MANAGERS. .317 lifetime average.

Jeter envy. Who of you is Joel Sherman? Fess up.

All in fun guys; all in fun.

But I'm right. And Dan from Connecticut.