Barry Larkin or Joe Cronin?

[sweaver]

Who was better, the recent player Larkin, or the Hall of Famer Joe Cronin? This, of course, continues the theme Fuzzy Bear started with first basemen and the Steve Garvey Standard.

[JamesI]

Good question. My instict is Cronin, but am going to look more closely into both before finally deciding.

[pwdennis]

Cronin

It's easy to dismiss Cronin's offensive numbers by citing the era in which he played, but Cronin was always among the leaders in a wide variety of offensive categories, even if he rarely led in any particular category. His best categories are RBI and Doubles where he was in the top ten eight times. Larkin is, in fact, his closest comp, and not a very close comp at that. Cronin is NOT Larkin's closest comp (that honor falls to Alan Trammell).

What is forgotten is that Cronin played his peak years for the Washington Senators, who played in a cavernous ballpark that hurt offensive production considerably. As a Senator, Cronin had plenty of extra base hits, but relatively few of them were home runs. He was highly regarded by his contemporaries, appearing in seven all star games (this is more impressive than it sounds - the all star game did start until 1933 -Cronin's 8th season - he would have likely been an all star the three seasons prior to 1933).

Cronin was one heck of a player. I believe Larkin belongs in Cooperstown but he was no Joe Cronin

[Wolf Hopper]

Joe Cronin - 'tho it's close.

.

Wow. I've just reviewed the two off my list and they are neck-and-neck. Cronin gets the slight edge only because he lasted longer -- but Barry's not done yet. In that light I'd call them flat even.

But we can still watch one of 'em play -- and then decide.

.

[gyb13]

Career RCAA
Larkin 270
Cronin 243

Career RC/G
Cronin 6.81
Larkin 6.34 (thru 2002)

Career OPS+
Cronin 119
Larkin 117 (thru 2002)

Peak RCAA
Larkin 49, 44, 39
Cronin 41, 41, 33

Peak RC/G
Cronin 8.97
Larkin 8.72

Peak OPS+
Larkin 156
Cronin 138 (or 176 in a 77 AB stint in 1943)

anyone wanna do defense, win shares, etc?

[sweaver]

FRAA (Fielding Runs Against Average), from Baseball Prospectus:

Larkin--career +125, top three seasonal 34, 26, 20.

Cronin--career +59, top three seasonal 24, 21, 14.

[gyb13]

so pretty close with the bat, and an advantage to larkin with the glove?

[KCBOOMER]

I can't quite decide it either. It would sure be nice if we are going to look at active players that we wait until our SBE's get updated to include 2003. With another off year by Larkin this year they are going to look a lot a like. They both played in big offensive era's. Larkin appears to be the better player on the basepaths. Cronin did play in a cavernous ball parks for nine years but he played in Fenway for 11 years.

Looks like a toss up.

[sweaver]

I have Cronin a little better for peak, Larkin for career value, and Larkin ahead by a nose overall.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by sweaver

I have Cronin a little better for peak, Larkin for career value, and Larkin ahead by a nose overall.

I voted that way. This one was hard.

Pwdennis is right in noting that Cronin played in the worst hitters park in the AL, which normalized Cronin's stats to some degree, just as playing in Coors Field "normalizes" Larry Walker's stats to 1927 or so.

Larkin has had a longer career; Cronin was basically done after 1941, at age 35. I do not know why he became a bench player in 1942, other than Johnny Pesky appears to have taken his job decisively. Perhaps Cronin could no longer play shortstop well enough, in the eyes of his manager, or had some sort of injury. (Perhaps someone here knows the answer.)

Larkin, however, has often been injured, and that needs to be taken into account. His lack of durability detracts from his overall value.

So it's close, and while I tend to give the nod to modern players, I can see it going the other way as well. This may be the closest choice ever put to anyone in a thread here.