Judging from their entire careers, who did more to help their team win, Barry Larkin, or Ozzie Smith?

Question

Why?

Answer 1

First of all, while defense is important, it is simply absurd to claim that Ozzie or Clemente or Johnny Bench or anybody saved more runs that most people drive in.
Ozzie was an A+ defensive shortstop: i think we can all agree to this.
He was about average as a hitter for a shortstop, 87 OPS+, 4.1 runs created per game (as if Ozzie were the only hitter).

Larkin was an A or A- fielder; he had better than average FP and far better range factor. He also was about 50% better offensively in OPS+, runs created per game, and he scored and drove in many more runs despite playing hundreds of fewer games. His numbers were also better in the post-season than the regular season.

Without looking at VORP/WARP/Win Shares and such, I am confident that an excellent defensive and offensive shortstop (Larkin) was worth more than a beyond-excellent defensive and offensively average one (Smith).

Answer 2

First off, for the guy who said Ozzie Smith had a high batting average - Barry Larkin had a better batting average, OBP and slugging percentage than Ozzie. And Smith barely has a better fielding percentage (.978 to .975).

Yes, Ozzie was an amazing fielder, but even his outstanding defensive play isn't enough to make up for the difference in offensive contributions between him and Larkin. Larkin is fifth all-time in runs created above average for his position, ahead of guys like Ripken, Yount and Cronin. He's also ahead of Ozzie by 23 win shares, which take fielding into account. And as for stolen bases, Ozzie had more for his career but Larkin was thrown out less (83% success rate vs. 79% for Ozzie).

Larkin also won an MVP, something Ozzie never did. And despite his big post-season homer, Smith's playoff numbers (.236/.325/.292) pale in comparison to Larkin (.338/.397/.465). Not only was Larkin more valuable to his team during the regular season, but he was also a better player when it came to October. To me, there's no doubt that Larkin was the better all-around shortstop and should join Smith in Cooperstown.

Answer 3

Some shortstops during Ozzie's days who were better over-all than he was:

Cal Ripken, Jr.
Robin Yount
Tony Fernandez.

Oh, and Larkin was way better overall. Ozzie was a great fielder, yes, but no where near the top when you look at all the tools. Iconic, Hall of Famer -- not the very best, though.

Answer 4

I was all set to give you a long dissertation as to why Larkin did more to help his team than did Ozzie, and then I read the response of Craig. He really said it all and there is nothing more for me to add except, have a great day.

Answer 5

The Cardinals went to 3 World Series and had the best record in 1981, but because of the split season, got screwed out of the playoffs. They were strong throughout the 1980s. Ozzie's last season (1996) was also a division winner.

The Reds won their division in 1995 and the World Series in 1990 and had the one game playoff in 1999. The rest of the time, they were not even a factor during Larkin's career.

So clearly Ozzie was the bigger winner! His defense SAVED more runs than most hitters drove in.

Answer 6

Ozzie Smith may have been the best defensive shortstop of all-time. He made plays regularly that were like magic, hence his nickname, the Wizard. Larkin was good, but defensively there is no equal for Smith.

Answer 7

Smith may have played on better teams but Larkin was a better player by far, Craig nailed it on the head with his answer!

Answer 8

Ozzie. Fielding percentage doesn't take into account a fielders range. If I couldn't move at all to my left and right but fielded everything clean, my 1.000 FA means nothing compared to Ozzie's .978.

Answer 9

ozzie smith he was just too productive larkin was great but he didnt have th eimpact ozzie did

Answer 10

Ozzy Smith, no question, he is the wizard of oz.