Barry Larkin and the Hall of Fame
In a recent article, Yahoo Sports columnist Tim Brown, a Hall of Fame voter, writes that Barry Larkin, among many others, isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. He goes on to say that greatness is not enough for Cooperstown and that inductees should be "better than great." So let me get this straight. Because of the past sins of Hall of Fame voters, Larkin is not worthy to join fellow shortstops like Rabbit Maranville, Travis Jackson, Dave Bancroft, Phil Rizzuto, Pee Wee Reese and Bobby Wallace in Cooperstown? And what is "better than great?" Are all those executives they toss in the Hall of Fame every year "better than great?" Bowie Kuhn? Effa Manley?
Larkin played 19 season for the Cincinnati Reds, batting .295 with 2340 hits, 198 home runs, 960 RBI, 1329 runs scored and 379 stolen bases. Along the way, he won a World Series, three Gold Gloves and a Most Valuable Player award. He was clearly better, on a purely statistical level, than at least half the shortstops in the Hall of Fame.
Is there something I'm missing here? I challenge anyone to look at the stats and prove Larkin is not worthy of being a Hall of Famer ...
In the their zeal to make up for poor selections in the past (Bill Mazeroski, etc.), the Hall of Fame voters are unfairly holding modern players to ridiculous standards ...
|