Barry Larkin and the Hall of Fame

Chris Counts · #1 01-05-2010, 01:12 PM

Let me try another perspective on Larkin's candidacy. Do you believe the top ten shortstops in major league history are worthy of induction into the Hall of Fame? And if you do, are there 10 shortstops better than Larkin? Wagner, A-Rod, Banks and Jeter are better, and I'll admit Ozzie Smith gets the nod as well. Yount and Ripken get consideration, but only for their longevity. Larkin was a better, more disciplined hitter, had as much power, more speed and a better glove than either one (look up the stats!). Who else is a better player than Larkin? Luke Appling? Arky Vaughan? Joe Cronin? All three were great shortstops and worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but none is better than Larkin. So is being a Top 10 shortstop not good enough for Cooperstown? If that's the case, they should just put a "closed to new members" sign on its front gate ...

T2069bk · #2 01-05-2010, 01:27 PM

I agree Larkin should be in!!! In that time period he played he was one of the best. I would not even stop to say is he one of the 10 best. That is too constraining. The game evolves and shortstops still have ...during my lifetime Concepcion was the prototype and then Ripken/Larkin, then Jeter/Nomar/Arod and now Rollins/Reyes. you need to compare them to contemporaries and then the all time greats to decide.

drc · #3 01-05-2010, 01:38 PM

Saying there should be 10 of a position is a quota. If the ninth and tenth players aren't Hall worthy, they shouldn't be in-- in particular considering the future likely will two better players for top 10 list ... This is not to say such numbers shouldn't be used in forming one's opinion, as comparing and ranking players are standard and useful tools in judging a player's quality.

Robextend · #4 01-05-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

Who else is a better player than Larkin? Luke Appling? Arky Vaughan? Joe Cronin? All three were great shortstops and worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but none is better than Larkin.

I think that statement is very debatable.

Luke Appling had a 310 career BA, over 2700 hits and over 1300 BB and a career OBP of 399. I don't know how Larkin is better than Appling.

Arky Vaughan had a 318 career avg and an OBP of 406. If you look at his individual seasons, he had better ones than Larkin did.

Joe Cronin had a lifetime BA of 301 and had over 1400 RBI and over 500 doubles.

Sure you can argue Larkin is better, but I can certainly argue against that.

Jim VB · #5 01-05-2010, 02:43 PM

In another 4-5 years, Edgar Renteria will have lifetime stats comparable to Barry Larkin. Do we open the doors of Cooperstown to him?

The HOF decision should be able to be made in a nano-second. The longer you have to debate it, the less the player deserves enshrinement.

KNH · #6 01-05-2010, 03:03 PM

Jim VB,
I would agree that you should not put Renteria into the HOF in 4 or 5 years but it is possible that if he plays regulary for 4 to 5 years that he will have 3,000 hits. Then it will be just about automatic. That would be a case where a player came up to the majors at 19 years old and had a very nice career which really wasn't even close to a HOF career but because of longevity, he will have reached the one number that will make all the difference to the voters. 3,000.

Chris Counts · #7 01-05-2010, 04:01 PM

"The HOF decision should be able to be made in a nano-second. The longer you have to debate it, the less the player deserves enshrinement."

What other important and permanent decisions in life do we make without careful consideration. I've heard this argument before regarding other candidates (someone else brought it up in this thread), and I just don't buy it. There's a huge gap between the public's perception of how good a player was and what statistical analysis can prove about that same player. That's why Allen Iverson is getting a ton of all-star votes, even if he was unemployed recently. The average sports fan thinks he's star, but those who closely follow the game, and the examine the stats, know he's a ball hog with a low shooting percentage.

All I'm asking for is that those who judge Hall of Fame candidates do a bit of research first. Without having an understanding of how statistics change from era to era (hitting eras vs. pitching eras), and without taking into consideration innovations in statistics (like the vastly underrated on-base average), we might as well rely on our gut feelings. And that is how Rabbit Maranville got in the Hall of Fame.

As for Edgar Reneria, Larkin had much better place discipline (look it up) and was a much better fielder (Larkin has three Gold Gloves and Renteria has no range). Also, take a look at the number of MVP votes each received over his career. Larkin was definitely better than Renteria. And while I'm not advocating Renteria for the Hall of Fame (yet?), he is better than a few of the guys who were inducted ...

KNH · #8 01-05-2010, 04:31 PM

Quote:

That's why Allen Iverson is getting a ton of all-star votes, even if he was unemployed recently. The average sports fan thinks he's star, but those who closely follow the game, and the examine the stats, know he's a ball hog with a low shooting percentage.

Chris,
As a life long 76ers fan, I must say you are 100% right about Allen Iverson. Although I would not put Larkin in the HOF, you have given perhaps the best possible example that you can't just go by the numbers. A.I. has scored over 25 ppg in his career which looks great and usually is. However, as I'm sure you know, most of the time he'll score 25-30 points while shooting 8 for 23 with several foul shots. He has had seasons under 40% which is horrible. And what seperates the other greats like Kobe,Lebron,Jordan etc. from Iverson is that they made everyone around them better. He didn't. I'll take Jason Kidd over A.I. any day. Iverson's selfishness made the team worse but the 76ers didn't care because it was because of him that the fans came to watch.

Okay, enough of Iverson. Back to Larkin.

Robextend · #9 01-05-2010, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

All I'm asking for is that those who judge Hall of Fame candidates do a bit of research first. Without having an understanding of how statistics change from era to era (hitting eras vs. pitching eras), and without taking into consideration innovations in statistics (like the vastly underrated on-base average), we might as well rely on our gut feelings. And that is how Rabbit Maranville got in the Hall of Fame.

I still don't think we should look at players who got inducted in 1954 as a good measure of who should or shouldn't be in. At the time maybe voters believed his 2,605 hits (which I am sure was high in the all-time ranking at that point) were enough. Again let's not look at past "mistakes" for judgement on players today.

Jim VB · #10 01-05-2010, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

"The HOF decision should be able to be made in a nano-second. The longer you have to debate it, the less the player deserves enshrinement."

What other important and permanent decisions in life do we make without careful consideration. I've heard this argument before regarding other candidates (someone else brought it up in this thread), and I just don't buy it.

Chris,

I could have been a little more clear in my point. I'm not talking about these judgements being made by the casual observer who watches no baseball until October. I'm talking about most of the people on this board, who follow baseball fairly closely. I'm talking about the writers and announcers who actually get a vote in this deal.

If you're willing to sit down in front of your TV in early March, and watch a Yankees/Marlins Spring Training game on the YES Network, you probably follow closely enough to make a snap decision.

I admit, Larkin is a borderline case. But despite the fact that the HOF has lots of other borderline cases "in", that doesn't mean Larkin should be. In cases like that, I'd rather leave him out.

Just my opinion (and I don't get a vote.)

JasonL · #11 01-06-2010, 08:58 AM

Have a think about this one. One of the previous posts mentioned that if we go a few years without a worthy inductee, so be it.

I submit to the Board that we will never see another year with zero player inductees.
Reason: Induction Weekend is now too important to Cooperstown's local economy, and to simply not have it, and cancel a dozen or more of what are now thought to be annual related events would be somewhat crippling.

I think this is actually a strong enough reason as to introduce the thought process that the voting might be tinkered with if a year full of marginal players results in no one getting the required minimum - and then having a few adjustments made...

We will see. I could be proven wrong as soon as this afternoon!