Barry Larkin and the Hall of Fame

[Chris Counts]

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 ...

[Robextend]

I don't think it is good practice to look at mistakes made in the past. There are plenty of HOFers that I feel were not worthy of election. The fact is that Larkin played in primarily a hitter's era. Years prior a SS with those stats would get in hands down, but I do not feel Larkin will or should get in. His stats in the era he played in fall short of "greatness" IMO.

There are a group of players that fall into a tier right below the HOF. Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell, etc.. Larkin probably belongs in that tier.

I would like to see Alomar and Blyleven get in, I feel they both belong in the HOF.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

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 ...

Agree with all you say. Some people's standards on who "should" get into the HOF are ridiculously high and unrealistic based on the entire history of the Hall of Fame and who has actually gotten in through the years.

Who's to say what a "mistake" is. Would you walk up to any one of these players and tell them to their face they don't deserve to be inducted next to Willie Mays and Babe Ruth because they're not as good as them.

I see all Hall of Fame's as basically a place to honor the past history of whatever sport it is featuring. Not as some ridiculously high pedestal to hero worship the Michael Jordan's, Wayne Gretzky's, Mickey Mantle's and Jim Brown's of the past.

Larkin was one of the top 1-3 players at this position for an extended period of time, in the era he played in. I don't see how that doesn't get you in.

[Chris Counts]

Baseball stats guru Bill James ranks Larkin as the sixth greatest shortstop ever. To reach that conclusion, James compared Larkin’s stats with those of every other shortstop, and made adjustments for the era and ballparks each played in. James' calculator plays no favorites, unlike the Hall of Fame voters, who like most fans, have great difficulty comparing players from different eras. It simply can't be done without the type of statistical analysis James offers ...

[Exhibitman]

I don't think Maz was a mistake. Neither did Bill James:

The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James, Villard Books, New York, 1988: "Bill Mazeroski's defensive statistics are probably the most impressive of any player at any position." James also wrote: "I have no doubt that Mazeroski is the premier defensive second baseman in the history of baseball, and I would list him among the five best defensive players of all time." [reported in CNN/SI article October 23, 2000 "Bang For The Bucs"]

I'd certainly vote for Larkin.

[dennis]

if it were up to some people the only players in the hall of fame would be the top tier GREAT players...the willie mays,ty cobb,aaron,ruth etc. BUT
the hall of fame is to honor players with exceptional careers and that opens the door for longevity,leadership,fielding skills etc. the people who only want the best of the best just don't understand this concept. you can never convince them that bill mazeroski was the BEST in the history of the game at turning the double play and not to mention was also a pretty good offensive player for a long time on some great teams that constantly won. they dismiss leadership,fielding skills and other things that are important to success of a winning team. barry larkin was a team leader and exceptional player for 2 decades and should be in the hall. also when the hall opened there were 16 teams. in the last 40 years there is double that amount so it only stands to reason that there are going to be a lot more players that are deserving to be in.

[drdduet]

Not to mention, Larkin was a 12 time all-star...

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by drdduet

Not to mention, Larkin was a 12 time all-star...

That is an impressive number. I guess I am in the minority because I just don't see his stats culminating to HOF numbers. And I do not consider myself someone with the highest of standards. I agree with almost everyone that has been inducted and would still like to see Blyleven get in.

But I will say the arguments for him are very strong. I just don't feel like

295AVG
198HR
960 RBI
2340 Hits

is enough in the era he played in.

His stats seem to be right on par with Alan Trammell, and I think Trammell was the better fielder of the two.

[KNH]

IMO, great players should be in the HOF. Although Larkin was an excellent player for a number of years, I wouldn't call him great. I would call him very very good. As stated earlier, I believe he falls into the group of players like Trammel,Dale Murphy,Harold Baines,Mattingly etc. The HOF should be for the great not the level below that. His total numbers just aren't there.

Take a look at Andre Dawson's numbers. He won an MVP, had multiple gold gloves and was one of the most feared hitters of his time and he isn't even in. All because he played for bad teams like the Expos and Cubs. If he would have cried his way off the team like some of todays athletes so that he could play for a winner for half his career, he would probably have made it in even with the same stats.

[Chris Counts]

If Larkin wasn't great, than what shortstop who's in the Hall of Fame, besides Honus Wagner (the greatest shortstop ever, hands down) and Ernie Banks (who played more than half his career at first base), would you consider great? No doubt A-Rod and Derek Jeter will one day join the list and likely second and third. But I checked Larkin's numbers and he measured up well against everybody else (Luke Appling, Joe Cronin, Joe Sewell, Arky Vaughan, Ozzie Smith, Robin Yount, etc.). Based on the unreasonably high standards that many now argue for, Wagner might be the only deserving shortstop currently enshrined in Cooperstown.

And by the way, if it were up to me, I would put shortstops Alan Trammell and Cecil Travis in the Hall of Fame, each of whom was better than half the shortstops already there. Heck, Dick Groat was better than four or five of them.

[Robextend]

I would rank Yount and Smith ahead of Larkin by a fair amount.

Yount reaching 3,000 hits and Ozzie Smith being regarded as the best defensive SS of all time, to me makes them hands down better. The other 4 players I could not speak of off hand, but I know all their batting averages were incredible.

I know Yount for some years was a "compiler", but 3,000 hits is still quite the accomplishment. The fact is that Larkin might have very well reached monumental plateaus, however he could never stay on the field long enough.

Barry Larkin only played more than 150 games in a season 3 times, and between 140-150 only 3 times which means for the rest of his career he never even reached 140 games. I believe part of being great is being healthy long enough to put up HOF numbers. Again I do not look at who is in and judge players who are not because we can do that all day with many borderline HOFers. At the end of the day Larkin doesn't have the numbers to be considered a Hall of Famer IMO.

[D. Bergin]

IMO you don't compare a SS's numbers to an OF's numbers, for the same reason you don't compare a Catcher's numbers to a 1st Baseman's numbers.

I think you compare each player to the peers that played the same position as him during the same era as him.

[JasonL]

You can't start comparing Shortstops and OFers when judging whether or not offensive stats are HOF-worthy. But I'm not sure that's what the others were saying...hopefully not.

Comparing a candidate to others already in is a slippery slope to failure...either an ultra-exclusive club, or a slowly degrading standard of achievement.
the injury issue raised in a previous post is an excellent one, because I think Larkin has all the other makings of a HOFer (winner, A-S, leader, solid fielding)-at least that's my recollection, with the exception of statistical accummulation that would have been possible had he stayed healthy.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by JasonL

You can't start comparing Shortstops and OFers when judging whether or not offensive stats are HOF-worthy. But I'm not sure that's what the others were saying...hopefully not.

I agree 100%, and I certainly wasn't doing that. Chris brought up Robin Yount who split his time between SS and OF, so maybe that is what was referenced. Either way IMO 3,000 hits at any position is going to put you in the HOF pre-steroid era. It will be interesting to see if Palmeiro gets in when he is eligible, but that is a whole other discussion.

Rob

[bcbgcbrcb]

As long as McGwire is not even close, I don't see how Palmeiro gets in either........ The real test will be Barry Lamar Bonds

[T2069bk]

What exactly defines the Steroid-era? Is it McGwire coming up and hitting 49 and the Bash Brothers that followed? or Is it the Big Contract followed quickly by the head of Bonds. How do you define the era and how do you pick and choose who was clean and great and thus deserving of enshrinement? If the stats are inflated because of steroids then why say he was not great because his stats don't match (AKA potentially clean)? A-roid admitted taking steroids but his numbers still deserve enshrinement as mentioned above?

On another tangent about Yount
Biggio compiled as well but did it as a C/2B/CF so what does he go in as- and A-Roid- SS or 3B ?

Finally-
Was Molitor the first DH enshrined and what does that do for Edgar Martinez?

[drc]

Ozzie Smith and Yount are HOFers-- though duly note Yount is my favorite modern player so I am biased. I'm not so sure about Larkin and, as someone said, if you have to think long about whether or not the player is a HOFer, that usually means he's not a hall of famer.

I dislike the idea of numbers quotas, even if informal, as that's how you fill the ranks with the lowly. If you go two years without a worthy HOFer, so be it.

Though the most dubious but common 'lowest common denominator' argument of all is the fan saying "(Unworthy Player X) is in the Hall of Fame and my favorite player (Unworthy Player Y) is as good, thus my player should also be in." As they say, two unworthy players don't make a right.

[Chris Counts]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by JasonL

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

I think you make a great point, however I do think Alomar is without a doubt headed to Cooperstown and rightfully so. I forget which year 2011 or 2012, but one of those years has only marginal players, so eventually you might be proven wrong!!

[Chris Counts]

Jason,

I completely agree with your suggestion. It's good for baseball when players are inducted into the Hall of Fame.

The idea that the Hall of Fame needs to toughen its standards is bad for baseball. What's wrong with its existing standards? They simply are what they are. Is that so bad? The Hall of Fame benefits baseball by keeping alive the game's rich and fascinating history and introducing that history to new and old fans. But it will become nothing but a dusty old museum if fans are told their heroes from the 60s, 70s and 80s aren't worthy of being inducted because its standards are tougher than they were for pre-1960 players ...

[Exhibitman]

Offensively, Larkin's .815 career OPS was 137 points higher than the average shortstop of his era. According to Lee Sinins' Complete Baseball Encyclopedia, he created 488 more runs than the average shortstop of his time -- the highest total of any National League shortstop whose career started after World War II.

[JasonL]

I think having the Induction Weekend is critically important to nurturing the national pasttime as such.

I also made that comment about being proven wrong today, based on my assumption that Alomar was not a first-ballot HOFer. Dawson and Blyleven were the only two that I thought would go in this year.

Like it or not, the concept of a "First-ballot HOFer" is real and I think here to stay, much the same as the premium concept given to rookie cards. Getting voted in on your first ballot has become an exclamation point on the vote.

[cardguru67]

If Jim Rice is HOF material, Larkin's gotta be! The stats speak for themselves.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jim Rice was a dominant offensive player in his era for several consecutive seasons (one of top 2-3 most feared hitters in baseball from at least 1977-1980). I don't think Larkin can really be classified as a dominant player even though he did accumulate impressive career stats over time and was obviously a better defensive player and baserunner than Rice ever was.

[Robextend]

I agree with you 100% Phil....

[D. Bergin]

Yeah,

I don't have a problem with Jim Rice OR Barry Larkin being mentioned as Hall of Famers.

[chaddurbin]

i can let the barry larkin debate slide...as u can really go either way with him. but this continued urban myth about jim rice being a dominant hitter and a hall of famer must stop. he benefitted greatly playing at fenway, make way too many outs for being a "feared" hitter, and he wasn't even as good as his own teammate darrell evans. even in his best years if take him away from the green monster and he's probably rob dewolf on steroid/hgh.

[D. Bergin]

As a Yankee fan who watched more then his fair share of Jim Rice during that era...........that is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read.

Top 5 in MVP voting 6 times..............there's not much more to say then that.

His accumulated stats suffered a bit because of injuries. No he didn't have a long of a career as a Dave Winfield. "urban myth".............I think not.

He was also under-rated as a Left Fielder and became very skilled at playing balls off the Green Monster as his career went on.


............and it's "Dwight" Evans.

[chaddurbin]

darrell, dwight, dewey...blah. by any name he was still more valuable to his team than rice.

4-5 good years with alot of help from his ballpark does not make a hall of famer. he was an above average hitter, with minimal defense, and no speed...who doesn't get on base. put him in another park with a normal lf, and he's kirk gibson (except gibson could run and catch better...probably hit better too if he was playing half his games at fenway even tho he's lefty)

the grassroot movement to get rice in amongst old-timer voters as a giant middle finger to the new-school metrics crowd notwithstanding...rice is not a hof'er.



.....also there's not much skill in retrieving balls hit off a short left field that would've been outs otherwise...which i'm sure alot of rice's opponents had to do when he was at bat

[D. Bergin]

So 1975 to 1986 equals 4-5 "Good" years?

I've deduced anybody who has ever played in Fenway or put up favorable numbers in their "home" park is disqualified from HOF consideration.

I've also learned that landing in the top 5 in MVP voting 6 times and placing in the top 20, eight times must mean you only had "good" seasons. The people who actually watched him play and voted for him in consideration for the MVP, despite his ornery attitude towards the press, must have just been giving a giant middle finger to the "new school metrics crowd".

I'd like to give a giant middle finger to them myself.

Leading the league in total bases 4 seasons, landing in the top 10 in triples 4 times and being a perennial .300 hitter and putting up gaudy power stats in a pitchers era means nothing because you didn't walk enough or steal bases.

Apparently Power hitters are no longer valuable to their teams.

Is Reggie Jackson a questionable HOF'er? ............because if you compare his best seasons with Rice's best seasons, Rice comes out very favorable.

The only thing Jackson really had on Rice was longevity, and he stole a few bases early in his career while Rice hit for a higher average. He also didn't walk very much and struck out a lot.

I've learned through reading some of the anti-Jim Rice blogs on the internet in regards to his HOF candidacy, that the HOF has sold themselves out by letting him in.............even though he has better stats then 1/2 the guys already in the Hall.

I'm also sick of the "ohhhh, just because we let this guy in.........and this other guy.............oh and those three dozen other guys...........doesn't mean we have to let THIS guy in. We need to preserve the sanctity of the HOF and not repeat the mistakes of the past."

Please.............all of a sudden YOU'VE decided to raise the standards of the HOF.............because the standards you're talking about haven't ever been part of the HOF, past maybe it's first 5 years of it's existence.

I've also learned that long established stats like Hits, Runs, RBI's, HR's, Batting Average, Doubles, Total Bases and Triples are over-rated and no longer mean squat. Neither does being constantly recognized as one the the top 5 players on your league by your contemporaries. The AL during the mid-70's to the mid-80's was just one big pile of mediocre-ness.

It's all about Walks, OPS and other convoluted Bill James algorithms.

The same algorithms that try to tell me that Derek Jeter is a sub-par SS, even though I watch him every day and I know better, while some other guy who normally rides the bench for the Diamondbacks or the Brewers or wherever.........is actually the best all around SS in baseball. It's just that the fans, his manager, other players, scouts and the rest of baseball is too stupid to see it.

You've seen these guys actually play..........but it's all smoke and mirrors. You're not really seeing what you think you're seeing.

Right!

Jim Rice was just average.

Kirk Gibson LOL!!!!!!

[chaddurbin]

here's an old article that talks about jim rice's best 12 years stretch (and why he shouldn't be in the hall):

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives...n_buster_r.php


good teammates that get on base in front of him, inflated home park #s, make alot of outs, was not even that feared/dominant when compared to other players in his era.


edit: and why drag jeter and reggie into the discussion? unlike rice, they actually belong in the hall.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

even in his best years if take him away from the green monster and he's probably rob dewolf on steroid/hgh.

BAM! That's what quan's talkin' about!