Barry Larkin and the Hall of Fame

[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

[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.