Barry Larkin and the Hall of Fame

Robextend · #1 01-05-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

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 · #2 01-05-2010, 11:46 AM

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 · #3 01-05-2010, 12:48 PM

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 · #4 01-05-2010, 12:53 PM

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 · #5 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 · #6 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 · #7 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 · #8 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 · #9 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 · #10 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.