Barry Larkin and the Hall of Fame

Jim VB · #1 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 · #2 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 · #3 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 · #4 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 · #5 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 · #6 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 · #7 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!

Robextend · #8 01-06-2010, 09:07 AM

Quote:

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 · #9 01-06-2010, 10:21 AM

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 ...