Barry Larkin and the Hall of Fame

[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.