Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Counts
For those who don't consider Barry Larkin worthy of the Hall of Fame, can you come up with 10 shortstops who were better? Also, is the Hall of Fame big enough for one of the best 10 shortstops in history? Bill James ranks him sixth and he's the best baseball numbers guy of all. So to all of Larkin's detractors, I challenge you to prove to me ... with a comparative statistical analysis and not simply opinions ... why Larkin isn't worthy of the Hall of Fame.
Induction into the Hall of Fame should be based not on perceptions, allegiances and myths, but on hard numbers that take into account all the factors (dead ball vs. live ball, size of ballparks, etc.) that skew statistics. Sadly, while James and others have done the work, only a small percentage of baseball fans have even noticed. As a result, the debate goes on, but at the same time, it goes nowhere ...
|
Chris,
I always respect your arguments and your passion for the Larkin argument. I just don't think of him as a HOFer, and here are some reasons why:
He had an injury riddled career...he only played 140 games or more in a season 7 times. If he was able to stay on the field more, his stats would probably look much better but we can't factor those lost stats in.
Only hit more than 20HR twice, 100runs twice, never had a 100RBI season.
2340 career hits is excellent, but for a non-power guy doesn't strike me as HOF material.
379 SB and 3 Gold Gloves is good but not enough of a factor IMO to add with his offense to get him in.
I am sure you have many arguments for and I respect them, and that is why I love these kind of debates.
Rob