Barry Larkin and the Hall of Fame

[Robextend]

I don't think it is good practice to look at mistakes made in the past. There are plenty of HOFers that I feel were not worthy of election. The fact is that Larkin played in primarily a hitter's era. Years prior a SS with those stats would get in hands down, but I do not feel Larkin will or should get in. His stats in the era he played in fall short of "greatness" IMO.

There are a group of players that fall into a tier right below the HOF. Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell, etc.. Larkin probably belongs in that tier.

I would like to see Alomar and Blyleven get in, I feel they both belong in the HOF.

[Chris Counts]

Baseball stats guru Bill James ranks Larkin as the sixth greatest shortstop ever. To reach that conclusion, James compared Larkin’s stats with those of every other shortstop, and made adjustments for the era and ballparks each played in. James' calculator plays no favorites, unlike the Hall of Fame voters, who like most fans, have great difficulty comparing players from different eras. It simply can't be done without the type of statistical analysis James offers ...

[Exhibitman]

I don't think Maz was a mistake. Neither did Bill James:

The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James, Villard Books, New York, 1988: "Bill Mazeroski's defensive statistics are probably the most impressive of any player at any position." James also wrote: "I have no doubt that Mazeroski is the premier defensive second baseman in the history of baseball, and I would list him among the five best defensive players of all time." [reported in CNN/SI article October 23, 2000 "Bang For The Bucs"]

I'd certainly vote for Larkin.

[dennis]

if it were up to some people the only players in the hall of fame would be the top tier GREAT players...the willie mays,ty cobb,aaron,ruth etc. BUT
the hall of fame is to honor players with exceptional careers and that opens the door for longevity,leadership,fielding skills etc. the people who only want the best of the best just don't understand this concept. you can never convince them that bill mazeroski was the BEST in the history of the game at turning the double play and not to mention was also a pretty good offensive player for a long time on some great teams that constantly won. they dismiss leadership,fielding skills and other things that are important to success of a winning team. barry larkin was a team leader and exceptional player for 2 decades and should be in the hall. also when the hall opened there were 16 teams. in the last 40 years there is double that amount so it only stands to reason that there are going to be a lot more players that are deserving to be in.

[drdduet]

Not to mention, Larkin was a 12 time all-star...

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by drdduet

Not to mention, Larkin was a 12 time all-star...

That is an impressive number. I guess I am in the minority because I just don't see his stats culminating to HOF numbers. And I do not consider myself someone with the highest of standards. I agree with almost everyone that has been inducted and would still like to see Blyleven get in.

But I will say the arguments for him are very strong. I just don't feel like

295AVG
198HR
960 RBI
2340 Hits

is enough in the era he played in.

His stats seem to be right on par with Alan Trammell, and I think Trammell was the better fielder of the two.

[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.