 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
01-03-2010, 10:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Barry Larkin and the Hall of Fame
In a recent article, Yahoo Sports columnist Tim Brown, a Hall of Fame voter, writes that Barry Larkin, among many others, isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. He goes on to say that greatness is not enough for Cooperstown and that inductees should be "better than great." So let me get this straight. Because of the past sins of Hall of Fame voters, Larkin is not worthy to join fellow shortstops like Rabbit Maranville, Travis Jackson, Dave Bancroft, Phil Rizzuto, Pee Wee Reese and Bobby Wallace in Cooperstown? And what is "better than great?" Are all those executives they toss in the Hall of Fame every year "better than great?" Bowie Kuhn? Effa Manley?
Larkin played 19 season for the Cincinnati Reds, batting .295 with 2340 hits, 198 home runs, 960 RBI, 1329 runs scored and 379 stolen bases. Along the way, he won a World Series, three Gold Gloves and a Most Valuable Player award. He was clearly better, on a purely statistical level, than at least half the shortstops in the Hall of Fame. Is there something I'm missing here? I challenge anyone to look at the stats and prove Larkin is not worthy of being a Hall of Famer ... In the their zeal to make up for poor selections in the past (Bill Mazeroski, etc.), the Hall of Fame voters are unfairly holding modern players to ridiculous standards ... 
|
|
#2
01-03-2010, 10:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#3
01-03-2010, 11:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 ...
|
|
#4
01-03-2010, 11:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not...
|
|
#5
01-03-2010, 12:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#7
01-04-2010, 01:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
My collection: http://imageevent.com/vanslykefan Last edited by Robextend; 01-04-2010 at 01:27 PM.
|
|
#8
01-03-2010, 10:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Agree with all you say. Some people's standards on who "should" get into the HOF are ridiculously high and unrealistic based on the entire history of the Hall of Fame and who has actually gotten in through the years. Who's to say what a "mistake" is. Would you walk up to any one of these players and tell them to their face they don't deserve to be inducted next to Willie Mays and Babe Ruth because they're not as good as them. I see all Hall of Fame's as basically a place to honor the past history of whatever sport it is featuring. Not as some ridiculously high pedestal to hero worship the Michael Jordan's, Wayne Gretzky's, Mickey Mantle's and Jim Brown's of the past. Larkin was one of the top 1-3 players at this position for an extended period of time, in the era he played in. I don't see how that doesn't get you in.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
