I think Larkin is in; He started the revolutionzing of the current SS position as well as being the best SS of his generation.
Alomar is definitely in; #1 - he played 2B, and #2 - his 2B numbers compare favorably to a lot of HOF 2b.
I think Larkin is in; He started the revolutionzing of the current SS position as well as being the best SS of his generation.
Alomar is definitely in; #1 - he played 2B, and #2 - his 2B numbers compare favorably to a lot of HOF 2b.
Great post, Yachtzee.Originally Posted by Yachtzee
I took an in-depth look at Larkin this past winter and compared him statistically to about 30 of the game's greatest shortstops, including every Hall of Fame shortstop. At the time of that post, I ranked Larkin sixth all-time behind only Wagner, Rodriguez, Vaughan, Ripken and Yount. As of today, I've revised that and moved Larkin up ahead of Yount and into the top five.
Not bad company, IMO. At the end of the season I'll probably update that thread with the active guys to include their 2006 season and take another look.
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42221
The Lost Decade Average Season: 74-88
2014-22 Average Season: 71-91
Another thing that Larkin has is that he was arguably the best player in the game for both 1995 and 1996. His peak was much higher than Trammel.
Larkin was a dominating player. I can't see how he couldn't get in (even though Marty will lobby against him making the HOF).
If you have to make a case for him then he doesn't belong.
It's the Hall of Fame not the Hall of the very good.
Don't smoke'em if you got'em
What aggravates me more than anyhting is the complete disorganization of one of the most important institutions in Sports.
For example: Last year more than 30 ballots were sent to writers who 1) had not voted in at least 5 years 2) had a wrong address and the ballots were never forwarded 3) sent to members who were dead.
There was a story in the news about this about 2 years ago. I know several writers that do have HOF votes and these numbers and scenarios were provided to me by them. I have had several writers that I asked about this very subject tell me the numbers are closer to 60! Yes 60 voters who do not vote, can not vote, or are unable to vote. That is a lot of votes that a guy with 65-70% really could use.
Good article on HOF voting...http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/a...=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Last edited by Team Clark; 08-03-2006 at 12:24 AM.
Cedric 3/24/08It's absolutely pathetic that people can't have an opinion from actually watching games and supplementing that with stats. If you voice an opinion that doesn't fit into a black/white box you will get completely misrepresented and basically called a tobacco chewing traditionalist...
I would agree with this, but let's face it that's what the HOF is now, and looking at others who have gotten in Larkin deserves to be in.Originally Posted by Marge'sMullet
"I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings."
Hitters who avoid outs are the funnest.
hmm..boggs and sandberg (one of my favorite all time players) are in...they played in the same era..so...does that sway anybody's opinion?
i think rhino sandberg gets forgotten alot in the memories of bsaeball fans..he was ridiculously good in his prime.
If Barry Larkin doesn't make the Hall of Fame, I will be shocked.
"My mission is to be the ray of hope, the guy who stands out there on that beautiful field and owns up to his mistakes and lets people know it's never completely hopeless, no matter how bad it seems at the time. I have a platform and a message, and now I go to bed at night, sober and happy, praying I can be a good messenger." -Josh Hamilton
Um, Bruce Sutter?Originally Posted by Marge'sMullet
IMO, neither Sandberg nor Sutter belong in the HOF. Ozzie Smith doesn't either.
Having said that, if those three are enshrined then it would be a joke not to include Larkin.
Rem
thats what im saying. if sandberg is in (same era) then larkin should be in.Originally Posted by remdog
although im quite curious about larkin's 1996's stats...they seem very strange
I expect Larkin to eventually be inducted. He clearly, absolutely and without question was a better shortstop than at least half of the shortstops already in the HOF. As others have already pointed out in this thread, he was ranked by Bill James as the sixth best shortstop ever, ahead of Ozzie Smith, among others.
The only question to me is how long Larkin must wait for induction. He will not be elected his first year on the ballot. He may not be elected by year ten. But he will be elected.
I still expect Ron Santo to be inducted someday, maybe not while he is alive, but someday. Eventually wrongs are righted. It took Bid McPhee a mere century or so to be inducted.
By the way, I find the argument that if you have to make a case for a player then he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame to be, well, silly. If you started out the HOF with Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson, you would then largely stop right there with a two person HOF, as you'd have to make a case for just about everyone else. Joe DiMaggio?--hey, he wasn't as great as Ruth, and if you have to make a case for him, then he doesn't belong. Johnny Bench?--nope, not Ruth. Tom Seaver?--hey, his numbers are not as good as Walter Johnson's. Wait, you say----DiMaggio was a three time MVP, a terrific all-around player, leader of the Yankee dynasty at perhaps its peak; Bench was the greatest catcher ever, a two time MVP; Seaver won three Cy Young awards and 300 games, and besides the competition was tougher in his day-----nope, those are arguments, and if you have to make arguments then DiMaggio, Bench and Seaver do not belong in a Hall of Fame with Ruth and Johnson.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
I was agreeing with you. What is it about Larkin's '96 stats that you are curious about?Originally Posted by KalDanielsfan
Rem
BTW, I lived in Studio City for about 12 years before I moved to Newport. Nice area. I liked it.
The only thing Larkin did not have that Ozzie Smith did have was a snazzy first name and a back flip.
If Ozzie is a HoF'er, then so is Barry Larkin. No question. If Barry would have played in LA, Chicago or NY, this would not even be a debate.
And to steal Welch's line, and stretch it a bit, if Rizutto and Reese are HoF'ers, then so is Dave Concepcion. Rizutto and Reese could not hold a candle to Concepcion, who revolutionized SS play on astroturf infields. (Since we're speaking Red's SS's).
In fact, with Larkin, I'd go so far as to say the best Reds since 1950, other than the BRM regulars of Rose, Bench, Morgan and Perez, are Frank Robby and Barry Larkin.
I agree with all of the above and I think that the point about Rizzuto and Reese supports the idea that shorstops of different era's are (and should be) view differently and in relationship to their own era.Originally Posted by Always Red
Rem
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |