Is Barry Larkin a HOFer?

onlyanumber · December 10, 2006 4:21AM

Okay, he took the torch from Ozzie (in regards to being an All-star) and became 'the' shortstop of the NL during the 90's. 12 time all-star, MVP of the league and a world series in there. 2300+ hits. Is he a HOFer? Opinions? Skinpinch, can you provide a disection of his numbers?

dallasactuary · December 10, 2006 4:34AM

Beyond any shadow of a doubt if the HOF voters have the first clue what they're doing. OK, make that a very large doubt.

Writer11 · December 10, 2006 5:05AM

Without closely looking at his number, I would say, YES.

Wabittwax · December 10, 2006 5:13AM

I haven't followed his stats one bit but he hasn't dominated anything over his whole career that I know of. I have no clue when he even quit playing (or maybe he still is) because his name was never mentioned anywhere. Maybe a solid player but I think if a players RC won't even sell for 10 cents, then he probably hasn't done crap and nobody likes him personally. No way they water it down even more.

dallasactuary · December 10, 2006 5:42AM

<< No way they water it down even more. >>

There are 20 shortstops in the HOF. Barry Larkin was better than 15 of them. I will need to have the concept of "watering down" explained to me.

jaxxr · December 10, 2006 6:10AM

While I personally feel the Hall is already over stuffed with borderline guys, such as Larkin, although better than some inductees. I certainly hope he can get in eventually.
I do have two RCs of his, one a PSA 10 and the other a 9 !!!!

Cincykid8123 · December 10, 2006 2:08PM

Yes, next question.

ndleo · December 10, 2006 3:28PM

If Barry Larkin is a HOF, then Trammel should get in also. Both of them are basically mirror images of each other.

Based on the weak support Trammel gets, I doubt Larkin will fair any better.

dallasactuary · December 10, 2006 3:44PM

Larkin and Trammell aren't that far apart but Larkin was a little bit better at almost everything. IMO, they're both HOFers but I expect Larkin will do a little better in the voting than Trammell, and deservedly so. Every shortstop even arguably better than either of them is already in the HOF, as well as even more that were not as good. The HOF voters make a lot of choices that make no sense at all, and it may be that Larkin and Trammell will learn that the hard way.

GlynRParson · December 11, 2006 4:00AM

YES

fiveniner · December 11, 2006 4:59AM

<< If Barry Larkin is a HOF, then Trammel should get in also. Both of them are basically mirror images of each other.

Based on the weak support Trammel gets, I doubt Larkin will fair any better. >>

Both belong but neither will but dont ask me why!!!!

grote15 · December 11, 2006 10:13AM

He's a borderline candidate. I'd like to see him get in, but something tells me he'll fall short. I can see him getting in on a weak ballot like Sutter or Carter did.

ndleo · December 11, 2006 10:35AM

The late 1980's was a great era for shortstops. Ripken, Ozzie, Trammell, Yount, and Larkin were all key players on World Series clubs. Then there were decent guys like Tony Fernandez. With three of those guys already in, it's going to be harder to send another one in.

Wabittwax · December 11, 2006 11:41AM

<< 

<< No way they water it down even more. >>

There are 20 shortstops in the HOF. Barry Larkin was better than 15 of them. I will need to have the concept of "watering down" explained to me. >>

I don't think a player should be compared to others at his position in order to get in. He should be compared to everyone. With 198 career HR's, you'd let in half of everyone that ever played. I can't believe we have this discussion when it comes to guys like Mark McGwire but then we want to let in mediocre guys like Larkin. McGwire had a better career in his first 6 years, IMO, than Larkin had in his whole 19 years.

RickyHendersonSD · December 11, 2006 11:50AM

Disagree. One should compare a player by position when considering for HOF. For instance, there is more wear and tear on catchers which causes their offensive stats to often suffer. In the past, Shortstops were not known for power numbers but this has changed the last few years with shortstops such as A-Rod (when he was one) and Tejada.

dallasactuary · December 11, 2006 2:10PM

<< I don't think a player should be compared to others at his position in order to get in. >>

OK, you're right; Sandy Koufax couldn't hit a lick so let's keep him out of the HOF. Oh, you didn't mean THAT position? OK, fine, we'll kick out Carlton Fisk since he didn't hit any better than Barry Larkin (trust me, the only difference was Fenway). OH, you don't mean THAT position either? Well alright, bye bye Brooks Robinson, a FAR weaker hitter than Barry Larkin. What, not THAT position either?

Let's just make a Hall of Muscular Outfielders and you can be in charge of that; the HOF wouldn't be worth the price of admission if they followed your advice.

Wabittwax · December 12, 2006 1:19AM

<< 

<< I don't think a player should be compared to others at his position in order to get in. >>

OK, you're right; Sandy Koufax couldn't hit a lick so let's keep him out of the HOF. Oh, you didn't mean THAT position? OK, fine, we'll kick out Carlton Fisk since he didn't hit any better than Barry Larkin (trust me, the only difference was Fenway). OH, you don't mean THAT position either? Well alright, bye bye Brooks Robinson, a FAR weaker hitter than Barry Larkin. What, not THAT position either?

Let's just make a Hall of Muscular Outfielders and you can be in charge of that; the HOF wouldn't be worth the price of admission if they followed your advice. >>

I wouldn't expect a pitcher to be able to hit 400 HR's to get into the HOF. But I think offensive stats should be compared equally amongst all players. It's stupid to leave out an outfielder that hits great and is famous (hence the word Fame in Hall of Fame), and let in a barely known, offensively mediocre guy just because he plays a position that everyone before him has sucked at.

gregmo32 · December 12, 2006 4:52AM

Larkin gets in on the fourth ballot. Probably should get in sooner...

dallasactuary · December 12, 2006 5:33AM

<< It's stupid to leave out an outfielder that hits great and is famous (hence the word Fame in Hall of Fame), and let in a barely known, offensively mediocre guy just because he plays a position that everyone before him has sucked at. >>

Man, I thought I was kidding but you really would leave Brooks Robinson out of the Hall of Fame in favor of, who, Don Baylor or Greg Luzinski?

Barry Larkin is barely known? Not by anybody who was awake in 1990 or 1995.

I think I'll move on before my head explodes.

Boopotts · December 12, 2006 7:13AM

<< 

<< 

<< I don't think a player should be compared to others at his position in order to get in. >>

OK, you're right; Sandy Koufax couldn't hit a lick so let's keep him out of the HOF. Oh, you didn't mean THAT position? OK, fine, we'll kick out Carlton Fisk since he didn't hit any better than Barry Larkin (trust me, the only difference was Fenway). OH, you don't mean THAT position either? Well alright, bye bye Brooks Robinson, a FAR weaker hitter than Barry Larkin. What, not THAT position either?

Let's just make a Hall of Muscular Outfielders and you can be in charge of that; the HOF wouldn't be worth the price of admission if they followed your advice. >>

I wouldn't expect a pitcher to be able to hit 400 HR's to get into the HOF. But I think offensive stats should be compared equally amongst all players. It's stupid to leave out an outfielder that hits great and is famous (hence the word Fame in Hall of Fame), and let in a barely known, offensively mediocre guy just because he plays a position that everyone before him has sucked at. >>

So, what you're basically saying is we should get rid of all but a couple second basemen?

estang · December 12, 2006 8:32AM

I say if he gets in, it will take him 10 plus years.

My first reaction was "no" without looking at anything other than my personal perception. I don't follow NL that closely.

tennesseebanker · December 12, 2006 1:45PM

I think Larkin should get in a couple of years down the road, In the meantime put in the man who taught him the position;Dave Concepcion.

Wabittwax · December 12, 2006 9:25PM

<< So, what you're basically saying is we should get rid of all but a couple second basemen? >>

Umm, yep. I'd wipe out a ton of current HOFer's if it was up to me.

The only people that know who Barry Larkin is are people who follow baseball. The average housewife that has never watched a full game in her life knows exactly who Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds, and Mark McGwire are. That's the famous that I'm talking about. Not for guys like us, we know who everybody is in Baseball. Barry Larkin is not "famous" as say Madonna is "famous".

53BKid · December 26, 2006 10:49PM

<< I think Larkin should get in a couple of years down the road, In the meantime put in the man who taught him the position;Dave Concepcion. >>

I'm not a Reds fan, but I believe both should be there. There's no way the Big Red Machine would have faired as well without Concepcion's defense at short.

Skinpinch · December 27, 2006 12:11AM

Here is an interesting article to read......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rating the 2007 Hall Candidates by Win Shares

Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken are locks By Bill Gilbert

Posted Dec 17, 2006

Using Bill James’ Win Shares, Bill Gilbert forecasts who will be in and who will miss out on Hall of Fame recognition in 2007.

One of the first items of business in baseball each year is the announcement of players elected to the Hall of Fame. This leads to lots of speculation and a little analysis prior to the announcement which is scheduled for January 9, 2007.
Many systems exist for evaluating player performance. One such system, the Win Shares method, developed by Bill James in 2002, is a complex method for evaluating players which includes all aspects of performance – offense, defense and pitching. James has stated that, “Historically, 400 Win Shares means absolute enshrinement in the Hall of Fame and 300 Win Shares makes a player more likely than not to be a Hall of Famer. However, future standards may be different. Players with 300-350 Win Shares in the past have generally gone into the Hall of Fame. In the future, they more often will not”.

The 2007 class of Hall of Fame candidates is the strongest in several years. It consists of 15 holdovers and 16 players eligible for the first time. Four holdovers have over 300 Win Shares, Andre Dawson with 340, Bert Blyleven, 339, Dave Parker, 327 and Alan Trammell with 318. Four newcomers on the list have over 300 Win Shares; Cal Ripken, Jr. 427, Tony Gwynn 398, Mark McGwire 342 and Harold Baines 307. One of the newcomers last year, Will Clark, had 331 Win Shares but failed to receive the 5% of votes required to remain on the ballot. The only 2006 newcomers with enough votes to remain on the ballot were Orel Hershiser (11.2%) and Albert Belle (7.7%).

With the weak incoming class last year, all but one of the 15 holdovers gained votes. The only one that didn’t was Willie McGee who lost 14 votes and dropped below 5%, eliminating him from further consideration by the Baseball Writers. The big gainers were Bert Blyleven (66 votes), Bruce Sutter (56 votes) and Goose Gossage (51 votes). Sutter’s total of 400 votes (76.9%) was enough for election to the Hall. Jim Rice (64.8%, Gossage (64.6%), Andre Dawson (61.0%) and Blyleven (53.3%) are now within striking range of the 75% required for election but with the incoming class being so strong, they will probably not gain enough votes to make it this year. They will have a much better chance next year with a very weak class becoming eligible.

In the 2007 class, Ripken and Gwynn are certain to be elected on the first ballot. McGwire has the numbers to be elected but is tainted with the steroid cloud and many writers have indicated they will not vote for him. He may make it eventually but not this year. The only other newcomer that is likely to receive significant support is Baines but he is not a serious candidate for election since he was not a dominant player and was primarily a designated hitter for much of his career. Jose Canseco has the numbers that would ordinarily make him at least a marginal candidate but his sordid past may prevent him from getting enough votes (5%) to stay on the ballot.

Following is a list of Win Shares for the 32 players on the ballot. Players on the ballot for the first time are shown in bold.

Player Shares
------- --------
Cal Ripken, Jr..... 427
Tony Gwynn....... 398
Mark McGwire...... 342
Andre Dawson.... 340
Bert Blyleven...... 339
Dave Parker....... 327
Alan Trammel .....318
Harold Baines..... 307
Dale Murphy........ 294
Tommy John....... 289
Jim Rice............. 282
Tony Fernandez. 280
Steve Garvey..... 279
Jose Canseco.... 272
Dave Concepcion. 269
Bobby Bonilla...... 267
Don Mattingly..... 263
Paul O’Neill........ 259
Wally Joyner..... 253
Albert Belle........ 243
Ken Caminiti..... 242
Jack Morris........ 225
Eric Davis.......... 224
Goose Gossage. 223
Orel Hershiser... 210
Devon White..... 207
Lee Smith........ 198
Bret Saberhagen 193
Jay Buhner........ 174
Dante Bichette ..168
Scott Brosius..... 111
Bobby Witt .......102

The last 10 players elected by the Baseball Writers have averaged 342 Win Shares, a figure exceeded by only Ripken and Gwynn on the ballot this year.

Player Year Win Shares
--------------- ----- ------------
Dave Winfield 2001 415
Kirby Puckett 2001 281
Ozzie Smith 2002 325
Gary Carter 2003 337
Eddie Murray 2003 437
Paul Molitor 2004 414
Dennis Eckersley 2004 301
Wade Boggs 2005 394
Ryne Sandberg 2005 346
Bruce Sutter 2006 168
------
Average 342

Conclusions:

1. Cal Ripken, Jr. and Tony Gwynn will easily be elected by the Baseball Writers this year. Some have speculated that Ripken might set the record for the highest percentage of votes, now held by Tom Seaver with 98.84%. His .340 career on-base percentage could be an obstacle to voters that place special emphasis on first ballot election.

2. Mark McGwire will not come close but will remain on the ballot and could get elected in the future. If he is not elected, he will be the only eligible player with over 500 home runs not in the Hall.

3. None of the holdovers will receive enough votes for election.

4. Blyleven and Gossage will continue to move up but will fall short. They could be positioned for election next year when Tim Raines is the only strong new candidate.

5. Rice will continue to fall short because of his relatively short career.

6. Some other newcomers (Baines, Bonilla, O’Neill) could get enough votes to remain on the ballot. However, a stronger candidate last year, Will Clark, did not get enough votes to remain on the ballot.

7. There will not be a groundswell of support for Scott Brosius and Bobby Witt.

If I had a ballot, I would cast votes for Ripken, Gwynn, Blyleven, Trammell and Gossage. If I were on the Veterans Committee, I would vote for Gil Hodges, Ron Santo and Minnie Minoso and I would try to figure out some way to get Buck O’Neil in.

Bill Gilbert is a baseball analyst and writer and member of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR)."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though some analysts have pointed out some flaws in winshares, it is still one of the better methods that should be used in conjunction with the other comprehensive methods of evaluating. If a player fails to merit induction on any single one of the good evaluatory methods(ahhm, Rice), then considering him over others above him is quite foolish.

My eyes opened a bit on Dawson's total of 342! Remember, on the comprehensive hitting numbers I posted before, his ranking was low, BUT that was only hitting, and this includes fielding and baserunning too! When taking Dawsons's knees into consideration, I kind of like his chances of merit a bit more.

Notice the last ten players elected, and how Sutter is WAAAAAY out of place? And notice how other players who are not in are much more deserving than Sutter? That is a big time head scratcher. Kirby Puckett is the next lowest.

Again, I see Parker shining on this list, and the comprehensive hitting list.

The era a player plays in is certainly taken into consideration here, and I believe James currently does the best at handicapping the era's, and does a good job in cross era comparisons, though it probably needs one more uptick.

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER CANDIDATES FOR THE FUTURE...

Bonds 693
Palmeiro: 394
Bagwell: 387
Thomas 384
Sosa: 311
Jeter 278

Skinpinch · December 27, 2006 12:13AM

Larkin has 346, and Trammell 319.

80sJunkie · December 27, 2006 1:14AM

No way is larkin a HOFer

grote15 · December 27, 2006 12:33PM

I'm not a Reds fan, but I believe both should be there. There's no way the Big Red Machine would have faired as well without Concepcion's defense at short.

Wait, let me get this straight...you think Larkin & Concepcion should be in the HOF, but that Ken Griffey Jr. was a mediocre player who shouldn't? You've got to be kidding, right?

Wabittwax · December 28, 2006 6:10AM

<< HERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER CANDIDATES FOR THE FUTURE...

Bonds 693
Palmeiro: 394
Bagwell: 387
Thomas 384
Sosa: 311
Jeter 278 >>

If Palmeiro gets in then I don't want to ever hear another peep about McGwire, Bonds or anyone else with oversized heads.

zef204 · December 28, 2006 6:19AM

No. Larkin is not a HOFer.

dallasactuary · December 28, 2006 9:19AM

<< No. Larkin is not a HOFer. >>

No, he isn't since he isn't eligible yet, but to state it as clearly as I can: there is no reasonable argument that could be possibly be made by any informed observer that Barry Larkin does not deserve to be in the HOF. He is one of the "best of the best" that so many people argue the HOF should be reserved for; and his qualifications for the HOF as they have always existed in actual practice are as obvious as they are overwhelming.

kcballboy · December 29, 2006 12:02AM

I think he is HOF material.

He was overshadowed by Ozzie and Cal during his days, but he was still an elite SS in the league.

On the flip side, if he had started his career 10 years later, with guys like Jeter, A-Rod, Garciaparra, and Tejada at his position, then I don't think he is worthy. He wouldn't have been a top 5 (or maybe even top 10) guy at his position like he was. I think you have to look at a player among his peers to judge his worthiness. For example, if you were to say that only pitchers that measure up to the level of Cy Young, Sandy Koufax, Nolan Ryan, etc. are Hall worthy, then we will only see about 5 pitchers enshrined over the next 50 years, unless the game goes through a drastic change.

aconte · December 29, 2006 2:42AM

No. And he shouldn't be.

aconte

Is Barry Larkin a HOFer?

Comments