Options
Barry Larkin Hall of Famer????
ShoeboxTom
Posts: 104
Two questions concerning Barry Larkin:
Does Barry Larkin belong in the Hall of Fame?
His career average is .295 with 2340 career hits. He was a 12 time all star who won 9 Silver Slugger awards and 3 gold glove awards.
He won the National League 1995 MVP award and batted .353 in the 1990 World Series which the Reds won. Remember he was a shortstop.
Second Question:
Why is Larkin's 1986 Sportflics card not considered his rookie card over the 1987 Fleer Glossy?
Today I bought two 1986 PSA 10 Larkin Sportflics cards. How much is a 1986 Sportflics PSA 10 worth? The 1987 Fleer Glossy at PSA 10 goes for $40.00
However, only 127 1986 Sportflics cards have been submitted to PSA and only 27 have earned a PSA 10 while 323 1987 Fleer Glossy
cards have been submitted to PSA 10 and 28 have received a PSA 10. So if the Sportflics is a rarer card and came a year earlier then
why does SMR only show the 1987 Fleer Glossy.
Does Barry Larkin belong in the Hall of Fame?
His career average is .295 with 2340 career hits. He was a 12 time all star who won 9 Silver Slugger awards and 3 gold glove awards.
He won the National League 1995 MVP award and batted .353 in the 1990 World Series which the Reds won. Remember he was a shortstop.
Second Question:
Why is Larkin's 1986 Sportflics card not considered his rookie card over the 1987 Fleer Glossy?
Today I bought two 1986 PSA 10 Larkin Sportflics cards. How much is a 1986 Sportflics PSA 10 worth? The 1987 Fleer Glossy at PSA 10 goes for $40.00
However, only 127 1986 Sportflics cards have been submitted to PSA and only 27 have earned a PSA 10 while 323 1987 Fleer Glossy
cards have been submitted to PSA 10 and 28 have received a PSA 10. So if the Sportflics is a rarer card and came a year earlier then
why does SMR only show the 1987 Fleer Glossy.
0
Comments
collecting 1977 topps baseball in psa 9 and psa 10
by Ozzie Smith for a number of years.
As for his collectibles, people just don't collect his stuff. Regardless, Barry is a class act and will be
recognized by his peers and the writers.
How about this for an example ...
Puckett
Mattingly
Sandberg
... all close to the same numbers & length of career, yet Mattingly isnt in. Why ? Because of shortened career and no World Series ring ? Sandberg doesnt have a ring, and his career length was about the same
Anyway, who knows if Larkin will get in. i'm sure most will say no, because you would have to let in dozens of others with similar stats.
Then again, why is Pee Wee Reese in ?
I'd like to see Trammell & Whitaker in the hall, and they have rings & good stats
Its all about who the writers like and want in.
Just my opinion
Sandberg was a 2nd baseman, extra points for the numbers he put up from that position. 10 time all star, 9 gold gloves. that being said; he comapres favorably with Trammel, who think was an outstanding Ss thats overlooked.
Puckett was beloved and has 2 W.S. rings, plus he had some outstanding seasons. 5 seasons 200+ hits, a batting crown, alcs mvp, as game mvp. .318 hitter. and he only played 12 seasons.
10 time all-star (10 years in a row)
<< <i>Why is Larkin's 1986 Sportflics card not considered his rookie card over the 1987 Fleer Glossy?
Today I bought two 1986 PSA 10 Larkin Sportflics cards. How much is a 1986 Sportflics PSA 10 worth? The 1987 Fleer Glossy at PSA 10 goes for $40.00
However, only 127 1986 Sportflics cards have been submitted to PSA and only 27 have earned a PSA 10 while 323 1987 Fleer Glossy
cards have been submitted to PSA 10 and 28 have received a PSA 10. So if the Sportflics is a rarer card and came a year earlier then
why does SMR only show the 1987 Fleer Glossy. >>
Sportflics was regarded as a 2nd tier card producer even in the 80s, so I'm guessing that the hobby has outright rejected these cards.
As far as the value and rarity, you need to look at the number of PSA 10s with respect to the total graded population for that card.
Of the 127 Sportflics Larkins submitted, 27 have gotten PSA 10s, or about 21% of the total population. Since Sportflics aren't a popular issue, not many get submitted, and of the ones that do, there's a pretty large chunk of PSA 10s.
Since the Fleer Glossy Larkins are more popular, more get submitted. Of the 323 total Larkins submitted, 28 are PSA 10s, which is about 8.7% of the total graded population.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Puckett was beloved and has 2 W.S. rings, plus he had some outstanding seasons. 5 seasons 200+ hits, a batting crown, alcs mvp, as game mvp. .318 hitter. and he only played 12 seasons. 10 time all-star (10 years in a row) >>
Mattingly was beloved also, probably by many more
Mattingly was THE star for 6 straight seasons
6 all star games
3 silver slugger awards
9 gold gloves
MVP 1985
2153 hits in really, only 13 seasons
but ... no ring
I see Mattingly getting in, eventually
he has to
me MUST !!!
I have too many of his cards, for him not to
LOL
Player A: .319 Avg, 15 HR, 66 RBI, 96 Runs, 51 SB
Player B: .340 Avg, 40 HR, 128 RBI, 108 Runs, 13 SB
Player C: 19-2, 210 IP, 1.63 ERA, 0.83 WHIP, 181 K's, 10 CG
Player
Players A, C & D all played on division winners. Player B was on a team that finished 2nd, 1 game back and took the wild card. Based on stats alone, I say player C wins in a landslide, but nobody will vote for a pitcher for MVP. When you consider that player C is Greg Maddux and the general leadership he brought to the Braves (and the fact that the Braves had the best record in the NL in 1995) I don't see how he loses a single 1st place vote. I know the steals are a giveaway but player A is Larkin, B is Dante Bichette, C is Greg Maddux and D is Mike Piazza (so any aguments for position scarcity are neutralized in my opinion since C is at least as scarce as SS).
Larkin's .295 career average is pretty strong but I say he's on the cusp and shouldn't get in, primarily because I am bitter about the 1995 NL MVP vote which he never should have won. A strong case could be made for the other 3 over him and I say Maddux deserved it in a landslide.
He led in homers and rbi and was 3rd in batting average. But I wonder if Coors
Field had anything to do with it.
He does not meet the "dominant" threshold. I firmly believe, in fact, that when he comes up for his first HOF election, that he will not meet the 5% threshhold that will allow him to be included in future HOF elections.
~ms
and won nine Silver Sluggers at shortstop. Who was a better shortstop
then him from lets say 1985-1995?
<< <i>I firmly believe, in fact, that when he comes up for his first HOF election, that he will not meet the 5% threshhold that will allow him to be included in future HOF elections. >>
Care to make a wager on that Marc?
<< <i>I firmly believe, in fact, that when he comes up for his first HOF election, that he will not meet the 5% threshhold that will allow him to be included in future HOF elections. >>
Larkin has 12 All Star selections. The only folks who are NOT in the HoF who have 12 or more AS selections are either still active or not eligible.
He's not falling off the ballot in his first year.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Larkin has 12 All Star selections >>
Well, who else played shortstop during the Smith & Larkin era, in the NL ?
Currently working on:
1955 Topps All-American
George Brett Master Set
2009 A&G's
Grace is another guy that is on the cusp.
Steve
<< <i>Two questions concerning Barry Larkin:
Does Barry Larkin belong in the Hall of Fame?
Second Question:
Why is Larkin's 1986 Sportflics card not considered his rookie card over the 1987 Fleer Glossy? >>
I think Larkin absolutely belongs in the HOF because he dominated the SS position during his playing days. While his stats don't quite measure up to today's top shortstops like Hanley Ramirez, he played in an era where the middle infielders were mostly light hitting defensive specialists.
re: the '86 Sportflics card. I don't recall the Sportflics card ever being in demand as Larkin's RC - I only remember the '87 Fleer as the most desirable. I honestly don't even remember how it was distributed - packs, box set, etc? Can anyone confirm?
There is a strong arguement for Cal Ripken being the second best shortstop in history (not counting Alex Rodriguez), yet Larkin compares favorably. Both have an equal number of full seasons at shortstop with an OPS+ over 100. Ripken's OPS was higher, but Larkin had the higher OBP, so offensively they were probably equal. Ripken obviously played in every game, while Larkin had some injury problems. But then we can add the partial seasons to Larkin (89, 97, 00) and the playing time is pretty equal. Defensively both were great, Ripken the second best of the 80s, Larkin perhaps the second best of the 90s, edge does go to Ripken, who had such an awesome throwing arm; Larkin makes for a lot by being an all-time great baserunner. The 162-game season definitely gives the edge to Ripken, but exactly how much of an advantage are those 120 extra games at shortstop? Being an average thirdbaseman for five years did help the Orioles a little, as far as his status among all-time great players it shouldn't help very much at all
The Puckett and Mattingly comparison is always silly. Largest things is Puckett was far more valuable defensively, close to Willie Mays level for a few years in the 80s. It isn't only the World Series rings. It is the World Series MVP that helps. And he did it on a team that was horrible immediately before he came and immediately after he left. And the rest of the players weren't all that good either. It isn't a knock on Mattingly that the Yankees didn't win, it is simply a huge plus for Puckett
The best comparisons would be Mattingly and Dick Allen, Puckett and Richie Ashburn. . .
<< <i>
The Puckett and Mattingly comparison is always silly
The best comparisons would be Mattingly and Dick Allen, Puckett and Richie Ashburn. . . >>
I dont know what I was thinking, comparing 2 players that retired in the same year, and had their 1st full season in the same year, and had the same stats
Whats silly is the weight of a World Series MVP (Ring) vs. Regular Season MVP
If the Yankees won just ONE world series during Mattinglys career, who here doubts that he would be in the hall ?
Honestly, the Hall Of Fame has become silly itself. I used to think it was real important when I was young, but when you see who they put in and who they keep out ...
No one has ever held the belief that Puckett's World Series MVP is a greater accomplishment or carries more weight than Mattingly's regular season MVP. It is the World Series MVP in addition to everything else Puckett did. And that includes earning more MVP votes over his career than Mattingly
You are right that the selection process to the Hall-of-Fame can be silly. But a lot of it has been done right. The writers have only elected no first baseman worse than Mattingly and overall maybe only two or three position players total. There is a definite gap between Puckett and Mattingly and Puckett is one of the weaker choices the writers have made among hitters
<< <i>
Honestly, the Hall Of Fame has become silly itself. I used to think it was real important when I was young, but when you see who they put in and who they keep out ... >>
Try and figure out why Ron Santo is not in the Hall of Fame. He has very similar numbers to most 3b who are in!
<< <i>hockeyguy, stick to the frozen pond
Right after you stick to Star Wars :-)
<< <i>Puckett had five seasons with over 400 outfield putouts >>
Putouts
hmm
you've got me
I've been put in my place
LOL
Honestly, is there no room in your heart for a little love for Donnie ?
unless you can offer any insight as to what that meant to the Twins, how can you have any idea which player was better? (or that Barry Larkin doesn't deserve to be in the Hall-of-Fame?)
Mattingly was the league's best player for a three year stretch from 84-87. Puckett could only come very close to making such a claim
<< <i>Mattingly was the league's best player for a three year stretch from 84-87. Puckett could only come very close to making such a claim >>
I'm glad that you agree with me
<< <i>Try and figure out why Ron Santo is not in the Hall of Fame. He has very similar numbers to most 3b who are in! >>
I'd be shocked if Santo is not elected in the next VC vote, which I believe takes place in February. After the VC (which only meets every other year) failed to elect a player for the 6th straight year 2 years ago, it was rightfully revamped. Many felt, myself no doubt included, that there was no reason to even have such a committee if they were just never going to elect anyone. I understand tightening the standards after the woeful Mazeroski selection, but the VC took it way too far. So I think Santo and Hodges will finally get their due next time around. There could even be a surprise thrown in, though I'm betting against it. Maybe Kaat or Olivo? Should be interesting. But I think Santo's chances are terrific.
<< <i>
<< <i>Try and figure out why Ron Santo is not in the Hall of Fame. He has very similar numbers to most 3b who are in! >>
I'd be shocked if Santo is not elected in the next VC vote, which I believe takes place in February. After the VC (which only meets every other year) failed to elect a player for the 6th straight year 2 years ago, it was rightfully revamped. Many felt, myself no doubt included, that there was no reason to even have such a committee if they were just never going to elect anyone. I understand tightening the standards after the woeful Mazeroski selection, but the VC took it way too far. So I think Santo and Hodges will finally get their due next time around. There could even be a surprise thrown in, though I'm betting against it. Maybe Kaat or Olivo? Should be interesting. But I think Santo's chances are terrific. >>
I hope you are right and Santo gets in... I really hope the VC does the right thing and gets the man in before he has another major health problem.
The baseball hall of fame has become the strangest hall - football and basketball both seem to be able to get right all the time while baseball manages to open it's self up to second guessing it's own selections or lack there of.
Personally I think Mattingly, Dawson, Grace, and the Larkin's of the world should get in - all these players were good and played baseball the right way. It's already been proven the hall is not about supreme greatness so just let all the good players in.
- 5 seasons of 90+ games but <10 HR
- 7 seasons of 90+ games but <.450 SLG%
- maybe 4 great seasons (1984-1987) in a career of 14 years but 6 average or below-average years (1990-95)
Mattingly's peak is HOF-level. His problem is that more than half his career is average or (usually) below-average.
Tabe
<< <i>The baseball hall of fame has become the strangest hall - football and basketball both seem to be able to get right all the time while baseball manages to open it's self up to second guessing it's own selections or lack there of. >>
Don't be so sure about that. Just speaking on this year's elections alone, the football voters failed to elect Cris Carter, who should have been a slam dunk first ballot guy. And they elected Fred Dean ahead of Richard Dent while keeping Derrick Thomas out yet again. The basketball voters, meanwhile, finally elected Adrian Dantley, but he had to wait FOREVER top get it when he should have gone when he was first eligible years ago. Hockey's not much better. I think baseball does a nice job now of ensuring that only the truly deserving players get in. Hopefully that means that Santo, Rice, Blyleven and Dawson will get in within the next 1-3 years. Personally I think it does.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
<< <i>The baseball hall of fame has become the strangest hall - football and basketball both seem to be able to get right all the time while baseball manages to open it's self up to second guessing it's own selections or lack there of. >>
All anyone can ask for is to set standards and follow them. Until know the baseball writers have truly done an outstanding job of that, though there are major signs that they are about to fall apart completely (Rice withing only a few votes, Raines no where close?). Until the standards do blur into nothing, however, we should still give them all the credit they have earned. Not counting the relief pitchers of the past two years, they have made perhaps five or six definitely incorrect selections. That's fewer than one per decade. Tony Perez was one of those incorrect selections and by far the worst choice at first base and even he was better than Mattingly
Dawson if very close to Puckett. And both are very close to Murphy, Lynn, Cedeno, Wynn. It is good that only one of those six have been inducted. Higher standards will only help
Based on already established standards Larkin is easily in. Between the worst they have elected and the best they have not (who weren't eventually added), Larkin is the best
The omission of Santo is obviously wrong. But again, the obvious omissions based on the standards they set happens less than once a decade
But I think the HOF is viewed by many, as they view a graded card ... far too many times, people buy the grade, and the card is never inspected. I think that people nowadays are used to astronomical numbers, and a career lasting 15 years, 2500 hits, 250 Home Runs is considered just average. I think players from the 80’s – present are held to higher standards (roids might have something to do with it)
Consider The great Johnny Bench … .267 average, only 2048 hits in 17 seasons. He hit 389 home runs, which is NOT incredible … but then we MADE it incredible, by breaking down statistics by positions (as it really matters) … and a couple of rings, along with being associated with a certain “red machine” title
Its all persona
Compare Bench with a guy with a ‘stache, who only played for a total of 11 full seasons … who racked up 2153 hits, 222 home runs, and averaged 307 … no rings, but won an MVP & other hardware
Longevity? Would Rickey Henderson be considered for the Hall, if he ended his career after 14 season, rather than hanging on, and hanging on, and hanging on? Is that what the Hall requires?
Not every generation will see a Williams, Ruth, or a Mays ….. but when players come along that dominate for 5 years & excite fans all over, and end up with a very good career – I believe there should be a spot for them in the HOF. Trammell, Whitaker, Santo, Rice, Mattingly, Clemens, Larkin, Bonds, McGwire & many more.
Feel free to trash and burn
Its all persona
Compare Bench with a guy with a ‘stache, who only played for a total of 11 full seasons … who racked up 2153 hits, 222 home runs, and averaged 307 … no rings, but won an MVP & other hardware"
there is no comparison with Bench. He is one of the top 3 catchers in baseball history.
Mattingly might be in the top 50 1st baseman.
<< <i>
there is no comparison with Bench. He is one of the top 3 catchers in baseball history.
Mattingly might be in the top 50 1st baseman. >>
I'm curious. Who started breaking down players stats according to position, and WHY ? Probably someone at the HOF.
Did something incredible happen when a CATCHER did something, that every other postion player had already accomplished ?
like Bench is remarkable.
I do not like comparing pos. and era's. And, since expansion more guys have been able to amass stats that in the 20's, 30's and even the 40's
would make them HOF's. Guys like Al Oliver have the same stats as guys that played before him yet he is not in. We have more of these guys now then ever before
and that may be another reason why many that could be in are not.
Hope that made sense to the guys that like to read into every word.
Steve
<< <i>IMO 389 Homers for a catcher is huge. The beating one takes playing that POS. and then being able to hit
like Bench is remarkable.
I do not like comparing pos. and era's. And, since expansion more guys have been able to amass stats that in the 20's, 30's and even the 40's
would make them HOF's. Guys like Al Oliver have the same stats as guys that played before him yet he is not in. We have more of these guys now then ever before
and that may be another reason why many that could be in are not.
Hope that made sense to the guys that like to read into every word.
Steve >>
That's why I think the HOF needs to evolve,
and realize that with over 100 years of history,
it cannot believe that the greatness of the game,
can come down to 280+ players & builders
I think it needs to expand, and expand fast.
You cant let great players sit around,
and hope to get inducted in the HOF, 10-30 years later
I understand what expansion has done,
but enshrine the players,
and let the public judge them & what they meant to the game
Great. (Like Barry Larkin) (eyeroll)
Steve
<< <i>I think the opposite, I think that guys like Al Oliver, (while good) are not great. The Hall should be for those deemed
Great. (Like Barry Larkin) (eyeroll)
Steve >>
I think if we look at all the HOF members,
we can all find a few members that we wouldnt have selected personally
Oh well
Since you believe the Hall-of-Fame should lower its standards to include Rice and Mattingly, who would you use as an example as one of the best players to fall below that standard?
Rickey Henderson was still a great player in his 15th season, at that time he was the fourth best leftfielder in history. Hanging around to draw a lot of walks and steal a few bases for 65 different Major League teams has no effect on that
PS I am almost out of Beer!
<< <i>hockeyguy, you believe the Hall-of-Fame should lower its standards to include Rice and Mattingly >>
No, I never said that.
Its sad to think that Mattingly & Rice are considered lowering ones standards.
The Hall of Fame has "lowered their OWN standards", considering some of thye players inducted.
My question is why are they so determined to keep certain players out ?
<< <i>Rickey Henderson was still a great player in his 15th season >>
No, he was simply a GOOD player, who stole bases.
I will not bother to compile his stats up to his 15th season, but he had about 2000 Hits.
His numbers for the 1st 15 years, rank among 100's & 100's of players
His last 10 seasons are JUNK !!!
he played on 45 teams
low amount of hits
and pathetic average
It's all persona
<< <i>
That's why I think the HOF needs to evolve,
and realize that with over 100 years of history,
it cannot believe that the greatness of the game,
can come down to 280+ players & builders
>>
I'm with ya! I also think there are players out there currently left out that deserve to be recognized for being the good ball players that they were. I really don't understand why there is such an elitist attitude about the hall of frame, it should celebrate all good players who fans enjoyed watching throughout their careers.
Hall of Famers like Joe Morgan drive me nuts... if it was up to him no one would be in the hall but him.
Writers have selected zero first baseman and zero leftfielders worse than either Mattingly or Rice (Tony Perez is the only one close and he was a bad choice and still better than Mattingly). They have left out several at each position better than Mattingly and Rice. To induct them into the Hall-of-Fame is the exact definition of lowering the standards
In Henderson's first 14 full seasons he was in the top five in OBP and times on base 19 times. Those stats rank among the best in history. Those stats alone would put him at Hall-of-Fame level (Of course you might come back with something sarcastic thinking reaching base, like catching the ball, doesn't mean anything in the sport of baseball). Additionally, being the best base running in the 100 year history of the sport is definitely worth a lot