Barry's year? Peering into the Hall of Fame Crystal Ball
Barry Larkin is the top returning candidate on this year's Hall of Fame ballot. The writers have elected at least one player in every year since 1996. So this must mean that Larkin's getting elected, right?
Well, I hope so. Larkin appeared on 62.1% of the ballots last year, up from 51.5% in his 2010 debut. Getting another 13% is certainly attainable and perhaps even likely, but it's far from certain. Here's what's going in his favor:
- He's incredibly well-qualified. You probably agree if you're reading this blog, but if you're looking for a robust, objective analysis, JinAZ made a strong case here.
- He was recognized as a great player during his career. Some players are diamonds in the rough who generate interesting HOF discussions because they were much more valuable than their lack of All-Star Game appearances and postseason hardware suggest (see Tim Raines). Larkin is not one of those cases. He made the All-Star Game twelve times, won nine Silver Sluggers, three Gold Gloves, and an MVP. That's a pretty good indication that he was correctly recognized as among the best for a very long time. Interestingly, no eligible player picked for at least 12 NL all-star teams has failed to make the HOF.
- Much of the HOF dialogue should focus on Larkin because he is the top returning candidate and the only one with a puncher's chance of enshrinement this ballot cycle. This is key for Larkin, since he did many things well but nothing that screamed "Hall of Famer" (like Tony Gwynn's batting average, or Ozzie Smith's defense). Last year, Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe wrote that he changed his vote to a "yes" for Larkin, an "acquired taste for me because he is not the kind of player you automatically ascribe Hall of Fame status to. Some voters believe that if you have to think about it, the player isn't worthy. But we owe it to the process to think about it.... From 1986-2004, Larkin was pretty much the most productive shortstop in all of baseball. That's a long time at a premium position." Hopefully other writers give it some thought and reach the inevitable conclusion that Larkin, among the ten best Shortstops in the game's history, is a no-brainer.
- The writers' HOF ballot this year is particularly weak. After Larkin, the top returning candidate is Jack Morris with 53.5%. I don't see much growth for Morris because he seems to be a litmus test on pitcher clutchiness, the kind of guy people have a strong opinion about one way or the other. The top debut on the ballot is Bernie Williams, a very good outfielder before he fell off a cliff in his early 30s. You might think he'll get a bump as a True Yankee, but that sure hasn't helped Don Mattingly. As I mentioned above, the writers are known for agreeing on at least one guy. They haven't pitched a shutout since 1996, when Phil Niekro topped the balloting with 68%.
It may look favorable for Larkin, but nothing should be taken for granted given the number of extra votes he needs. Last year, Blyleven and Roberto Alomar were elected but had much less ground to cover. Each had received over 73% of the vote in the 2010 ballot. Larkin still needs an additional 13% out of 500 plus voters. The Reds' PR department has previously mailed promotional materials to eligible voters. I hope they've done so again this year.
The BBWAA has already mailed out the ballots and will announce the results on January 9 at 2:00 EST. For his part, Larkin is understandably not trying to get worked up about all of this: "Honestly, I don't think about it much. When it comes to [this month], it'll be on my mind, for sure. There are some things you can control and others that you can't. So I try not to dwell so much on the ones that you can't. I'm excited about the opportunity, but it's not on the forefront of my mind." Here's hoping that it won't be on his mind again next December.
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The only reason Larkin isn't already in is b/c he didn't play in Boston or NY
Dayman, Fighter of the Nightman, Champion of the Sun
Also he missed a lot of games
From the time he became a regular starter to the time he retired, he only played in 75% of the Reds games, or about 120 games a year. Give him another 350 games, which would be 140 a year, and he’s probably got 2700 hits, over 1500 runs, over 1100 RBI, and over 400 SB. In other words, his case is identical to Alomar’s (except Barry has an MVP). He’d be in already if he had been a little more healthy.
Also, when Larkin played, the Reds won.
Follow on Twitter: @jluckhaupt. Buy The Wire-to-Wire Reds today!
I dunno...
1. He wasn’t terribly durable, and everyone knew it – he accumulated over 600 PA only 6 times (7, if you pro-rate ‘94). During the ’90’s, which should have been the meat of his career, he only appeared in 82% of the Reds’ games.
2. He wasn’t as good defensively as Ozzie Smith.
3. At the time he was making his victory lap, career wise, the new better hitting SS appeared (Jeter, ARod, Nomar, Tejada) and that hasn’t changed alot (Tulo, H. Ramirez). You do realize he had fewer than 200 HRs playing in the highest offensive era since before WWII?
I’m not saying that these are legitimate excuses – his 9000+ PA are plenty; “not as good as Ozzie” is hardly damning; and “only as good of a hitter as Jeter/Nomar/Tulo” isn’t damning, either. But because he wasn’t the best defender, or only “ordinarily” great as a hitting SS, he doesn’t stick out. He wasn’t a .300 hitter, and never once lead the league in any offensive category.
There is no doubt in my mind that Larkin would add to the HOF, not lessen it in any way. But saying he hasn’t been elected yet because of Midwest Anti-bias is just simplistic.
I just want to add (referring to the injury thing) that if it wasn’t for injuries in just ‘93 and ’97 I don’t think we’d be having this conversation – playing more those two seasons would have given his career enough more body that he would have gone in last year.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
by sidnancy on Dec 9, 2011 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Steroids
Larkin was never linked to steroids, unlike the better hitting shortstops of his latter career- ARod, Tejada, Nomah, I think that helps him.
Also, he autographed a baseball card for me when I was 7. No other credentials are necessary. Also, Brian Dorsett belongs in Cooperstown.
Jeff Bagwell was also never linked to steroids
But somehow, that’s the only thing keeping him out of the hall.
FWIW, I’m suspicious of Larkin, but I still think he’s a Hall of Famer.
Follow on Twitter: @jluckhaupt. Buy The Wire-to-Wire Reds today!
I think there is reason enough to be suspicious
I mean, if we’re going to randomly suspect people from that era, he’s probably included. Dude was pretty buff, even into his late 30s. Not that that’s enough of an indicator on it’s own, but given the era he played in, it wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out he juiced.
And either way, it doesn’t really matter to me. He’s still a Hall of Famer.
Follow on Twitter: @jluckhaupt. Buy The Wire-to-Wire Reds today!
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
I CAN’T HEAR YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Heresy! BURN THIS MAN!

Tequila and pancakes, anyone?
by Kevin Mitchell is Batman on Dec 9, 2011 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
If there is a an anti-flyover bias
Playing in a small market where his team didn’t reach the WS during his peak years might actually help him avoid suspicion.
Mgr., Red Reporter
"Bootsy, you're a superstar right?"
"Twinkle, twinkle, babble."
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Dec 9, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Do you think Bonds and McGwire should be in?
I say yes on Bonds, no on McGwire.
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
I don't know, if you don't care about steroids once so ever
a .269/.394/.588 over 7660 plate appearances is pretty incredible.
I guess the questions are do think he would have put up Hall of Fame numbers without steroids, and do you think that if he couldn’t put up the numbers without steroids should that preclude him from the Hall?
Contributing little more than than snark and wittiness to SBN since 2007.
by Yossarian22 on Dec 10, 2011 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
That's my thinking, there's no way he would have put up Hall worthy number without steroids
Bonds would have easily in my opinion, if he hadn’t already by the time he started using.
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
Which makes Roger Clemans really difficult
Would he have had the longevity to go from being a guy who was really good until he was 30, to a guy who had a great 20 year career without steroids?
Contributing little more than than snark and wittiness to SBN since 2007.
by Yossarian22 on Dec 10, 2011 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure he belongs
I think it’s pretty obvious when he started taking steroids (between the ‘96 and ’97 seasons), and he didn’t have HOF numbers at that point.
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
Eh, it's close
He was worth about 75 rWAR at that point, had already won three Cy Youngs, and one MVP. Blyleven aside, that’s usually good enough to get in. He was definitely a borderline case, but if he retired after the ‘96 year, I think he’d get in. If he didn’t, I think i t would’ve been because of his failures in the playoffs, and his general dickishness. In any case, he’s way more deserving than McGwrie
I'm being completely lazy, but he didn't have 200 wins by then did he?
And agreed, those three go Bonds – Clemens – McGwire in my book.
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
I don't think steroids is the ONLY thing that kkept Bagwell out of the Hall
I have seen arguments from people who simply legitimately think his production was not HOF worthy, if you can believe that. And since we’re talking about the BBWAA, why wouldn’t you believe it….
Of course, those poeple have to be a minority, so steroids suspicion is definitely playing a part with Bagwell.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
I remember reading a HoF article from someone (I wanna say Heyman, but that's probably projecting)
where they said something like, “Look, I’m not saying he took steroids. I’m just sayin’. And that’s why I’m not voting for him.”
by Charlie Scrabbles on Dec 10, 2011 9:22 AM EST up reply actions
Bagwell probably used steroids
Bagwell is my 2nd favorite player ever, and has never been linked to PEDs, but even I will admit there is a decent chance he used them. But since there’s no evidence at all, and he’s one of the best players like ever, he should definitely be in the HOF.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
We've had the steroids discussion before
(and as I recall, you lost in most embarrassing fashion), so you know where I stand. He was awesome. So was Bonds. And so was McGwire. They are all in.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Dec 10, 2011 9:27 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think McGwire stood a chance in hell of making the HOF without steroids, but that's just me
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
Who wants to watch me hit some dingers?
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
by jch24 on Dec 10, 2011 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
'98 was awesome
it doesn’t mean McGwire’s career was
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
that's what Peter Abraham said
Steroids do matter to him – he doesn’t take the character and integrity part lightly. But he says even without ‘roids, he wouldn’t vote for McGwire. Maybe if he had an elite glove…but he didn’t think the bat alone was enough, ’roids or no ’roids.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
And this is an entirely different steroids discussion than the one of your faulty recollection
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
Bagwell was, like Frank Thomas, one of the most virulent anti-steroids guys out there.
I think Smoltz was in there, too.
"You said 'walks' twice."
"I like walks."
by Cy Schourek on Dec 10, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
methinks doth protests too much?
Contributing little more than than snark and wittiness to SBN since 2007.
That finger point "period." is a true classic
it makes me smile every time
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
Just curious, but why do you think that?
I know everyone who played in the 90’s is a suspect (sadly, as someone said earlier, that includes Larkin) but like you said, he was never linked to ‘roids. He was pretty much injury free in his career, which is hard to do if you’re on steroids
change in physique
change in hitting profile from minors to majors
teammate of known roider(s)
injury free is not evidence against steroid use, it might be evidence for steroid use.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
Also, his chronic late-career shoulder injury
again it doesn’t mean steroids, but it fits with the profile of long-term steroid affects.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
Of course, you could say the same profile fits plenty of guys
Bagwell also changed his swing dramatically early in his big league career. Since there’s nothing but circumstantial evidence about him, I give Bags the benefit of the doubt.
Me too, I really really wanna believe he was clean
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
The BBWAA is ridiculous and needs to be kicked in the ass
I wish there was a better way to elect members of the HOF.
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
popular election
they need to hand that shit over to the internet! We’re always right!
Follow on Twitter: @jluckhaupt. Buy The Wire-to-Wire Reds today!
that may be the only option WORSE than the BBWAA
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
Larkin was the bridge from the no hit/great glove SS to those guys
He was the first 30/30 SS ever. He didn’t have 50 HR power, sure, but for a guy who hit 1st or 2nd for the majority of his career he wasn’t asked to hit HRs.
I’m definately biased though, as Larkin is my all time favorite player.
Dayman, Fighter of the Nightman, Champion of the Sun
Larkin hit .295, though I doubt hitting an even .300 would make a serious difference in the voting
Though it’s interesting that Larkin and Alomar have nearly identical slash lines: 295/371/444 for Larkin, and 300/371/443 for Alomar. Alomar has a PA advantage but Larkin gets the position judgment, so objectively they’re close to a push. By oWAR they’re within 0.3. But TZ doesn’t like Alomar’s defense.
Like I mention above, I don't buy the New York bias when it comes to HOF voting
NY might be the biggest market but there are over 500 voters, the vast majority based outside of NY. Mattingly hasn’t seen any kind of momentum in the voting even though he has a marginal argument based on his peak. Randolph was a 60 WAR 2B, almost all of it as a Yankee, and was one-and-done. Phil Rizutto is talked about as benefiting from a Yankee bump but he was elected by the VC.
Boston is overstated in terms of market size and significance. Rice may have gotten in, but Dwight Evans was better and didn’t get a sniff. Luis Tiant has as much of an argument as Jack Morris but didn’t have nearly as much support.
the yankee/red sox bump should be seen in the future
mattingly played during a time the yankees were terrible & slightly before the ESPNization of the world.
ESPN’s constant pimping of NY & Boston players leads to unprecedented national attention for the last generation’s players. the added name recognition will give them a bump.
otoh, the steroids will hurt them
I'm still not sure
Bernie Williams should be a prime candidate to get a Yankee bump. He was the best position player for a lot of the championship teams, and hit .321/.406/.531 between ‘95 and ’02. He’s the type of marginal HOFer that should benefit from being a true Yankee, if there is such a benefit. I don’t think he’ll get a ton of support, but we’ll see. Paul O’Neill was a lesser player but got tons of Yankee credit in the late ‘90s. I wouldn’t have expected him to get particularly close, but he received only a handful of votes and was off the ballot after his first year.
The ESPNization definitely affects how casual fans view baseball. Maybe I’m being naive but I think that the writers who follow the game for a living are digging deeper than what ESPN chooses to show.
Also
They Yanks and Sawx have All-Stars at more positions now than they did in the 70s, 80s, & early 90s. They’ll have better HOF candidates in 15 years than they do right now just by the fact that they have better players.
Follow on Twitter: @jluckhaupt. Buy The Wire-to-Wire Reds today!
while true
the criteria for being an “all star” is pretty watered down. many of the all stars are selected by fan vote which is heavily influenced by espn.
also, scott rolen was an all star starter last season.
sorry, I don't mean All-Star as in they they played in the all-star game
but in the traditional sense that they’re among the best at their position. Off the top of my head, Yanks have top 5 players at 5 positions and Sox at 4? I doubt any other teams can claim that.
Follow on Twitter: @jluckhaupt. Buy The Wire-to-Wire Reds today!
Dwight Evans should be a HOFer
Buy RED: My Uncensored Life in Rock by Sammy Hagar, today
by obc2 on Dec 9, 2011 12:48 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I agree.
ESPN controls the story, so they can shape the study.
You want to know what’s fun? Look at AP 25 from the early 90s and it from today. It’s way more weighted towards SEC/B1G now than it was in the past. Polls are why LSU is playing Alabama, and the Polls say that because ESPN says that Okie St (which played predominantly on FOX channels throughout the season) isn’t as good as the 3rd best SEC team.
It’ll happen a lot more going forward with all the other sports. I’m dying to see what’ll happen to the World Cup now that ESPN doesn’t have the rights.
"You said 'walks' twice."
"I like walks."
I dunno.
I think the 6 straight BCS championship game wins by 4 different SEC schools has more to do with this year’s matchup than ESPN and the polls.
Tequila and pancakes, anyone?
by Kevin Mitchell is Batman on Dec 9, 2011 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
Who is the 2nd best SEC team? Because it's not Georgia.
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
I'm thinking he'd be the first boyhood hero of mine to be elected to the HOF.
Larkin and Eric Davis were my favorites. I was an even bigger hockey fan growing up, and Pavel Bure was my favorite player. He’s been snubbed a couple times for the hockey hall of fame.
by Cuetotally Amazing on Dec 9, 2011 10:24 AM EST reply actions
I grew up with Bure a little too, he was such a badass
"Wait, you think I'm being mean to the pretend orangutan?" -- battlekow
Stuck in a room blasting Rachel Ray's morning show.
I want to kill all of the things.
"You said 'walks' twice."
"I like walks."
I don't think "Campbell's Slow Kettle Soups" know what a kettle is.
"You said 'walks' twice."
"I like walks."
My favorite Larkin card

A dope trailer is no place for a kitty.
by GlennBraggsSwingAndMissBrokenBat on Dec 9, 2011 11:51 AM EST reply actions
the Rays extend Matt Moore for 5 years after 17 days of Major League service time
[via the interwebs]
Let a man come in and do the Popcorn.
Crum-Bum Beat
/shoulddaneenvotto'd
Tequila and pancakes, anyone?
by Kevin Mitchell is Batman on Dec 9, 2011 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
good move
A bit riskier with a pitcher than with a position player, but I’m sure they have insurance.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
'xactly
Sooner or later, teams will catch on.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Dec 9, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that's absolutely awesome for the Rays
sorry, nyc, a Moore trade is never gonna happen now (as if it ever were). The Rays now own the two best contracts in MLB, by a landslide.
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat
Oh, I know it was never going to happen.
But this reinforces my statement that Moore is going to be a more valuable asset than Votto over the next few years, and I’d do a straight up trade in a heartbeat.
It feels so nice to be back to normal
No doubt, I would too cuz Votto is gone soon anyway and Moore is for realz
expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat

by 































