Congrats to Michigan great Barry Larkin as he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
A very stellar career while showing class along the way...GO BLUE,Barry!
He likely will be, but wasn't yet. Results of the writer's ballot voting come out Jan 9th.
I think he's nominated but not elected yet. I hope he'll make it this year.
Either you have some amazing sources or you jumped the gun. You should always link to your information to give you (and the readers) a chance to sanity check it.
LIke it was said, January 9th. Santo got in today (finally), but Larkin has another month to wait for results. He should get in.
Now why Tim Raines and Alan Trammel get so little support is another story....
Baseball writers take the HOF more seriously than anyother sport does with their.
Couldn't agree more. I harp on these 2 guys whenever the discussion comes up.
It is a damn crying shame that Tram doesnt have support while Ozzie Smith got in on his first ballot. Tram should have done a couple of backflips I guess. Oz was a bit flashier with the the glove, but Tram was a damn fine defender also. Smith couldn't hit, while Tram was a dude that was capable of MVP numbers.
Raines. This baffles me. He wasnt the biggest name, but he was an outstanding player. I think that he gets hurt because for the last 8 years of his career, he was not a very great player because of injuries and that causes people to remember him as something less than he was, but he was dominant from '81 to '92. Even with the poor later years, if you take the whole body of work, he should certainly get in.
And here is hoping that Barry Larkin gets in. Great player. But again, if we look at his career numbers, Tram needs to get in also. Very very similar career numbers to Lark.
Of the top 100 hitters in baseball-reference's ELO rater (attempts to rank the best hitters of all time using a statistical formula), only 4 guys are eligible and are not yet in the Hall. Dwight Evans, Tim Raines, Lou Whitaker, and Alan Trammell.
Congrats to Ron Santo
Congrats to Larkin whenever he gets in if he gets in
but he definitely deserves to be. He should have been in on the first ballot. He was one of the greatest short stops of his era. A 12-time All-Star, 3 Golden Gloves, 9 Silver Sluggers, a NL MVP, World Series winner, and an all-around nice guy who got the Lou Gehrig and Roberto Clemente Awards. He, unfortunately, lived a bit in the shadow of Ozzie Smith. I personally think Larkin was a better baseball player (overall). While Ozzie was slightly better defensively, his offensive numbers were inferior to Larkin's. Barry finished his career with a .295 ba, whereas Ozzie's was a sad .262. Ozzie had 27 HRs in his entire career (most likely the lowest of any HOFer) to Larkin's 198. Not saying the Wiz of Oz was not a great player, just think that Barry was, overall, a better one and undeservedly lives in Ozzie's shadow.
First, IMHO, Ozzie Smith got his last three or four gold gloves from his reputation rather than the fact that he was better than Larkin.
As to Larkin's batting stats, they remind me of how much I hate steriods and why I don't follow baseball much any more. There will be a ton of guys who retire with better stats than Larkin, and people will think they were better than Larking, but, as you say, Larkin was one of the premier shortstops of his generation (if not the flat-out best). You could have done a lot worse if you were starting a team in 1990 than to pick Larkin as your first player.
I think offensive stats of the steriod era are very damaging to players like Larkin, Don Mattingly, Alan Trammell, Dave Parker, Fred McGriff, Frank Thomas, Tim Raines, guys who (appear) to have played a clean game. It took Jim Rice, what, 15 years? I can't stand the logic of many sports writers, harping on the smallest, most insignificant minutia, in making their decision. I think Trammell and Morris will eventually find their way in, but it will take the vets to vote them in.
hoping Jack Morris can get the nod this year...
Perhaps the Veterans Committee will vote him in one day but it seems that a lot of current sports writers are against him making it into the hall, calling him very good but not great. He is on the ballot through 2014 and I don't think he'll make up ground from the 50% that he is hovering around. I disagree with the view that he was not great. Morris was the winningest pitcher of the 1980s. With a 162-119 record between 1980 and 1989, Morris was the pitcher of record in more club victories than any other pitcher in the same time frame. Morris also started the most games, completed the most games, and pitched over 115 innings more than the next-most pitcher over the decade, and has 4 World Series titles. It seems that these days sports writers, many of whom were not even old enough to watch and appreciate Morris and his dominance, try to find ways to keep players worthy of the hall from getting in, focusing on minutia rather than on the player's impact/dominance on the game. I think he will get in one day, but it will take the vets to get him in.
Admittedly, I have not taken the time to understand the metrics which are used now to evaluate individual success, but I read enough during the Verlander discussions to see how much they discount wins for a pitcher.
Grownig up during the 80s (and admittedly as a Tigers fan), there was no better pitcher than Morris. He was a fierce competitor each and every start. I think there is something to be said for the belief that he pitched to win and not to put up stats.
Ultimately, you are probably right: a lot of the voters today did not seem him play during his prime. He may never have led the league in wins for a given year, but he was consistently noe of the top pitchers in baseball throughout the 80s. If that does not get you in the Hall, I am not sure what should.
He was a great leader of the Reds for a long time, much of it while the team was owned by sort-of-Nazi-sympathizer and crazy person Marge Schott. This required a lot of fine-line-walking, which he always did with dignity and class. He's a great representative of Michigan.
As an aside, I remember that he learned Spanish so that he could communicate directly with the team's Latino players. Not a lot of guys would do that.
It would be great if he did get the nod in next month's voting. His numbers as well as his character support it. I wish him luck as a fellow Wolverine.
Barry Larkin's stats are slightly better than Alan Trammell's. Most Tigers fans think Trammell deserves to be in, me among them. It would be great to see both of them get in, but Barry Larkin seems to be even a little more deserving than Alan Trammell. Both were great guys as well as great players.
Totally agree, but reason that Tigers fans get so up in arms is that Tram has been eligible for years, and is not getting much support.
Larkin should (deservedly) get in this year.
Lark was probably better, but Tram is in need of the support for some reason.
Barry was a better defensive player. Don't get me wrong, I personally think that Trammell should be in the hall (I think he was one of the top short stops of his era), but he still lives in the shadow of Ozzie and Larkin. Also, as some writers point out, unlike Larkin and Smith, Alan had a pretty darn good support from Whitaker. Not saying it's fair, but some sports writers will argue that Whitaker elevated Alan's game, whereas Larkin and Smith, kind of, made it happen on their own. I am not saying that is fair to Trammell, he was still a great short stop, but that is what I have read from some "experts".
I really hope Larkin gets in, as well. I grew up in Cincy in the '90s, so Larkin was always one of my favorite Reds. Along with Eddie Taubensee, Bret Boone, and Sean Casey when he got there.
Larkin is in, he is one of my all time favorites. It is so nice having him back helping my reds, where he belongs.