Larkin in Baseball Hall of Fame: Really???

[David Lyons]

Barry Larkin has just been elected to the baseball Hall of Fame. I didn't think he was quite deserving of that honor, though I would rate him just below that category.

ESPN says: "Playing from 1986-04 -- all with his hometown Reds -- Larkin hit .295 with 198 home runs, 960 RBIs, 2,340 hits and 379 stolen bases. A 12-time All-Star, he won the 1995 NL MVP award, three Gold Gloves and the 1990 World Series." http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof12/story/_...ball-hall-fame

Considering the era in which he played, those do not seem to be overwhelming statistics, with the exception of being a 12-time All-Star, which I think does show how the fans thought about him at the time.

The ones who did not get enough votes for inclusion who I think possibly should include Jack Morris, Edgar Martinez and Mark McGwire.

What do you think about this?

[Ryan Scott]

They killed the HOF when they let the old timers vote in all their friends. It's a bit of a joke now.

Bill Simmons promoted the idea for basketball of a HOF with levels - the best of the best at the top. It makes some sense.

[Steven Martinez]

David, your logic is a bit off on this one. Larkin played well before the offensive boon of the modern shortstop. His career OPS+ is 116 which is how he compares to the average shortstop in hitting adjusted by parks. So his career was much better as a hitter than Ozzie Smith who had a career OPS+ of 87. Barry was basically 50% better of a hitter than Ozzie and I think you have 1a and 1b as far as defensive SS go in the 80s and 90s. Barry had incredible range factor was much higher than the average for the league. In fact when you add win shares into the equation Barry actually had a season where he had a solid win share based solely on defensive. That is saying that his defense was so good that 15-20% of his value on the field in winning games were based on his skill with the glove. That is impressive. If you desire to go to baseball-reference.com you can also look at Elo ratings and see that Larkin currently ranks as the 76th best position player to ever play the game and has a higher ranking than guys like Manny, Edgar, Thome and Ichiro. Larkin's stats as a hitter are better than many SS already in the hall and traditionally, the SS was never an offensive position until the late 90s and beyond.
I am glad Baseball has the stones to actually have a hall of fame that is more than just a offensive production hall of fame or a glory position hall of fame like the NFL. The NFL only has one Kicker and zero punters in the hall yet kickers and punters control so much of the game. Just ask Mr. Tom Brady how much Kickers mean to Super Bowl victories or ask Jim Kelly.

[David Lyons]

Steven, err ... Stew,

Thanks for your post. Other than watching the Pirates in the playoffs, I didn't pay much attention to Major League Baseball during the era that Larkin played. So, while I was aware of him, I wasn't really sure where he stood defensively. I don't think comparing his offensive stats to Ozzie Smith does much good, though, because Ozzie was in the big leagues because of his defense. If you (and the voters) rate Larkin as the next best SS during that era, then he probably does deserve HOF consideration.

[Benjamin Burch]

David, your logic is a bit off on this one. Larkin played well before the offensive boon of the modern shortstop. His career OPS+ is 116 which is how he compares to the average shortstop in hitting adjusted by parks. So his career was much better as a hitter than Ozzie Smith who had a career OPS+ of 87. Barry was basically 50% better of a hitter than Ozzie and I think you have 1a and 1b as far as defensive SS go in the 80s and 90s. Barry had incredible range factor was much higher than the average for the league. In fact when you add win shares into the equation Barry actually had a season where he had a solid win share based solely on defensive. That is saying that his defense was so good that 15-20% of his value on the field in winning games were based on his skill with the glove. That is impressive. If you desire to go to baseball-reference.com you can also look at Elo ratings and see that Larkin currently ranks as the 76th best position player to ever play the game and has a higher ranking than guys like Manny, Edgar, Thome and Ichiro. Larkin's stats as a hitter are better than many SS already in the hall and traditionally, the SS was never an offensive position until the late 90s and beyond.
I am glad Baseball has the stones to actually have a hall of fame that is more than just a offensive production hall of fame or a glory position hall of fame like the NFL. The NFL only has one Kicker and zero punters in the hall yet kickers and punters control so much of the game. Just ask Mr. Tom Brady how much Kickers mean to Super Bowl victories or ask Jim Kelly.

^ This. Barry was my second favorite shortstop by a longshot when I was a kid. I always knew he was on a different level than everyone else at the time.

[Shea Zellweger]

Barry also had 12 consecutive seasons where he was better than 2.5 WAR. An ESPN columnist recently suggested a statistic he called WAAS (Wins Above All Star), which was WAR-2.5, discarding any negatives. Using that stat, from 1988-1999 he compiled 26.7 WAAS, or about 2.2 WAAS/season. That's playing at an elite level for a sustained period of time, which is what a hall of fame career should be.

[Shea Zellweger]

They killed the HOF when they let the old timers vote in all their friends. It's a bit of a joke now.

Bill Simmons promoted the idea for basketball of a HOF with levels - the best of the best at the top. It makes some sense.

I don't think it's a joke at all, and I don't think the veterans have treated it like one. A guy's name might come up on a ballot once every three years at most, and it's not like the Vets are just opening the doors and saying yes to everybody on the ballot. They probably have different standards than would a member of the BBWAA, but they still have standards, and they're not in the habit of electing horrible players simply because they were good guys. From a Player's standpoint, I would imagine that being selected by a jury of your peers could be even more meaningful than having 75% of writers think that you're somewhere in the top 10 of the folks who haven't been elected yet.