Baseball Hall Of Fame.....

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Barry Larkin???

Really???

I dont see it......

Good ballplayer???
Sure
Really good ballplayer???
Sure

Hall of Famer????

I dont see it....

DS1119

Compared to other shortstops already in the HOF he had a very very nice career, arguably the best.

Jamminonthe1

DS1119 wrote:

Compared to other shortstops already in the HOF he had a very very nice career, arguably the best.

Yes and he's the piece between Ozzie Smith and the Jeter/A-Rod/Nomar/Omar generation.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

DS1119 wrote:

Compared to other shortstops already in the HOF he had a very very nice career, arguably the best.

The best???

Dont tell that to
Banks
Yount
Wagner
Ripken
Smith

hehehehehehehehe

DS1119

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Compared to other shortstops already in the HOF he had a very very nice career, arguably the best.

The best???

Dont tell that to
Banks
Yount
Wagner
Ripken
Smith

hehehehehehehehe

I didn't say he was the best, but he's up there. Personally I think Phil RIzzuto was the best, since that's what my grandmother always told me ! Larkin in my opinion deserves to be there.

F Me In The Brain

Larkin was a top ss for 10 years. Always the leader as well.

mfc2006

Larkin's a good choice for the HOF.....

can't wait to head to Cooperstown when Biggio & Bagwell get inducted!

SPEEDY MCCREADY

F Me In The Brain wrote:

Larkin was a top ss for 10 years. Always the leader as well.

Mark Grace led the National League in hits for the same decade Larkin played.....

Mark Grace will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

SatansFuton

The dude learned Spanish simply so he could communicate with his Hispanic teammates, he at least gets an A for effort on the leadership front. He's not somebody that off the top of my head I would have considered for the Hall of Fame, but he doesn't leave me scratching my head like I have over some past inductees.

mfc2006

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

F Me In The Brain wrote:

Larkin was a top ss for 10 years. Always the leader as well.

Mark Grace led the National League in hits for the same decade Larkin played.....

Mark Grace will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

i could see Grace getting in there when he's older...classy guy & one helluva ballplayer.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

mfc2006 wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

F Me In The Brain wrote:

Larkin was a top ss for 10 years. Always the leader as well.

Mark Grace led the National League in hits for the same decade Larkin played.....

Mark Grace will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

i could see Grace getting in there when he's older...classy guy & one helluva ballplayer.

Grace got something like 4% of the vote in 2009....
And I am pretty sure will never be considered again......

The guy led the 90's in hits....
Had more hits than any other player in the 90's....
And will Never Ever Ever see the hall....

Barry Larkin is a Hall Of Famer and Fred Mcgriff isnt?????
Barry Larkin is a Hall Of Famer and Lee Smith isnt????

DS1119

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

F Me In The Brain wrote:

Larkin was a top ss for 10 years. Always the leader as well.

Mark Grace led the National League in hits for the same decade Larkin played.....

Mark Grace will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

Because Mark Grace was a first baseman. If he played shortstop and kept his offensive statistics he'd be in. Unfortunately singles hitters at the corner position aren't really that sexy a pick and he never truly dominated his era. I mean, he only made three all-star teams, never topped 200 hits in a season, never had over 100 RBIs in a season, and his single season high for homers was 17. Consistent, but no MVP's and not ever in the discussion for that. When you think of first baseman from the late 80's through the 90's, other than people in CHicago, not alot think of Mark Grace.

DewieCox

He deserves it. I was surprised to hear this wasn't his first year of eligibility.

pjhawks

i thought Larkin was borderline. kind of surprised he made it. I think if Barry Larkin is a Hall-of-Famer then Jimmy Rollins should be right there.

and Jack Morris should have made it. that guy was a top pitcher for a while and a big game pitcher. don't care about the numbers.

81

pjhawks wrote:

i thought Larkin was borderline. kind of surprised he made it. I think if Barry Larkin is a Hall-of-Famer then Jimmy Rollins should be right there.

and Jack Morris should have made it. that guy was a top pitcher for a while and a big game pitcher. don't care about the numbers.

he was borderline....according to his vote count last year, but this years class was weak...and they wanted to put somebody in...that is alive.

Cliffy6745

pjhawks wrote:

i thought Larkin was borderline. kind of surprised he made it. I think if Barry Larkin is a Hall-of-Famer then Jimmy Rollins should be right there.

and Jack Morris should have made it. that guy was a top pitcher for a while and a big game pitcher. don't care about the numbers.

I don't get the hate on Larkin, he was one of the first shortstops that could hit, as someone else said. Prior to him, shortstops were of the Ozzie offensive numbers, after they are of the Jeter/Nomar/Arod.

Hilarious about Rollins. Larkin played for 19 seasons and had better numbers in his last year than Rollins has had in 3 years or so, granted Larkin has a few down years before that, but the point stands, you can't even compare the two.

davidtrios

i think you're gonna see a lot of larkin type players get inducted bc they didnt cheat.

F Me In The Brain

DS1119 wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

F Me In The Brain wrote:

Larkin was a top ss for 10 years. Always the leader as well.

Mark Grace led the National League in hits for the same decade Larkin played.....

Mark Grace will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

Because Mark Grace was a first baseman. If he played shortstop and kept his offensive statistics he'd be in. Unfortunately singles hitters at the corner position aren't really that sexy a pick and he never truly dominated his era. I mean, he only made three all-star teams, never topped 200 hits in a season, never had over 100 RBIs in a season, and his single season high for homers was 17. Consistent, but no MVP's and not ever in the discussion for that. When you think of first baseman from the late 80's through the 90's, other than people in CHicago, not alot think of Mark Grace.

This

Monster Rain

Grace was never good enough to be a Hall of Famer. He only even amde 3 All-Star teams so he was rarely one of the top 1B in the NL. I think he also only had 1 Top 5 finish in MVP voting, whereas Larkin actaully won the award. I never put much stock in the "Led the (insert decade) in _____" arguments because more often than not it ignores the fact that better players either started or ended their careers in the middle of that decade. For example, Kirby Puckett had to retire in 1995 and Derek Jeter was a rookie in 1996. Hits are even tougher for that type of category because it doesn't account for batting average or OBP. I'd be willing to bet that Frank Thomas was better than Grace in both categories during the 1990s, but Thomas walked so much that it would be virtually impossible for him to have as many hits.

Lee Smith retired with the all-time saves record, but he really had that record simply because he stuck around long enough to compile the numbers. He was rarely the best closer in the league--there were usually several closers who were better than him. He had a very high ERA for a closer in several seasons and wasn't the dominant force that guys like Rivera and Eckersley are/were. Saves are a bit of a misleading stat because even a mediocre closer can have 35-40 saves if he has a big enough lead when he enters the game. I wouldn't rank Smith as highly as Eckersley, Gossage, Fingers, Rivera, or Hoffman.

McGriff definitely belongs in the Hall. I find it ridiculous that voters can simultaneously refuse to vote for steroid users like McGwire (and I agree with them on that) and not vote for McGriff despite the fact that his career only seems less impressive than other players due to other players using steroids. If the strike hadn't shortened the 1994 and 1995 seasons, he'd have over 500 HRs and over 2,500 hits. Even as it stands, 493 HRs is extraordinary. He was in the Top 10 in MVP voting 6 times, led each league in HRs (the AL ni 1989, the NL in 1992) and was in the Top 10 in HRs 5 more times, and made the All-Star team 5 times (I'm not sure how it wasn't more other than there were some questionable "every team needs an All-Star" choices like Ron Coomer in 1999 and Tony Clark in 2001 and an odd choice of Canseco as a DH over McGriff at 1B as Tampa Bay's All-Star in 1999 despite McGriff's ability to play the field and his higher average and similar HR total). McGriff's numbers are very similar to Eddie Murray's. Murray hit 11 more HRs but needed over 500 more games to do it and their career averages are .287 (Murray) and .284 (McGriff). Murray did reach the 500 HR and 3,000 hit marks but their average 162-game season totals are eerily similar. McGriff's was .284/32/102 and Murray's was .287/27/103. McGriff had a higher SLG, OBP, and OPS, and more 100-RBI seasons.

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

mfc2006 wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Mark Grace led the National League in hits for the same decade Larkin played.....

Mark Grace will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

i could see Grace getting in there when he's older...classy guy & one helluva ballplayer.

Grace got something like 4% of the vote in 2009....
And I am pretty sure will never be considered again......

The guy led the 90's in hits....
Had more hits than any other player in the 90's....
And will Never Ever Ever see the hall....

Barry Larkin is a Hall Of Famer and Fred Mcgriff isnt?????
Barry Larkin is a Hall Of Famer and Lee Smith isnt????

intodeep

I have always felt they need to redo the hall.

You need to honor people like Barry Larkin but you can't consider him a baseball legend. He was a great player

They should have multiple levels of the hall of fame and people should be inducted into their right group. Maybe 3 or 4 levels with the top one being names that when echoed you know you are talking about one of the greatest ever to play

I mean Babe Ruth and Barry Larkin are not even playing in the same ballpark.

F Me In The Brain

intodeep wrote:

I have always felt they need to redo the hall.

You need to honor people like Barry Larkin but you can't consider him a baseball legend. He was a great player

They should have multiple levels of the hall of fame and people should be inducted into their right group. Maybe 3 or 4 levels with the top one being names that when echoed you know you are talking about one of the greatest ever to play

I mean Babe Ruth and Barry Larkin are not even playing in the same ballpark.

Hehe, not really many people that would be considered in the same ballpark as The Babe. (Hitting more homers than the team totals for the rest of the league? And boozing like a grade A champ all the while? He was epic!)

Lark would have had more gold gloves to add had everyone not insisted on honoring The Wizard of Oz well past his prime. Same thing for All Star Starts.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Grace led the decade of the 90's in hits...

Who were the BIG 1st Baseman of the decade....

Palmiero and Mccguire???

Steroid freaks who will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

Grace deserves it more than those 2...... Right????

And trust me...
I know Grace isnt a Hall of Fame player....
And either is Larkin....

Just my opinion....

81

F Me In The Brain wrote:

intodeep wrote:

I have always felt they need to redo the hall.

You need to honor people like Barry Larkin but you can't consider him a baseball legend. He was a great player

They should have multiple levels of the hall of fame and people should be inducted into their right group. Maybe 3 or 4 levels with the top one being names that when echoed you know you are talking about one of the greatest ever to play

I mean Babe Ruth and Barry Larkin are not even playing in the same ballpark.

Hehe, not really many people that would be considered in the same ballpark as The Babe. (Hitting more homers than the team totals for the rest of the league? And boozing like a grade A champ all the while? He was epic!)

Lark would have had more gold gloves to add had everyone not insisted on honoring The Wizard of Oz well past his prime. Same thing for All Star Starts.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofmem4.shtml

just look at the % of votes recieved. you have the 90%'s, the 80%'s and the people that sneaked in with 75%-79.9%

81

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Grace led the decade of the 90's in hits...

Who were the BIG 1st Baseman of the decade....

Palmiero and Mccguire???

Steroid freaks who will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

Grace deserves it more than those 2...... Right????

And trust me...
I know Grace isnt a Hall of Fame player....
And either is Larkin....

Just my opinion....

sid bream.

EdsonNascimento

intodeep wrote:

I mean Babe Ruth and every other baseball player are not even playing in the same ballpark.

Look at Babe's stats. They hold up with the steroid era players. Then compare him vs. his contemporaries. He was futher ahead of his era than Gretzky or Jordan. The only one that probably comes close is Tiger. Scary. So, I guess you would have another level just for Babe Ruth.


It's a museum. I never understood getting the least bit upset about this stuff. Skip his plaque next time you're there. Believe me, there are a ton of guys you've never heard of in there.


Larkin deserves to be in. He would be a top SS in any era. That's a good criteria to go by.

Don't compare a slap hitting 1B to a (relatively) power/speed/fielding SS.

DewieCox

Monster Rain wrote:

Lee Smith retired with the all-time saves record, but he really had that record simply because he stuck around long enough to compile the numbers. He was rarely the best closer in the league--there were usually several closers who were better than him. He had a very high ERA for a closer in several seasons and wasn't the dominant force that guys like Rivera and Eckersley are/were. Saves are a bit of a misleading stat because even a mediocre closer can have 35-40 saves if he has a big enough lead when he enters the game. I wouldn't rank Smith as highly as Eckersley, Gossage, Fingers, Rivera, or Hoffman.

I dunno if he was ever the best, but he broke the saves record after only 13 season. Maybe he compiled after, but he averaged 30 saves a season for 8 years and later 45 for 4 years around the time he broke the record. Only had a whip above 1.4 4x, 2 being his last 2 years.


You mention Eckersley, but he's notorious for gettin easy saves.

DewieCox

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Grace led the decade of the 90's in hits...

Who were the BIG 1st Baseman of the decade....

Palmiero and Mccguire???

Steroid freaks who will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

Grace deserves it more than those 2...... Right????

And trust me...
I know Grace isnt a Hall of Fame player....
And either is Larkin....

Just my opinion....

Frank Thomas

More, than Mcgwire? Get outta here

Grace was a very good player, but never one of the best.

Larkin was the perfect transition from SS's like Ozzie to guys like Arod. He was the best SS in the NL for a good while. Not anybody can stop the Wizard's streak of Allstar starts and Gold Gloves.

Monster Rain

Even taking away McGwire and Palmiero, you still have guyslike Frank Thomas and Fred McGriff who were both much better than Grace, plus guys like Will Clark and Don Mattingly who were better than Grace (but to a lesser extent than the other 2).

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Grace led the decade of the 90's in hits...

Who were the BIG 1st Baseman of the decade....

Palmiero and Mccguire???

Steroid freaks who will NEVER see the Hall Of Fame....

Grace deserves it more than those 2...... Right????

And trust me...
I know Grace isnt a Hall of Fame player....
And either is Larkin....

Just my opinion....

pjhawks

Cliffy6745 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

i thought Larkin was borderline. kind of surprised he made it. I think if Barry Larkin is a Hall-of-Famer then Jimmy Rollins should be right there.

and Jack Morris should have made it. that guy was a top pitcher for a while and a big game pitcher. don't care about the numbers.

I don't get the hate on Larkin, he was one of the first shortstops that could hit, as someone else said. Prior to him, shortstops were of the Ozzie offensive numbers, after they are of the Jeter/Nomar/Arod.

Hilarious about Rollins. Larkin played for 19 seasons and had better numbers in his last year than Rollins has had in 3 years or so, granted Larkin has a few down years before that, but the point stands, you can't even compare the two.

CSN Philly does the comparison today. If he stays healthty Rollins will end up with better numbers in almost every category than Larkin except batting average. see below.

http://www.csnphilly.com/blog/phillies- ... feedID=704

Monster Rain

Even if you acknowledge Eckersley's easy saves, he was still much more dominant than Smith ever was. Look at his ERA each year from 1987-1992: 3.03, 2.35, 1.56, 0.61, 2.96, 1.91. Eckersley never had a WHIP at 1.4 or higher as a closer and had 5 straight season with a WHIP under 1. Smith never had a WHIP below 1 in any season. Smith had an ERA over 3.00 9 times as a closer in 14 seasons between 1982 and 1995 and only 1 season below 2.00 in his career--Eckersley had an ERA under 2.00 3 times in 4 seasons. Smith may have been collecting saves in those seasons when his ERA was over 3.00, but what makes him better than John Wetteland? Smith had an 82% Save% compared to Wetteland's 84%. Smith's ERA was 3.03, Wetteland's 2.93. Smith's career WHIP was 1.256, Wetteland's 1.135 (with 3 seasons under 1.0 compared to none for Smith). Wetteland had a better K/9 (9.5 to 8.7), BB/9 (3.0 to 3.4), and K/BB (3.19 to 2.57). Both had 1 full season as a closer with a Save% of 90% or better (although Smith did have a partial season as a closer with a 94% rate in 18 chances). Wettlenad also had 7 straight seasons with an ERA under 3.00. Smith didn't even have that many full seasons with an ERA under 3.00 in his entire career. The biggest difference is that Smith stuck around long enough to add about 150 more Saves than Wetteland and Wetteland retired at 33 at got less than 1% of the vote his only year on the Hall ofFame ballot.

Yes, Smith passed Rollie Fingers fairly early in his career but he also pitched in an era when saves were emphasized more than they were when guys like Fingers and Gossage pitched. 300 saves was unheard of before Fingers. Fingers and Gossage both pitched earlier in games when needed. Fingers recorded more than 3 outs 509 times as a reliever but Smith only did it 362 times in over 100 more games as a reliever. Fingers also entered a game with the bases empty only 431 times compared to Smith's 699 times, Fingers entered a game with runners on base 476 times compared to Smith's 318. The workload they carried was so different and the emphasis on Saves as a statistic and the closer as a 9th-inning specialist was so much greater in Smith's era that it's not a simple comparison between the record Fingers set and the record Smith set.

DewieCox wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Lee Smith retired with the all-time saves record, but he really had that record simply because he stuck around long enough to compile the numbers. He was rarely the best closer in the league--there were usually several closers who were better than him. He had a very high ERA for a closer in several seasons and wasn't the dominant force that guys like Rivera and Eckersley are/were. Saves are a bit of a misleading stat because even a mediocre closer can have 35-40 saves if he has a big enough lead when he enters the game. I wouldn't rank Smith as highly as Eckersley, Gossage, Fingers, Rivera, or Hoffman.

I dunno if he was ever the best, but he broke the saves record after only 13 season. Maybe he compiled after, but he averaged 30 saves a season for 8 years and later 45 for 4 years around the time he broke the record. Only had a whip above 1.4 4x, 2 being his last 2 years.


You mention Eckersley, but he's notorious for gettin easy saves.

Wobbie

Davidtrios wrote:

i think you're gonna see a lot of larkin type players get inducted bc they didnt cheat.

this is true.

thing is, we don't know that larkin didn't cheat.

just let bonds, clemens, etc. in....after all, there's no arguing they were the best. juiced hitters vs. juiced pitchers. what's the big deal?