Baseball Hall Of Fame.....

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.