Barry Larkin - HOF

[Deepster]

Really? I watched this guy his entire career in the National League and I don't see it.

• 2,340 hits in 19 seasons. 131st on the hits list.
• MVP in 1995. .319, 15 HR's, 66 RBI, 158 hits, 98 RS, 51 steals. He somehow beat out Dante Bichette who had .340, 40 HR, 128 RBI, 197 hits, 102 RS.
• 3 Gold Gloves. Not like he was a defensive wizard.

By all accounts? Seems like a great guy. One of the dominant players of his era? Nope.

 

[Waquoit]

Yeah, Hall of the Very Good. Jim Rice, too.

 

[mauconnfan]

Put his numbers against Don Mattingly's and tell me he deserves it ahead of him? I mean he played 5 more years (maybe more considering mattingly wasn't even healthy for a few) had only 200 more hits, less RBI and a worst BA..........wasn't as good of a fielder at his position as Donnie Baseball and he wasn't the best player in the game for 4-5 years like Donnie.......either you put Mattingly in too or just a BS choice!

 

[Deepster]

Put his numbers against Don Mattingly's and tell me he deserves it ahead of him? I mean he played 5 more years (maybe more considering mattingly wasn't even healthy for a few) had only 200 more hits, less RBI and a worst BA..........wasn't as good of a fielder at his position as Donnie Baseball and he wasn't the best player in the game for 4-5 years like Donnie.......either you put Mattingly in too or just a BS choice!

I can't say I disagree. I don't think either of them are HOF, but if Larkin (and Rice) is in? Mattingly has a legit argument.

 

[nomar]

You cannot compare Larkin, a SS, to Mattingly, a 1B, whose career was wrecked by injuries.

Larkin played a position that was historically played by offensively inept guys. He was for a long time the best overall SS in the NL. Compare his stats to other SS's in the Hall. His numbers don't look so pedestrian then.

And Deepster, ARE YOU KIDDING WHEN YOU DERIDE HIM FOR "ONLY" WINNING 3 GOLD GLOVES? You're aware there was a guy who played in St. Louis during much of Larkin's career, right? Jesus.

 

[Deepster]

You cannot compare Larkin, a SS, to Mattingly, a 1B, whose career was wrecked by injuries.

Larkin played a position that was historically played by offensively inept guys. He was for a long time the best overall SS in the NL. Compare his stats to other SS's in the Hall. His numbers don't look so pedestrian then.

And Deepster, ARE YOU KIDDING WHEN YOU DERIDE HIM FOR "ONLY" WINNING 3 GOLD GLOVES? You're aware there was a guy who played in St. Louis during much of Larkin's career, right? Jesus.

Definitely overlooked the Ozzie Smith factor there. My bad. Not sure that one needed the ALL CAPS treatment, but whatev.

He won an MVP where he had 158 hits and 66 RBI. That was 1995. Tony Fernandez had a similar year to that year in 1987. So did Julio Franco in 1987 and 1988. I don't look at Larkin as one of the best SS of his era. Sorry if you disagree.

 

[nomar]

I almost went back and edited that to remove the ALL CAPS. I'm not sure why I got so YELLY.

He had a much more consistent career than either of those guys. And you know that 1987 should be totally disregarded. Wade Boggs hit 24 homers that year. They used a different ball that year.

 

[mauconnfan]

You cannot compare Larkin, a SS, to Mattingly, a 1B, whose career was wrecked by injuries.

Larkin played a position that was historically played by offensively inept guys. He was for a long time the best overall SS in the NL. Compare his stats to other SS's in the Hall. His numbers don't look so pedestrian then.

And Deepster, ARE YOU KIDDING WHEN YOU DERIDE HIM FOR "ONLY" WINNING 3 GOLD GLOVES? You're aware there was a guy who played in St. Louis during much of Larkin's career, right? Jesus.

You can't? Why the hell not, it's the HOF not the position HOF..........his numbers are not better and aren't close. He was never the best payer in baseball the other guy was.....why can't you compare they both played BASEBALL right? Ridiculous statement...........I agree many SS's do not deserve the nomination but numbers should mean something, not positions. He was a big guy and could have played anywhere.......nothing spectacular about his career. very good is about right!

 

[nomar]

That's how it works. You think Phil Rizzuto gets more than 2 votes if he's a first baseman?

 

[mauconnfan]

That's how it works. You think Phil Rizzuto gets more than 2 votes if he's a first baseman?

I don't think he should be in.........never mind playing SS or first base what if he played SS for the Indians? He didn't get in because of his position, he got in because he played for the Yankees. Again, just opinion and it means little, but if Donnie's not in Larkin shouldn't be. New day and age for all positions, steroids, size etc.......they are all now "baseball" players and stats mean everything as well as era. He comes from the change and his stats are very nice for 19 years of baseball but I have a guy who was better in most area's by far and only played 14........what's the timeline then?

 

[zls44]

Larkin had two poor years late in his career that basically weigh down his slash line. Without those two, he's a .300 hitter for his career. As it is, the guy bounced back really nicely and went out as a solid player. The 1995 argument is entirely invalidated by the fact that in 1988, he might have been the best player in baseball and somehow did not receive a SINGLE MVP vote. Not one!!! It's insane!

He was a great player. The guy played almost all his home games on a ridiculously awful surface and was the second-best defensive SS of his generation.

The only guy better is the greatest defensive player in the history of the sport. That's not a fair fight. Amazing how great they both were playing on cement for 20 years.

 

[Excalibur]

I don't think he should be in.........never mind playing SS or first base what if he played SS for the Indians? He didn't get in because of his position, he got in because he played for the Yankees. Again, just opinion and it means little, but if Donnie's not in Larkin shouldn't be. New day and age for all positions, steroids, size etc.......they are all now "baseball" players and stats mean everything as well as era. He comes from the change and his stats are very nice for 19 years of baseball but I have a guy who was better in most area's by far and only played 14........what's the timeline then?

If positions don't matter, then I assume you have no objection to DH's in the Hall?

 

[60'sfan]

Election to the Hall of Fame requires 75% of the votes so the make-up of the list is important too. Barry Larkin is not a bad choice because his career numbers match up pretty well with the typical Hall of Famer. Of those on the list, Jeff Bagwell had the best career numbers and will most likely be voted in next year. Donnie Baseball, although a great player for many years, does not have comparable statistics and will probably not be voted in. He has been on the list for 12 years. Three more and he is no longer eligible.

 

[Danzz]

Really? I watched this guy his entire career in the National League and I don't see it.

• 2,340 hits in 19 seasons. 131st on the hits list.
• MVP in 1995. .319, 15 HR's, 66 RBI, 158 hits, 98 RS, 51 steals. He somehow beat out Dante Bichette who had .340, 40 HR, 128 RBI, 197 hits, 102 RS.
• 3 Gold Gloves. Not like he was a defensive wizard.

By all accounts? Seems like a great guy. One of the dominant players of his era? Nope.

He is a great guy and was a defensive wizard unlike Bichette.HOF : maybe a bit short IMO. Ironic thing is Larkin is or was involved in a business with Bichette.

 

[mauconnfan]

Election to the Hall of Fame requires 75% of the votes so the make-up of the list is important too. Barry Larkin is not a bad choice because his career numbers match up pretty well with the typical Hall of Famer. Of those on the list, Jeff Bagwell had the best career numbers and will most likely be voted in next year. Donnie Baseball, although a great player for many years, does not have comparable statistics and will probably not be voted in. He has been on the list for 12 years. Three more and he is no longer eligible.

Of course he doesn't have comparable stats he didn't use steroids like Bagwell did.....not at all a fair comparison!

As far as DH's Ex, you tell me if they deserve to be in? Papi's stats are tremendous but let's talk gold gloves!!

 

[Excalibur]

Leaving aside the steroid question, the Hall is reserved for the game's best players, regardless of position. If a career DH is great enough to be historically significant, I think he should get in. Edgar Martinez comes to mind.

 

[mauconnfan]

Leaving aside the steroid question, the Hall is reserved for the game's best players, regardless of position. If a career DH is great enough to be historically significant, I think he should get in. Edgar Martinez comes to mind.

Huge opinion HOF now because of the steroids era etc........I prefer baseball players to be just that........bring a glove and a bat and play the game......no need to take any substances to be better just go play......

But the game has changed and with that so has the HOF so whatever......for me a DH isn't a baseball player because he's not good enough to help his team in the field on defense.......having said that there id no denying the impact Papi and Edgar had on their teams offensively........the HOF won't be the same ever now!

 

[Chin Diesel]

Two biggest factors keeping Mattingly out (IMO) are a lack of ever leading a team to the World Series (not entirely his fault) and having only one MVP and two other top-5's (one second place MVP and one fifth place). He also had a seventh place finish.

Check out Mattingly's numbers against Kirby Puckett's. Career numbers and numbers per 162 are remarkably similar. But Kirby has the World Series rings, three top 3 MVP finishes and four more top 10's. Kirby had 6 golden gloves, Mattingly had nine. Both careers cut short in their 30's due to injuries.

Both were the faces of their franchises, both played positions where offense is expected and great defense makes a big difference.

Kirby's career numbers-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/puckeki01.shtml

Mattingly's career numbers-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mattido01.shtml

So why did Kirby make it 2001 easily and Mattingly is still out?

 

[60'sfan]

Two biggest factors keeping Mattingly out (IMO) are a lack of ever leading a team to the World Series (not entirely his fault) and having only one MVP and two other top-5's (one second place MVP and one fifth place). He also had a seventh place finish.

Check out Mattingly's numbers against Kirby Puckett's. Career numbers and numbers per 162 are remarkably similar. But Kirby has the World Series rings, three top 3 MVP finishes and four more top 10's. Kirby had 6 golden gloves, Mattingly had nine. Both careers cut short in their 30's due to injuries.

Both were the faces of their franchises, both played positions where offense is expected and great defense makes a big difference.

Kirby's career numbers-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/puckeki01.shtml

Mattingly's career numbers-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mattido01.shtml

So why did Kirby make it 2001 easily and Mattingly is still out?

With Kirby it may have been exposure. He was clearly a driving force in two World Series Championships and was still going strong when he was forced to retire due to eye issues. Donny on the other hand retired when his skills were clearly fading. In his last 6 years with the Yankees, he was not putting up HOF numbers while Kirby was. If you look at the
Bill James statistic for Hall of Fame Standards (where 50 is average for a HOF) Kirby is 39 and Donny is way down at 34.

 

[mauconnfan]

Two biggest factors keeping Mattingly out (IMO) are a lack of ever leading a team to the World Series (not entirely his fault) and having only one MVP and two other top-5's (one second place MVP and one fifth place). He also had a seventh place finish.

Check out Mattingly's numbers against Kirby Puckett's. Career numbers and numbers per 162 are remarkably similar. But Kirby has the World Series rings, three top 3 MVP finishes and four more top 10's. Kirby had 6 golden gloves, Mattingly had nine. Both careers cut short in their 30's due to injuries.

Both were the faces of their franchises, both played positions where offense is expected and great defense makes a big difference.

Kirby's career numbers-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/puckeki01.shtml

Mattingly's career numbers-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mattido01.shtml

So why did Kirby make it 2001 easily and Mattingly is still out?

Chin you got me riled up now LOL........Kirby's career doesn't hold a candle to Mattingly's for so many reasons.....#1 he played in a hefty bag stadium with a surface that helped him with maybe 30 more ground ball hits a year and easily more HR's than the RF porch at Yankee Stadium can give up.........he won WS because he was on better teams not because he mad ether better although he was a very good player.....another guy not deserving of the HOF .....only thing equal MAYBE was defensively..........these guys weren't ever close as baseball players.....again one was the best player in baseball, despite MVP's, for at least 4-5 years on the top and the bottom of the inning the other was a very goof CFer...........no comparison!! Mattingly's HR total would have been the only one that would have remained the same, he would've hit .35o every year on that surface.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Chin you got me riled up now LOL........Kirby's career doesn't hold a candle to Mattingly's for so many reasons.....#1 he played in a hefty bag stadium with a surface that helped him with maybe 30 more ground ball hits a year and easily more HR's than the RF porch at Yankee Stadium can give up.........he won WS because he was on better teams not because he mad ether better although he was a very good player.....another guy not deserving of the HOF .....only thing equal MAYBE was defensively..........these guys weren't ever close as baseball players.....again one was the best player in baseball, despite MVP's, for at least 4-5 years on the top and the bottom of the inning the other was a very goof CFer...........no comparison!! Mattingly's HR total would have been the only one that would have remained the same, he would've hit .35o every year on that surface.

Unfortunately there's nothing empirical to back up your affinity for Mattingly.

His best five year stretch was one MVP, one fifth place finish and a seventh place finish.

You are free to feel that Mattingly was the best player over a five year period, but there's nothing to back you up.

I can say that Jim Rice was the best player from 75-79 and back it up by saying he had one MVP and three other top five MVP seasons and say that 78 was one of the best offensive seasons ever. And have the numbers to back it up.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/riceji01.shtml

You have the passion for Don Mattingly, but not enough others agree with you.

For the record, I won't lose a second of sleep if Mattingly gets voted in next year or if he never makes it. Cruel reality of sports is that a debilitating injury in your prime plus lack of any post season success equals less recognition post-playing than you probably deserve. And Mattingly isn't the only one who this applies to either.

 

[zyron]

Unfortunately there's nothing empirical to back up your affinity for Mattingly.

His best five year stretch was one MVP, one fifth place finish and a seventh place finish.

Or one MVP, one second place, one fith and one seventh (Over a 4 year period)

You are free to feel that Mattingly was the best player over a five year period, but there's nothing to back you up.

Except say OPS+, which again shows Mattingly's five year stretch to be superior. Not even close really.

 

[mauconnfan]

zyron thanks for the OPS which is something to show he was that good for a 5 year stretch. And quite honestly Chin I don't need MVP stats (which we know mean very little considering your team needs to win something more than likely correct?) to back up any of buy arguments. I think pitchers of the era will tell you who they feared most and add to that I doubt you'll find a better 1st baseman in the game during his days defensively (maybe Hernandez) and you have a dominant player. If the Yanks had won anything he would've had 2 or 3 more MVP's I'm sure........Jim Rice was real good too and his career lasted much longer which helped but again, he wasn't as good for a stretch.......and I agree Donnie is not the only one there are many.....he came to mind on the original argument because I'm a Yankee fan!!!! Healthy he was a 1st balloter but things happen.....

 

[Waquoit]

I always had a problem with Don Sutton getting in. The guy was never the ace of a staff (maybe a year when he was on a lousy team). I read a blurb that said he never came in the Top 5 of Cy Young voting ever. That means he was never one of the Top 10 pitchers in baseball. He was pretty good for a long time. So does a long time good make for great? Bill James said it did in his HOF book, but he thinks Paterno is innocent so what does he know?

 

[60'sfan]

Chin you got me riled up now LOL........Kirby's career doesn't hold a candle to Mattingly's for so many reasons.....#1 he played in a hefty bag stadium with a surface that helped him with maybe 30 more ground ball hits a year and easily more HR's than the RF porch at Yankee Stadium can give up.........he won WS because he was on better teams not because he mad ether better although he was a very good player.....another guy not deserving of the HOF .....only thing equal MAYBE was defensively..........these guys weren't ever close as baseball players.....again one was the best player in baseball, despite MVP's, for at least 4-5 years on the top and the bottom of the inning the other was a very goof CFer...........no comparison!! Mattingly's HR total would have been the only one that would have remained the same, he would've hit .35o every year on that surface.

Actually, over his career, Mattingly hit .242 at the Metrodome. Kirby hit .303 but was a career .313 overall. The numbers do not support your position that Mattingly would have performed much better in Minnesota or that Kirby benefited by playing there either.

I am a Red Sox fan but have always thought Mattingly was a great player but he was not overpowering in Fenway either. I think if you look at his last six years, you would have to admit that they fell short of HOF standards.