Thread: HOF - Fred "Crime Dog" McGriff

It is not at all surprising that players straddling the line of greatness and very-goodness hover at or below the line of admittance. Especially those that peak at greatness but are quite middling for too long at other points in their careers. Some, possibly deserving, being overlooked and some, possibly not deserving, being elected.

However, it is amazing that certain players are not voted for at all by people who, one would think, should know better.

Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Cy Young, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Joe DiMaggio, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Henry Aaron, Steve Carlton, Johnny Bench, George Brett, Cal Ripken.

There were voters, members of the Baseball Writers Association of America for at least ten years at the time they voted, that did not vote for each of those guys, as well as EVERY other player in history. How does that happen? How does someone write about baseball for over ten years and not recognize when a player is elite, even when comparing them to the best of all time? I hereby predict someone will not vote for Greg Maddux and Derek Jeter when their times come.

I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.

Originally Posted by TK10

I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.

Except that those numbers by a shortstop that was as good as there was in the entire game for most of his career defensively are pretty much unmatched. Larkin's offensive numbers are borderline, but the fact that in most eyes when Ozzie retired, he handed the throne of best defensive shortstop immediately to Larkin with no one close says that those numbers are nowhere near all that matters. Brooks Robinson is in at a less demanding defensive position with worse numbers because of his reputation as a stalwart defender there. Larkin is similarly excellent at SS with better offensive numbers.

By that rationale one-dimensional players should never get in and that's something I'd be find with. Larkin won 3 gold gloves and had one unusually good offensive season. To me, defense, no matter how good it is, isn't enough to get you into the HOF.

Originally Posted by TK10

By that rationale one-dimensional players should never get in and that's something I'd be find with. Larkin won 3 gold gloves and had one unusually good offensive season. To me, defense, no matter how good it is, isn't enough to get you into the HOF.

That's the point. Larkin's offensive numbers were elite at his position, but perhaps arguable as borderline HOF worthy on their own. Add in his defense that makes him NOT a one-dimensional player, and he moves way ahead of others who also have borderline offensive cases. He belongs.

Larkins career OPS+ was 116.......at shortstop. It seems to me you either don't understand offensive scarcity, or are simply ignoring it.


His offensive numbers were FANTASTIC for his position, you cannot ignore that. His case for the hall is hardly built upon defense alone.

Barry Larkin is a legit HOFer. Some may say the Hall is only reserved for the elite. Was Barry Larkin elite? Probably not, but he is one of the best to ever suit up and play the position of SS. One could make arguments on a few players that reside in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Barry Larkin is not one of them.

I tend to err on the side of exclusivity when it comes to the Hall, but Larkin clearly belongs. He's one of the 10 best ever the play the position, and arguably in the top 5.

When you consistently put up the kind of offensive numbers he did while playing elite D at short for a dozen straight years, that's enough to punch your ticket to Cooperstown.

With most guys, it's a stretch to make the argument that they do belong. Larkin is one of those rare guys where I think it's a stretch to say he doesn't.

Originally Posted by TK10

I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.

I absolutely think Trammell should be in the HOF so your argument is weak. Both were one of the best SS's in the game for a long time. That is part of my criteria for the HOF. The HOF isn't about only taking the best hitters at 1B/OF.

Although I did not express it in my last thread post. The HOF should be for the great - and not the elite. I wholely endorse Larkin's enshrinement.

Originally Posted by kab21

Originally Posted by TK10

I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.

I absolutely think Trammell should be in the HOF so your argument is weak. Both were one of the best SS's in the game for a long time. That is part of my criteria for the HOF. The HOF isn't about only taking the best hitters at 1B/OF.

Trammell should most definitely get more consideration for the Hall - as should his double play partner Lou Whitaker... if he is still eligible?

Originally Posted by TK10

By that rationale one-dimensional players should never get in and that's something I'd be find with. Larkin won 3 gold gloves and had one unusually good offensive season. To me, defense, no matter how good it is, isn't enough to get you into the HOF.

so only a fraction of the game gets you into the HOF, not a well rounded game?? Major reason I don NOT endorse Frank Thomas as a HOF next year. Just my opinion....not a fan of the DH
Shortstops, like Larkin, or other positions should be measured against others at their position and NOT against everyone else. Part of my bias agaisnt Crime Dog, as he wasnt the best at his position when he played. Absolutely think a guy like Trammal should be thought of more, and also Whitaker

Originally Posted by TK10

I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.

OK, I'm more of an exclusive Hall guy, but It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Legends. When assessing someone's HOF candidacy, the question is not whether they measure up to those guys. If it were, there would be a total of about a dozen guys on in the Hall.

\

Originally Posted by greengoblinrulz

Major reason I don NOT endorse Frank Thomas as a HOF next year. Just my opinion....not a fan of the DH

While I agree that DHs should face a tougher road to get to Cooperstown, Thomas is one of the top 20 RH hitters of all time. He deserves to be enshrined in the Hall. The guy doesn't get half the love he deserves.

I'm not buying it. Great players are like pornography: I don't know how to define them but I know them when I see them. I don't think Larkin's a great player. I think he was a very good shortstop. 2,300 hits over 19 years isn't great ... it just isn't. And, for the record, I never said defense wasn't important. I don't think Larkin was a great all-around player. He was an excellent defensive player who was a good offensive player. I'd have no problem with it becoming the Hall of Legends, personally. Who cares if you go a couple of years without someone getting inducted? The merchants and hotel owners in Cooperstown, I suppose. Lastly, Alan Trammell isn't a HOFer.

Originally Posted by TK10

I'm not buying it. Great players are like pornography: I don't know how to define them but I know them when I see them. I don't think Larkin's a great player. I think he was a very good shortstop. 2,300 hits over 19 years isn't great ... it just isn't. And, for the record, I never said defense wasn't important. I don't think Larkin was a great all-around player. He was an excellent defensive player who was a good offensive player. I'd have no problem with it becoming the Hall of Legends, personally. Who cares if you go a couple of years without someone getting inducted? The merchants and hotel owners in Cooperstown, I suppose. Lastly, Alan Trammell isn't a HOFer.

You're not presenting anything to counter any of the overwhelming number of folks who see something much different when they see Larkin. However, you've not once stated anything about seeing him on the field, just continually referenced his hits number. From your comments it seems you're looking at stats only and never truly saw the player because anyone who did have a chance to see him and know him in his era knows Barry was at the top of the game. He was the bridge from Ozzie/Ripken to the Nomar/Jeter/ARod grouping as the best SS in the game. There wasn't anyone in his class for a good portion of his career at his position. He's a Hall of Famer, easy.

Originally Posted by TK10

I'm not buying it. Great players are like pornography: I don't know how to define them but I know them when I see them. I don't think Larkin's a great player.

---Wow, that's defining greatness pretty darn narrowly. I shudder to think about how graphic something must be for you to think it fits the definition of pornography.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

He was the bridge from Ozzie/Ripken to the Nomar/Jeter/ARod grouping as the best SS in the game.

Who would have thought, ten years ago, that Jeter would be the only one those latter three going to the Hall of Fame?

Originally Posted by Bark's Lounge

Originally Posted by biggentleben

He was the bridge from Ozzie/Ripken to the Nomar/Jeter/ARod grouping as the best SS in the game.

Who would have thought, ten years ago, that Jeter would be the only one those latter three going to the Hall of Fame?

I do believe ARod will make it for the same reason as Bonds. The totality of the numbers will be so large that just the roids argument won't be able to stand up.

Originally Posted by TK10

I'm not buying it. Great players are like pornography: I don't know how to define them but I know them when I see them. I don't think Larkin's a great player. I think he was a very good shortstop. 2,300 hits over 19 years isn't great ... it just isn't. And, for the record, I never said defense wasn't important. I don't think Larkin was a great all-around player. He was an excellent defensive player who was a good offensive player. I'd have no problem with it becoming the Hall of Legends, personally. Who cares if you go a couple of years without someone getting inducted? The merchants and hotel owners in Cooperstown, I suppose. Lastly, Alan Trammell isn't a HOFer.

You're not going to convince anyone that your point is valid if you continue to reference hits and ignore every. other. offensive. statistic.

Larkin was a a fantastic defensive shortstop, a good base stealer, and a very, very good hitter. He was the premiere shortstop for several years (and very good for many more) and piled up enough counting stats to deserve entry into Cooperstown. Like I said earlier, it's damned hard to make an argument for Puckett to be in the Hall but not Larkin. Barry played in ~20% more games and sported a ~40% higher WAR. He has a ring. He has an MVP award. Multiple Gold Gloves. Multiple Silver Sluggers.