I can't believe Barry Larkin will probably be elected into the Hall of Fame in 2012. He is NOT a HOF'er?

Question

in my opinion. His numbers DON'T jump out at you. Plus, he was injured all the time. Do you think Larkin should be a HOF'er? It looks like he'll get in next year. He was never dominant. I would put guys like Dale Murphy or Don Mattingly in, before a guy like Barry Larkin, who was a very good player, but nothing else.Shortstop
Born: April 28, 1964 (1964-04-28) (age 46)
Cincinnati, Ohio
Batted: Right Threw: Right
MLB debut
August 13, 1986 for the Cincinnati Reds
Last MLB appearance
October 3, 2004 for the Cincinnati Reds
Career statistics
Batting average .295
Home runs 198
Hits 2,340
Runs batted in 960
Stolen bases 379
Teams
Cincinnati Reds (1986–2004)

Career highlights and awards
12× All-Star selection (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2004)
World Series champion (1990)
3× Gold Glove Award winner (1994, 1995, 1996)
9× Silver Slugger Award winner (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999)
1995 NL MVP
1993 Roberto Clemente Award
1994 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award



http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/larkiba01.shtml

Answer 1

Masternachos, you DO realize that the reason Mattingly was done at 34 was because his back would not allow him to play any longer. Despite the back injury, he had only one season, 1990, where he missed a lot of games. Yeah, Larkin has more hits and total bases, BUT as you pointed out, he played many more games. And yeah, he was hurt a lot. Take Mattingly in his prime and Larkin in his prime, and compare them. Mattingly was a .330, 30 HR, 200-hit 45 double, 110 RBI guy before the back injury. He is not a Hall of Famer because he didn't have enough great seasons, but he was better than Larkin before then.Oh, and Donnie Baseball was much more than an "offensive player". He was one of the best defensive first baseman ever, and had enough of an arm and range that Lou Piniella started him at third during 1986, where he turned an around-the-horn double play--even though he was left-handed.



Larkin, like Bert Blyleven, is not a Hall of Famer. Like Blyleven, he was a very good player for a long time. But because players from the "Steroid Era" are not getting in, we are seeing guys like Larkin and Blyleven being voted in. Someone has to be elected, after all. Do you consider Bernie Williams a Hall of Famer? I don't, but if Larkin gets in, then Bernie gets in. Their numbers are very similar.



I guess I'm not understanding why all the Mattingly-bashing. Most of us don't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame, he was a great player, but not great for long enough. But for all you who find it necessary to bash Mattingly to make Larkin look great, Mattingly did win an MVP, a batting title, hit .352 in 1986, and win 9 Gold Gloves. Were his final numbers great? No. And neither are Larkin's. Hall of Famers who play 19 years should have better stats than that.



And let's stop bashing Rizzuto. I'm sure all of you Yankee haters remembered that he missed three prime years of his career in WWII, right?

Answer 2

Alright, look: Don Mattingly played an OFFENSIVE position, and Larkin played a DEFENSIVE position.

Yet:

Larkin has MORE HITS than Mattingly.

More stolen bases than Mattingly.

Played superb, Gold-Glove defense at SHORT and STILL had a .295 BA.

For someone 'injured all the time,' he STILL played more often than Mattingly did (2180 games to Don's 1785- that's about three more seasons).

More Runs Scored than Mattingly.

Only 24 fewer homers.

Higher OBP.

More Total Bases.

And Larkin was able to play until he was 40; not many Hall of Famers are done by 34...

Answer 3

The only thing that could even be considered a flaw in Larkin's career was that his career overlapped that of Ozzie Smith. Otherwise he would have been the best shortstop in baseball for most of his career.

And while he wasn't nearly as flashy as Smith, he still somehow managed to win 3 gold gloves, all right after Smith became more of a part time player. My guess is that if Smith had played in the AL, Larkin would have won at least 7 or 8 of them.

And given that he was about twice the hitter Smith ever was or could be, I'd go so far as to say he was actually a more complete ballplayer than Smith.



As for Dale Murphy - you really can't be serious. I only have one thing to say about him - .265 average.



As for Mattingly - if he had spent his entire career in Kansas City or MIlwaukee nobody would even think about him being in the HOF. I realize the standards are lower for Yankees, but you can't let them dip that low. Otherwise you may as well put Phil Rizzuto in. Oh, wait - they did do that.

Answer 4

There are players sitting in The Baseball Hall of Fame, who do not have that many All Star Selections, Silver Slugger Awards and Gold Gloves. I think he belongs in the Hall. He wasn't great enough to be a first ballot selection, but then most players aren't.

Answer 5

I believe it is a quality addition to the HOF. That's for each gamers...its to unhealthy Ron Santo is not right here to have the entertainment of the second...it got here approximately three hundred and sixty six days overdue...technique to overdue

Answer 6

So let me see if I've got this straight becuase you appear to be your own worst enemy when it comes to making points:



You think Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly should be in the Hall but Larkin should not be.



At least you're living up to your name.

Answer 7

Have to disagree. He was a shortstop. For shortstops, his offense looks good to me. And he wasn't just a shortstop, he was a good fielder. In his elderly player days he was a team leader. I'd say, yeah, Babe Ruth looks better, but Larkin still has earned his place in the Hall. Not enough middle infielders and catchers make it.

Answer 8

I'm going to get nailed for this but I agree. I just don't see how he is a Hall of Famer. He was excellent at defense don't get me wrong, but other than that I don't see why he is getting all of these votes. I also don't agree with his 1995 MVP award, maybe I'm a little ignorant, I don't know, but I diagree with his case.



He was a terrific player but I don't think he has a case for thr Hall of Fame, maybe if he had more hits?