Loading ...We will find out at 2:00 pm today whether Barry Larkin was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
I really don’t think he’ll make it this year — which will be a complete disgrace — but my fingers remain crossed. I’m actually pretty nervous (and yes, I know that makes no sense).
Anyone think he’ll get in this year?
UPDATE: As expected, Larkin didn’t make it.
I used the word “disgrace” above, and I think that’s understating the case. It’s a complete joke that Andre Dawson was elected, while Larkin, Bert Blyleven, and Roberto Alomar didn’t receive enough votes. It’s like I’m living in Bizarro World or something. Up is down. Black is white.
The Enquirer quoted some “expert” on predicting the HOF today and he predicted that Larkin would only get 23% of the vote. IF it’s this low, it doesn’t look good for his long term chances…which would be a crime.
He should make it this year but won’t. He will make it either next year or the year after. I will be mad if Alomar gets in first ballot and Barry doesn’t, that would be a disgrace. Honestly, I think the only one that will get in is Blyleven with Dawson, Larkin, and Alomar all between 60-74% the vote.
I’d be shocked (and saddened) if he only gets 23% of the vote. I think C. Trent guessed 45% and John Erardi in the 30s. This is the closest I’ve ever followed the voting and the thought process of some of the voters is interesting, to say the least.
Oh, and I never thought so before (or even thought about it before), but Tim Raines belongs in the HoF too.
Larkin got 8 of the 12 votes from ESPN contributors (link).
I don’t see how you can vote for Alomar and not Larkin.
I don’t recognize the names of the 4 ESPN voters who didn’t vote for Larkin. Are they regional writers?
I wrote a lengthy e-mail to Tim Brown of Yahoo Sports explaining my disgust that he only voted for Alomar and specifically said Larkin didn’t deserve it. I told him why he does and asked for any single ratioal reason why not. But, alas, he did not respond. Typical.
I probably shouldn’t have called him an idiot.
Wow… 20%? I don’t think he’s in today, but I’m thinking closer to that 40%-50% range. As Nick points out, he’s got good cred at ESPN, so hopefully that’s a good sign.
@RiverCity Redleg: Yeah, even when it’s true, the “idiot” thing never goes over well. I’m surprised at Brown. Does Passan have a vote over there at Yahoo? I always like his stuff… he’d vote for Larkin.
How sad that a player can be statistically among the best at his position all-time both defensively and offensively and yet not make the HOF. How different would the vote have been if he had played on a team from the east or left coast?
@RiverCity Redleg: LOL…I thought about writing the same type of stuff to him. That article is ridiculous, and he (and those like him) are the reason why I hate the HOF voting in baseball.
There is NO possible way for anyone to vote Alomar and not vote Larkin. They have very similar numbers but Larkin played the harder position. Plus Larkin was a MVP.
Yeah, that Brown article really got under my skin when I read that.
FYI- mlb.com is streaming live for the announcement.
Yeah, I’m still fired up about it, three weeks later. It’s the only time I have ever taken the time to respond to a sports writer over there.
@RiverCity Redleg: What article was it? I didn’t see it.
AAAAHH. Only Andre Dawson gets elected!
Barry got 51.6%
@nick in va:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AqCkjFUxXPlLvtn5OPQAyc4RvLYF?slug=ti-halloffame123109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Dawson is the only one? That’s surprising.
Blyleven got 74.2%.
Was that Costas gushing over Alomar? That was a bit much there Bob.
Larkin got 51.6%.
Poor Blyleven. 5 votes short. MLB network showing serious man-love to Alomar. They did say they were surprised Larkin only got 51.6%.
Common wisdom seems to suggest that most people felt Larkin wasn’t “first ballot” worthy…(as crazy as that notion is in my humble opinion) If he doesn’t get in next year then I’ll start to worry he won’t…
Nick, it was a Yahoo Sports article written by Tim Brown on Dec 30 titled: Setting the Bar High for the Hall. This may be the link, http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-halloffame123109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
@BJ Ruble: Thanks for the link. Kind of smug. I guess not quite enough people shared his love for Alomar.
51.6%, could be worse, but should be better. I’m w/ BRuble (and I’m sure everyone on here), if you’re high on Alomar, then you should absolutely love Larkin for the Hall
I never thought of it this way before, but if you aren’t high on Alomar, does that mean that you shouldn’t be high on Larkin? I guess I believe that Alomar was a very good player but I wouldn’t mind if he wasn’t ever elected to the HOF…perhaps my rose-tinted glasses have distorted my HOF-worthy view of Larkin since he was one of my all-time favorite players…
MLB.com has 13 writers with a HOF ballot and 6 voted for Alomar, but not Larkin.
blockquote cite=”comment-1924789″>
CeeKeR: if you aren’t high on Alomar, does that mean that you shouldn’t be high on Larkin?
Absolutely not, the point is that Larkin seems to me as having better numbers, accomplishments nad overall career than Alomar. Meaning you can like Larkin w/out Alomar, but not the other way around. And since Tim Brown and MLB.com is havinf a lovefest for Alomar, I can’t understand why Larkin isn’t included.
I really don’t think you can vote for Larkin or Alomar without voting for the other. The both should be in, but given Larkin playing the more difficult position, that should make a stronger case. I think next year will be Blyleven and Alomar. 2012 will be Larkin’s year.
Some of those guys are idiots. One guy voted for ten different players and none of them were Larkin.
My vote would have been Larkin, Blyleven, Alomar, Raines, Trammell, Dawson, and Edgar. I would vote McGwire if he would just come out and say this is what I did and that’s that. Until then I wouldn’t vote for him (to me I don’t care, but just come out and say you did whatever).
@GregD: About the only one I’m on board with was Gammons…
Larkin should be OK next year with 50+ percent this year. That was expected. I’m happy for Dawson. He was a great player. I really wish they would have put Blyleven in. I think that’s a shame.
To me it’s the voting system is flawed. You are either a HOF or you are not. Each player should be presented 1 time, if they get voted in then they are in, if not they can not ever be voted on again because not one of those up for a shot will see their numbers improve in the coming years.
Maybe Larkin should’ve done backflips instead of doing all that silly hitting.
I’ve said it before, but Larkin’s gap behind Ozzie defensively is much smaller than his gap ahead of Ozzie offensively. And the baseball writers (and most fans agree) had Ozzie as a no doubt hall-of-famer.
@GregD: That’s what I’ve never understood. People say Larkin wasn’t the best of his era. If I were building a team I would have taken Larkin over Ozzie (I’m biased, obviously). I’ll take the hitting, you take the back flips.
Everyday of the week and twice on Sunday, would I take Larkin over Ozzie.
I don’t know. I think I would take either but if you wanted someone in the line-up every day then you want Ozzie. Everyone trashes Scott Rolen for his games played, better take a look at Barry. Only 4 times did he play 150 games in a season Ozzie did it 10 and would have 11 if not for a strike (that year he led the league with 110). Alomar did it 9 times and had a few more at 145.
I have always contended Paul Molitar would not have been in the HOF if not as a DH. He was brittle also.
Barry will get in but a first ballot is the best of the best and his games per season held him back.
No on should question Andre Dawson. That guy was a pure power hitter with the best arm in the National League.
Bert Blylevin is the one who got screwed. Compare stats. Other than wins (and he played on some terrible teams) he is ahead of most in the Hall.
Barry Larkin will eventually get in, but for any of these guys, if it drags out a couple years it is going to get harder with all of that long list of big numbers guys coming up for vote.
To me, if you are a Hall of Famer, you are it on the first vote.
Andre Dawson was a very good all around player, I have no problem with him getting into the hall.
Tim Raines is another player that seems to got really low vote totals. Anyone that watched a bunch of NL baseball in the 80s knows how good that guy was.
Burt Blyleven to me is really crazy, as the guy was very good on some very bad teams. The two times he had a shot at the post season, he helped them win (including a win against the Reds in the 79 division series). If the guy would have been a Yankees, Dodgers, A’s, or Reds during the 70s, he would have won way over 300 games. The guy pitched 60 shutouts, way more than a laundry list of Hall of Fame greats.
Absolutely on both points. 50% was my bar – over that means hope, under that would have meant major anger. Poor Blyleven. Short by 5 votes, how could you not vote for him ? An idiotic rumor when he played was that he didn’t have “guts.” You have to wonder how many of the voters are as idiotic as that rumor.
Outstanding.
Of course, but,as John said, Ozzie did back flips.
@pinson343: What’s even worse than falling 5 votes short is that 5 people sent in blank ballots. Had they just not sent them in, Blyleven is in this year. That is just wrong.
Backflips are part of the ‘intangibles’, I guess. It’s the 80′s version of ‘havoc’.
Brilliant.
Larkin hit .300+ 9 times in his career – Ozzie never. Barry’s career batting avg. .295 – Ozzie .262. Larkin hit 198 dingers – Ozzie 28. Larkin’s career fieldig % .975 – Ozzie .978. NL MVP awards- Barry 1 – Ozzie 0. On-field backflips: Barry 0 – Ozzie many more flips than dingers. That, my friends, is why he is in. Better nickname goes to the Wizard of OZ. Ozzie the better showman, Barry the better all-around player!
I’m too dumb to understand most advanced defensive stats beyond FPCT — which is a flawed stat because it doesn’t account for the balls a guy never gets to — but I would love to see a defitive, more clearly explained reason why Ozzie was so much better on defense. Games played = more chances, okay. But what else?
John and Preach both deserve votes for their posts on this thread.
I agree with Jello,poor Blyleven.