Does Barry Larkin deserve the Hall? - Page 2

TheRockCT · 04-20-2002, 07:15 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jason Moyer:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JimServo:
Alan Trammell, and Larkin should probably get in. However, I don't like the argument that because THIS guy is in the hall, then THIS guy should be in the hall. For more on those questionable picks (Bancroft, Schalk) be sure to read Bill James's The Politics of Glory. Classic stuff.<hr /></blockquote>I dunno about the politics of Schalk, but I was pretty sure he was in because he revolutionized the catcher position...

Personally, I'm just surprised Richie Ashburn ever made the hall, especially playing in the same league as someone like Mays.

Jason<hr /></blockquote>Ashburn was a good ball-player, but I agree with you. He could get on base, and played good defense, but he had zero power, and was somewhat fast but never stole more than 30 or so bases. However, I just think the Hall factors in so many things (fan appeal, playing with only 1-2 clubs, durability) as well....but I don't think we'll ever be able to truly understand who and who shouldn't be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Hootiefish · 04-20-2002, 07:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Oh well, I just had to respond seeing as how I'm a Cubs fan and all. Don't take it as a personal rip on you, but just more of a defense of Sammy. <hr /></blockquote>Don't worry, I won't take it as a rip. I personally find discussions about who are/aren't the greatest players of all-time to be one of the best things about baseball

.

My reason for leaving Sammy off of the ballot has more to do with my belief that the HOF should be reserved for baseball gods. That means that I would shrink the hall to about fifty players, all of whom revolutionized or truly dominated the game during their time. That being said, if Sosa were to continue to rip homers at a 60 homers-a-season clip, then he is definitely in.

My feelings about the hall stem from the recent offensive explosive which has seriously perverted some players numbers (Vinny Castilla <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> ).

Tickkid · 04-21-2002, 05:06 AM

I have been reading this very interesting thread, and it prompted me to register and jump in. I am a casual baseball fan. I have a broad grasp of baseball history, and just enjoy the sport for what it is. I find these Hall of Fame debates interesting, fun, but also bufuddling. The numbers of the sport are the most interesting to me, and as far as regards the Hall of Fame, how important is a players career numbers to getting into the Hall? I mean, the game changes so much all the time, new stadiums, Coors Field, expansion, different rules, different balls, different dimensions... you would think that the players numbers would be more of a looser guideline and would put people into the Hall alot more then keeping people out.

Barry Larkin is one of my all time favorite players. I always assumed he would get into the hall, with an MVP, and his constant stellar play, and just being one of the 'big name' guys over a large period of time. Now that I read over all of this, it totally amazes me what goes into getting a guy into the Hall of Fame. Looking over these arguments, I could definatly see how he should not get in. I kinda looked over the people that are in the hall, and some arguments over some of the more recent players to get in or to not get in, and it seems like baseball draws a line in the sand, that it is happy to erase and move... I am torn in this respect... on one hand, the hall of fame should be the mecca of baseball. It should really show the game as it progressed, and the players who helped the game move into the different periods, and were exceptional players. But the more time that passes, and the more players get it, I also think the game should recognize the players that 'brought the noise' year in and year out, such as a Larkin. It is an interesting quandry... but this is a great thread, you guys really know what the heck you are talking about.

Kelric · 04-21-2002, 05:48 AM

There are definitely a ton of ball players that I would take out of the Hall if I had the chance. Some don't deserve to be there, while others most certainly do.

If it was up to me, I'd be 50/50 on putting Larkin in the hall. If he can round up those numbers, 2000 hits for example, then he should be in. He would have won a ton of Gold Gloves if it wasn't for Ozzie. And Ozzie, since he won those Gloves, deserves to be in there.

Now, to move the debate a little....what about Omar Vizquel?

04-20-2002, 07:15 PM	#21
TheRockCT All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: TN Posts: 1,083	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jason Moyer: <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by JimServo: <strong>Alan Trammell, and Larkin should probably get in. However, I don't like the argument that because THIS guy is in the hall, then THIS guy should be in the hall. For more on those questionable picks (Bancroft, Schalk) be sure to read Bill James's The Politics of Glory. Classic stuff.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I dunno about the politics of Schalk, but I was pretty sure he was in because he revolutionized the catcher position... Personally, I'm just surprised Richie Ashburn ever made the hall, especially playing in the same league as someone like Mays. Jason</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ashburn was a good ball-player, but I agree with you. He could get on base, and played good defense, but he had zero power, and was somewhat fast but never stole more than 30 or so bases. However, I just think the Hall factors in so many things (fan appeal, playing with only 1-2 clubs, durability) as well....but I don't think we'll ever be able to truly understand who and who shouldn't be inducted into the Hall of Fame. __________________ GM, Vermont Emperor Penguins - POTD POTD Champions: 2011, 2012, 2013 GM, Monterrey Aztecs* - NABA *NABA Champions: 2013

04-20-2002, 07:35 PM	#22
Hootiefish Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Blacksburg, VA Posts: 55	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Oh well, I just had to respond seeing as how I'm a Cubs fan and all. Don't take it as a personal rip on you, but just more of a defense of Sammy. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Don't worry, I won't take it as a rip. I personally find discussions about who are/aren't the greatest players of all-time to be one of the best things about baseball . My reason for leaving Sammy off of the ballot has more to do with my belief that the HOF should be reserved for baseball gods. That means that I would shrink the hall to about fifty players, all of whom revolutionized or truly dominated the game during their time. That being said, if Sosa were to continue to rip homers at a 60 homers-a-season clip, then he is definitely in. My feelings about the hall stem from the recent offensive explosive which has seriously perverted some players numbers (Vinny Castilla <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> ). __________________ "Duffman says alot of things! Ooh, yeah!" -- Duffman

04-21-2002, 05:06 AM	#23
Tickkid Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 51	I have been reading this very interesting thread, and it prompted me to register and jump in. I am a casual baseball fan. I have a broad grasp of baseball history, and just enjoy the sport for what it is. I find these Hall of Fame debates interesting, fun, but also bufuddling. The numbers of the sport are the most interesting to me, and as far as regards the Hall of Fame, how important is a players career numbers to getting into the Hall? I mean, the game changes so much all the time, new stadiums, Coors Field, expansion, different rules, different balls, different dimensions... you would think that the players numbers would be more of a looser guideline and would put people into the Hall alot more then keeping people out. Barry Larkin is one of my all time favorite players. I always assumed he would get into the hall, with an MVP, and his constant stellar play, and just being one of the 'big name' guys over a large period of time. Now that I read over all of this, it totally amazes me what goes into getting a guy into the Hall of Fame. Looking over these arguments, I could definatly see how he should not get in. I kinda looked over the people that are in the hall, and some arguments over some of the more recent players to get in or to not get in, and it seems like baseball draws a line in the sand, that it is happy to erase and move... I am torn in this respect... on one hand, the hall of fame should be the mecca of baseball. It should really show the game as it progressed, and the players who helped the game move into the different periods, and were exceptional players. But the more time that passes, and the more players get it, I also think the game should recognize the players that 'brought the noise' year in and year out, such as a Larkin. It is an interesting quandry... but this is a great thread, you guys really know what the heck you are talking about.

04-21-2002, 05:48 AM	#24
Kelric Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Greater Boston Area Posts: 3,992	There are definitely a ton of ball players that I would take out of the Hall if I had the chance. Some don't deserve to be there, while others most certainly do. If it was up to me, I'd be 50/50 on putting Larkin in the hall. If he can round up those numbers, 2000 hits for example, then he should be in. He would have won a ton of Gold Gloves if it wasn't for Ozzie. And Ozzie, since he won those Gloves, deserves to be in there. Now, to move the debate a little....what about Omar Vizquel?