Thanks. :thumb: That was his 1st year on it right.

Yes, first year and in '02, Smith made the 22nd SS elected to HOF, I believe.

Yes, first year and in '02, Smith made the 22nd SS elected to HOF, I believe.

And Larkin will be the 24th. (This is just a guess I don't know of any other than Ripken that went in since then and I am not for sure if any other real good ones are on the ballot before 2010)

If you look at those lists Perez was on there from '92 til '00 and every year got more than 50% of the vote and the last 5 years on the ballot more than 300 votes. Jim Rice has kind of had the small problem been on since '95 (I think) but he hasn't recieved as many votes through the years as Perez got.

Robin Yount in=Barry Larkin first ballot IMO......

You're either younger than I thought or allowing yourself to take this personally, because in their own day and age, Yount was the better player. Yount, at both SS and CF, was Brett-ish in his reputation....Larkin never achieved that type of respect and / or notoriety.

Another question that might play into it on the first ballot, who will be the other players under consideration for that first year?

Barry Larkin has better numbers than Honus Wagner, Phil Rizzuto, Robin Yount (who crossed generations and played at the same time as Larkin), Bobby Wallace.......

I'm sick of this. The only SS's in the HOF better than Larkin (no doubt in my mind) are Ripken, Banks, and that's it. Smith is argueable, but certainly not definetely better. IMO Larkin is a HOFer.

I need to catch my breath...did you just compare a baseball player from the '90's with a guy from about 1910? Oh my.....

 

Barry's numbers against Phil freaking Rizzuto matter NOT AT ALL to how he will be judged when his vote his cast. It's judged against players in his era and (probably mostly subconsciously) players that have come after. Barry was a nice player for a lot of years, never spectacular, and I think he'll come up short in votes being cast.

In 96 there were 2 GREAT years by a SS. Before that how many were there? I have no clue what A-Rod has to do with Larkin. Mantle was great and Mays played at the same time and were compared. Are they in the HOF? Also factor in that A-Rod and Tejada had very large drop offs in performance after performance enhancing drugs became illegal.

 

In 91' Ripken had the "best" offensive season a SS had ever had. Noone touched it until Larkin and A-Rod in 96'. (I forgot Ernie Banks who had several better years)

 

At one time Larkin had the 3rd best season a SS had ever had. That's saying something. His career numbers are close, his accolades speak for themselves, and I see him in Cooperstown (not 1st ballot).

A-Rod's stats matter because contemporaries (especially at the same position) are what he'll be judged against. I think as many voters hold perceived steriod accusations against players, the live-ball of the mid '90's will be a factor as well.

 

Actually, it's not saying anything. With the changes in the game, the amount of teams, the ballparks, and the mound height, the numbers are skewing higher now than they were before.

 

Don't think for a second that the way he left Cincy (ugly divorce) won't be a factor too. It will. Those baseball beat writers (voters) are a close-knit fraternity.

You're either younger than I thought or allowing yourself to take this personally, because in their own day and age, Yount was the better player. Yount, at both SS and CF, was Brett-ish in his reputation....Larkin never achieved that type of respect and / or notoriety.

If I had been a voter during the year Yount got in, I would have had to been convinced. I saw Yount not being much better than players that had not gotten in. He played longer and would have been the reason but I would NOT have thought he was a top 10 player year in and year out of his career. I would have not voted for him unless I would have been convinced.

 

He was a very good player but not the best of his era IMVHO. To me, Barry was one of the top 2-3 of SS in his era. Yount was not.

If I had been a voter during the year Yount got in, I would have had to been convinced. I saw Yount not being much better than players that had not gotten in. He played longer and would have been the reason but I would NOT have thought he was a top 10 player year in and year out of his career. I would have not voted for him unless I would have been convinced.

 

He was a very good player but not the best of his era IMVHO. To me, Barry was one of the top 2-3 of SS in his era. Yount was not.

What? First of all, Yount had 3,100+ hits...which is / was / and shall be the golden ticket.

 

Secondly, who was better than Yount during his time at SS? Davey was winding down. Bowa was punch and judy. Russell was a super cerebral player but didn't hit that well. Rick Burleson was....Rick Burleson. Templeton wasn't up yet. Who was better? Who was close?

Templeton wasn't up yet. ?

 

To sidetrack a second...

 

Every time I hear Templeton's name, I think of his famous line regarding being a backup SS in the all-star game:

 

If I ain't startin', I ain't departin'.

 

Classic.

What? First of all, Yount had 3,100+ hits...which is / was / and shall be the golden ticket.

 

Secondly, who was better than Yount during his time at SS? Davey was winding down. Bowa was punch and judy. Russell was a super cerebral player but didn't hit that well. Rick Burleson was....Rick Burleson. Templeton wasn't up yet. Who was better? Who was close?

Freddie Patek

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I would have to go back and look but honestly being in my 20's during the prime of his career, Yount was not someone I looked at like I would look at Jeter today.

 

I saw his 3100 hits more as he played along time. As I said, if I did vote for him it would have been more for his achievement over a long period of time rather than he was the top player at his position during his era.

Freddie Patek

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I would have to go back and look but honestly being in my 20's during the prime of his career, Yount was not someone I looked at like I would look at Jeter today.

 

I saw his 3100 hits more as he played along time. As I said, if I did vote for him it would have been more for his achievement over a long period of time rather than he was the top player at his position during his era.

I'll take your 5'6" Royals' joke as no one was better.

 

To your 2nd point, was that because he played in Milwaukee and there was no ESPN and USA Today or because he wasn't very good?

 

Then why don't more players have 3,100+ hits? It "ain't" easy. What did Larkin miss it by....about 1,000 hits.

I'll take your 5'6" Royals' joke as no one was better.

 

To your 2nd point, was that because he played in Milwaukee and there was no ESPN and USA Today or because he wasn't very good?

 

Then why don't more players have 3,100+ hits? It "ain't" easy. What did Larkin miss it by....about 1,000 hits.

That's my biggest complaint, regarding Larkin....that total.

 

His leadership, speed, arm strength, ability in the hole, contact and comparable defensive numbers, to Ripken and Smith but the total hits, for years played is a question mark, especially for his batting order position.

I'll take your 5'6" Royals' joke as no one was better.

 

To your 2nd point, was that because he played in Milwaukee and there was no ESPN and USA Today or because he wasn't very good?

 

Then why don't more players have 3,100+ hits? It "ain't" easy. What did Larkin miss it by....about 1,000 hits.

As I said, I would have to look cause I can't really think of many AL SS's for the 80's.

 

YEP, absolutely it could be because of him playing in the AL and no ESPN around to tout how good everyone supposedly is.

 

I agree that his stats are good and as I said he accumulated stats over a long career could win me over. But I would never have considered him a better shortstop than an Ozzie Smith or IMO even Barry Larkin. Admittingly, my knowledge of him is limited.

 

When him and Molitor both went in, I felt it was because they played so daggone long and accumulated stats rather than they were two of the very best.

Larkin 2340 Hits .295 avg 198 HR 960 RBI 379 SB

Yount 3142 Hits .285 avg 251 HR 1400 RBI 271 SB

 

I believe Young played 2 more seasons than Larkin.

 

Edge has to go to Robin Yount offensively.