Barry Larkin > Ozzie Smith but why did Smith get 1st ballot?

[jbhofmann]

My mom knows who Ozzie Smith is. She doesn't know who Barry Larkin is.

Unless your mom is a defensive sabermetrician, she probably knows Ozzie for his backflips, thus proving the OP's point.

Thank you.

If you take each player's best 7 year WAR average (a number I seem to remember people claiming was a good representation of "prime") it comes out to this:

Larkin=6.0
Ozzie=5.5

Both of those for a SS are greatness defined, but you can clearly see there is really no reason that Ozzie got 91% his first time around and Larkin much, much less.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

My mom knows who Ozzie Smith is. She doesn't know who Barry Larkin is.

Unless your mom is a defensive sabermetrician, she probably knows Ozzie for his backflips, thus proving the OP's point.

Thank you.

If you take each player's best 7 year WAR average (a number I seem to remember people claiming was a good representation of "prime") it comes out to this:

Larkin=6.0
Ozzie=5.5

Both of those for a SS are greatness defined, but you can clearly see there is really no reason that Ozzie got 91% his first time around and Larkin much, much less.

No reason? Popularity and fame aren't reasons?

 

[jbhofmann]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":20q5ng0t]My mom knows who Ozzie Smith is. She doesn't know who Barry Larkin is.

Unless your mom is a defensive sabermetrician, she probably knows Ozzie for his backflips, thus proving the OP's point.

Thank you.

If you take each player's best 7 year WAR average (a number I seem to remember people claiming was a good representation of "prime") it comes out to this:

Larkin=6.0
Ozzie=5.5

Both of those for a SS are greatness defined, but you can clearly see there is really no reason that Ozzie got 91% his first time around and Larkin much, much less.

No reason? Popularity and fame aren't reasons?[/quote:20q5ng0t]

Yeah, he's famous for doing backflips onto a field.

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

I still dont know why it matters if your first ballot or not. Your in or your not IMO

I fully agree with you on this. My only guess is that it makes some writers feel like they have some control and/or power. That and they probably couldn't make it out of t-ball.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Better Statistics. Sometimes players get in because they're more famous, whether their on-the-field play actually justifies it or not.

Yup!

/end thread

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":3fwxucim]My mom knows who Ozzie Smith is. She doesn't know who Barry Larkin is.

Unless your mom is a defensive sabermetrician, she probably knows Ozzie for his backflips, thus proving the OP's point.

Thank you.

If you take each player's best 7 year WAR average (a number I seem to remember people claiming was a good representation of "prime") it comes out to this:

Larkin=6.0
Ozzie=5.5

Both of those for a SS are greatness defined, but you can clearly see there is really no reason that Ozzie got 91% his first time around and Larkin much, much less.

No reason? Popularity and fame aren't reasons?

Yeah, he's famous for doing backflips onto a field.[/quote:3fwxucim]
You may be right, and I was certainly not arguing against his backflip being a huge part of his induction. That is a part of baseball lore (not statistical history, but lore, as in it is being discussed on a message board and remembered by my non-baseball fan mother over 25 years after it happened). That is what the HOF should be, IMO. It sure pisses some SABRheads off, though.

 

[archiebunkerjr]

I'm hoping Larkin's inclusion gets Trammell closer to being in. He did everything Larkin and Smith did and he meant as much to his team as Larkin and Smith did.

 

[craftysouthpaw]

[quote="George_Calfas":1fzmq3cy]

Ozzie smith was a HUGE figure and fan favorite in St Louis. Barry Larkin...not so much

Quite right.

Smith was simply the more favorably popular player, and obviously this matters when voting for the Hall of Fame.

Do well informed people vote for the HOF or the general public?

Whats the difference? Are not well informed people part of the general public? You think it would have made a difference?

People within the general ***** are well informed but the casual person not so much when it comes to sport specifics. Sports writers make their living digesting sports, the stats, etc. Sports writers know and seen both players, Smith's HOF voting (and Larkin) was based on play and little to do with popularity........yes I know I am in the minority here.[/quote:1fzmq3cy]

Agree.

I saw this thread and thought "here we go again".

Larkin didn't get in last year because (a) he is criminally underrated and (b) some of the more sanctimonious writers (and that is saying something) think only a select few should go in on their first ballot.

 

[hive17]

Ozzie may have been the greatest defensive player ever. Even if not, as far as his perception in the game, he is.

Thanked.

How? :twisted:

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I still dont know why it matters if your first ballot or not. Your in or your not IMO

I fully agree with you on this. My only guess is that it makes some writers feel like they have some control and/or power. That and they probably couldn't make it out of t-ball.

But the writers apparently do not feel all HOFers are equal, neither do the people here - as we can readily see.

 

[bigredmachine]

Id take Larkin over Ozzie any day of the week. Thats assuming Larkin was not on the DL that day.

 

[383astro]

 

[daveyou]

this is just purely my own opinion and no one should take it personally as we all have different thoughts and beliefs

purely by looking at his overall numbers below, i cant say there is anything eye popping here that warrants him being in the hall of fame.

Year Team G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
1986 CIN 41 159 27 45 4 3 3 19 9 21 8 0 .283 .320 .403 .722
1987 CIN 125 439 64 107 16 2 12 43 36 52 21 6 .244 .306 .371 .678
1988 CIN 151 588 91 174 32 5 12 56 41 24 40 7 .296 .347 .429 .776
1989 CIN 97 325 47 111 14 4 4 36 20 23 10 5 .342 .375 .446 .821
1990 CIN 158 614 85 185 25 6 7 67 49 49 30 5 .301 .358 .396 .753
1991 CIN 123 464 88 140 27 4 20 69 55 64 24 6 .302 .378 .506 .884
1992 CIN 140 533 76 162 32 6 12 78 63 58 15 4 .304 .377 .454 .831
1993 CIN 100 384 57 121 20 3 8 51 51 33 14 1 .315 .394 .445 .839
1994 CIN 110 427 78 119 23 5 9 52 64 58 26 2 .279 .369 .419 .788
1995 CIN 131 496 98 158 29 6 15 66 61 49 51 5 .319 .394 .492 .886
1996 CIN 152 517 117 154 32 4 33 89 96 52 36 10 .298 .410 .567 .977
1997 CIN 73 224 34 71 17 3 4 20 47 24 14 3 .317 .440 .473 .913
1998 CIN 145 538 93 166 34 10 17 72 79 69 26 3 .309 .397 .504 .901
1999 CIN 161 583 108 171 30 4 12 75 93 57 30 8 .293 .390 .420 .810
2000 CIN 102 396 71 124 26 5 11 41 48 31 14 6 .313 .389 .487 .876
2001 CIN 45 156 29 40 12 0 2 17 27 25 3 2 .256 .373 .372 .745
2002 CIN 145 507 72 124 37 2 7 47 44 57 13 4 .245 .305 .367 .672
2003 CIN 70 241 39 68 16 1 2 18 22 32 2 0 .282 .345 .382 .726
2004 CIN 111 346 55 100 15 3 8 44 34 39 2 0 .289 .352 .419 .771
Career 2180 7937 1329 2340 441 76 198 960 939 817 379 77 .295 .371 .444 .815

since 2000, there was 53 elected to the baseball hall of fame

i dont consider myself an expert by any means as there are quite a few names on that 53 elected that i have no clue who they are, but i feel that these names below were no doubt hall of fame players due to dominance, stats, its name, reputation (from 2012 to 2010)

alomar
rickey henderson
ripken
gwynn
boggs
sandberg
molitor

you think hall of fame, i just think of guys like nolan, seaver, bobby gibson, george brett, schmidt, reggie jackson elected in the 90s, hank aaron, killebrew, kaline, duke, mize elected in the 80s, koufax, clemente, mickey, ernie, willie elected in the 70s...not taking anything away from the satchels and bob gibson

i dont know...i think hall of fame, and the names that stand with the list that includes the likes of babe ruth, gehrig, cy young, cobb, honus, mantle, mays, aaron, koufax, ryan, seaver, ripken and include them with the likes of (dont take offense as i agree that they had wonderful and awesome careers) blyleven, rice, santo, etc...just doesn't scream hall. of. famer.

again, this isn't to start anything nor i need to be corrected in any way, shape or form. it is strictly my opinion/thoughts, and mine alone.

some selections just doesnt seem jusified to be in that class is all.

going a few years forward, piazza, maddux, randy johnson, frank thomas and griffey jr in the next 5 years...these guys JUST belong...

dave

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

...
i dont consider myself an expert by any means as there are quite a few names on that 53 elected that i have no clue who they are, but i feel that these names below were no doubt hall of fame players due to dominance, stats, its name, reputation (from 2012 to 2010)

alomar
...

Reasonable POV except that the spitting didn't do wonders for Alomar's rep - cost him the first ballot election.

 

[gvsu96]

A better discussion would be now that Larkin is in, Trammell should be in since they have eerily similar careers and stats.

 

[ThoseBackPages]

A better discussion would be now that Larkin is in, Trammell should be in since they have eerily similar careers and stats.

the bigger sin is that Whitaker fell off the ballot after ONE year. downright oversight imo

 

[ThoseBackPages]

this is just purely my own opinion and no one should take it personally as we all have different thoughts and beliefs

purely by looking at his overall numbers below, i cant say there is anything eye popping here that warrants him being in the hall of fame.

Year Team G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
1986 CIN 41 159 27 45 4 3 3 19 9 21 8 0 .283 .320 .403 .722
1987 CIN 125 439 64 107 16 2 12 43 36 52 21 6 .244 .306 .371 .678
1988 CIN 151 588 91 174 32 5 12 56 41 24 40 7 .296 .347 .429 .776
1989 CIN 97 325 47 111 14 4 4 36 20 23 10 5 .342 .375 .446 .821
1990 CIN 158 614 85 185 25 6 7 67 49 49 30 5 .301 .358 .396 .753
1991 CIN 123 464 88 140 27 4 20 69 55 64 24 6 .302 .378 .506 .884
1992 CIN 140 533 76 162 32 6 12 78 63 58 15 4 .304 .377 .454 .831
1993 CIN 100 384 57 121 20 3 8 51 51 33 14 1 .315 .394 .445 .839
1994 CIN 110 427 78 119 23 5 9 52 64 58 26 2 .279 .369 .419 .788
1995 CIN 131 496 98 158 29 6 15 66 61 49 51 5 .319 .394 .492 .886
1996 CIN 152 517 117 154 32 4 33 89 96 52 36 10 .298 .410 .567 .977
1997 CIN 73 224 34 71 17 3 4 20 47 24 14 3 .317 .440 .473 .913
1998 CIN 145 538 93 166 34 10 17 72 79 69 26 3 .309 .397 .504 .901
1999 CIN 161 583 108 171 30 4 12 75 93 57 30 8 .293 .390 .420 .810
2000 CIN 102 396 71 124 26 5 11 41 48 31 14 6 .313 .389 .487 .876
2001 CIN 45 156 29 40 12 0 2 17 27 25 3 2 .256 .373 .372 .745
2002 CIN 145 507 72 124 37 2 7 47 44 57 13 4 .245 .305 .367 .672
2003 CIN 70 241 39 68 16 1 2 18 22 32 2 0 .282 .345 .382 .726
2004 CIN 111 346 55 100 15 3 8 44 34 39 2 0 .289 .352 .419 .771
Career 2180 7937 1329 2340 441 76 198 960 939 817 379 77 .295 .371 .444 .815

since 2000, there was 53 elected to the baseball hall of fame

i dont consider myself an expert by any means as there are quite a few names on that 53 elected that i have no clue who they are, but i feel that these names below were no doubt hall of fame players due to dominance, stats, its name, reputation (from 2012 to 2010)

alomar
rickey henderson
ripken
gwynn
boggs
sandberg
molitor

you think hall of fame, i just think of guys like nolan, seaver, bobby gibson, george brett, schmidt, reggie jackson elected in the 90s, hank aaron, killebrew, kaline, duke, mize elected in the 80s, koufax, clemente, mickey, ernie, willie elected in the 70s...not taking anything away from the satchels and bob gibson

i dont know...i think hall of fame, and the names that stand with the list that includes the likes of babe ruth, gehrig, cy young, cobb, honus, mantle, mays, aaron, koufax, ryan, seaver, ripken and include them with the likes of (dont take offense as i agree that they had wonderful and awesome careers) blyleven, rice, santo, etc...just doesn't scream hall. of. famer.

again, this isn't to start anything nor i need to be corrected in any way, shape or form. it is strictly my opinion/thoughts, and mine alone.

some selections just doesnt seem jusified to be in that class is all.

going a few years forward, piazza, maddux, randy johnson, frank thomas and griffey jr in the next 5 years...these guys JUST belong...

dave

Dave, i understand what youre saying brother. i feel that you and many other people as well fall into what i like to call the "internet age" where "stats" are analyzed and micro-analyzed, overlooking the pure beauty of the game and how it was before the internet came along.

 

[nosterbor]

one word:

Backflips

I was going to THANK this post. WHERE THE HELL IS IT?