Larkin Deserves Spot in Hall of Fame
Barry Larkin is largely expected to answer a phone call Monday afternoon and hear from Jack O’Connell, Secretary of the Baseball Writers Association of America, that he has been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. The BBWAA has voted at least one player into Cooperstown in every season since 1996, and Larkin has the best chance of anyone on the ballot this year.
However, that congratulatory phone call is not guaranteed. The long-time Cincinnati Reds shortstop must accumulate another 12.9% of the votes to jump from the 62.1% he garnered last year to the necessary 75% for induction, and the average percentage gained by the last twelve players inducted into the Hall of Fame (not in their first year of eligibility) once reaching the 60% threshold was only 10.8 — which would leave Larkin on the outside looking in for yet another season.
Even if Larkin does follow that trend, though, and only receives 72.9 percent of the vote this year, it seems inevitable that we will eventually be talking about Barry Larkin the Hall of Fame shortstop. And we should be.
The Cincinnati, Ohio native will always have his detractors. Some argue that he never possessed a standout tool that transformed him from a very good player to an historically elite player. Furthermore, throughout his career, which ranged from 1986 to 2004, he failed to rank in the Top 5 in WAR amongst positional players in any given season. That, once again, points to a very good player, not an elite player.
Despite those arguments, Barry Larkin is clearly a Hall of Fame caliber player. He is a 12-time All Star. He won the 1995 MVP in the National League. He was above-average defensively. In addition, of all retired shortstops not currently in the Hall of Fame, only Bill Dahlen possesses a better career WAR. Larkin has more career WAR (+70.6) than Ozzie Smith, Lou Boudreau, Pee Wee Reese, Luis Aparicio, Bobby Wallace, Joe Sewell, Joe Tinker, and Dave Bancroft — who are all currently in the Hall of Fame.
Larkin was more than that, though. He transformed the way organizations drafted and evaluated shortstops, according to Ken Griffey Jr., who played with him for five years between 2000 and 2004. Griffey said:
“Teams started looking at shortstops with a little more power, guys there were bigger and stronger and more athletic than the typical shortstop. You used to get these short, little guys who would hit eighth and just slap at it. Barry changed all that and how teams draft. You don’t see shortstops who are 5-foot-6, 5-foot-8, and 160 pounds. These guys are 6-1 and 200 pounds. They’re not batting eighth. They’re batting 2-3-4-5.”
In 1996, Larkin became the first shortstop in history to reach the 30-30 club. That season included 33 home runs and 36 stolen bases that season. While he was not a perennial 20+ home run hitter, such as fellow Hall of Fame shortstop Ernie Banks, Larkin had a career .366 wOBA — better than the career numbers for Hall of Fame shortstops Banks, Pee Wee Reese, Cal Ripken Jr., Robin Yount, Dave Bancroft, and Bobby Wallace.
Let’s consider the following graph that compares the careers of Robin Yount — who was a no-doubt Hall of Famer and one of the select few elected on his first try — and Barry Larkin:
Source: FanGraphs — Barry Larkin, Robin Yount
Outside of the one monstrous year for Yount, in which he compiled +10.5 WAR, the two players enjoyed similar production throughout their respective careers. Both had eight seasons worth at least four wins apiece. Both sustained long, productive careers in which they accumulated over +70 WAR with a single team.
The graph clearly illustrates Larkin was at least similar to Yount throughout his career, yet one is considered a clear Hall of Famer and one is still fighting to earn that honor.
Larkin does not have one show-stopping number. He does not have 500+ home runs like Ernie Banks, 3,000 hits like Yount, the record for most consecutive games started like Cal Ripken Jr., or 13 Gold Glove awards like Ozzie Smith. He does, however, possess the cumulative statistical resume to be worthy of a Hall of Fame induction.
Hopefully, on Monday afternoon, Barry Larkin will no longer be fighting for that Hall of Fame induction. Hopefully, he will simply be Barry Larkin, the Hall of Fame shortstop. He deserves it.
J.P. Breen is a graduate student at the University of Chicago. For analysis on the Brewers and fantasy baseball, you can follow him on Twitter (@JP_Breen).
Great piece, Jim. I agree completely. Still, it would be hard to see a Larkin induction as anything more than a Pyrrhic victory since Bagwell, Martinez, Trammell, Raines, Walker, and McGwire are all at least in the same ballpark as Larkin in terms of worthiness, if not more so (I’d definitely rather see Bags or Edgar in, if I had to choose one).
I think John Rocker may be eligible for the first time. They could hang his plaque right above the third stall on the left in the men’s restroom.
He’s got my vote. As in not. Ever.
As a small hall guy, who thinks the Hall is probably already way too big, I only consider Larkin a borderline candidate. That said, I would have no problem with him getting in and, if I had a vote, would very likely vote for him in the absence of any hard steroid proof.
I’m considering boycotting all SS inductions into the Hall until Trammell gets the call. Look at the guy’s numbers compared to Larkin. And Larkin’s a lock? Pfft. Trammell’s career line: .285/.352/.415 played almost entirely in a statistically depressed era. Larkin played his peak during the offensive explosion. What would Larkin’s stats look like without that “monster” 33 HR season? A lot like Trammell’s with much less impressive defense.
Larkin had an MVP year. Larkin was considered a better shortstop of his own era. Larkin was much more of a leader on a Reds team unlike Trammell, on a team with Whitaker and Morris. As unmemorable as Larkin was, can you think of one Trammell moment that stood out the most? To many, I’m sure the 30-HR year made the biggest difference.
Larkin and Trammell were both great. It does seem silly that Larkin gets so many more votes, when we’re talking about a win difference over 20-season careers. Trammell is a victim of playing alongside Ripken throughout their careers, while Larkin has the benefit of competing with Wil Cordero, Jose Offerman, and Ozzie Smith’s bag of bones.
Larkin had an MVP season – Trammell had two seasons that were superior to Larkin’s MVP year, per FG WAR.
Can I think of one Trammell moment that stood out? Sure…how about 2 HR’s in game 4 against San Diego, accounting for all the runs in a 4-2 game that would have tied up the Series for San Diego if they’d won? Larkin was fine in the postseason, but no HRs and 3 RBIs in 78 PA’s? You’d have to give the “big moment” edge to Trammell (though I give zero weighting to it with respect to the HOF).
“I’m considering boycotting all SS inductions…”
I don’t even know what that means. Are you boycotting the ceremony and staying at home? Are you not watching on tv? Are you going to claim that he’s not in the HOF even though he is?
I would agree with you that Trammell belongs in the hall of fame with Barry Larkin. However, having moved from Michigan to Cincinnati in 1990 and having watched both players a ton in the peak of their careers, the idea that Larkin had ‘much less impressive defense’ than Trammell is laughable to me. I would go as far as willing to accept Trammell is ‘very close to as good’ – and this is as a fan of his- but ‘much more impressive’, uh-uh.
I don’t know what Griffey Jr is talking about. Larkin didn’t lead teams to look for heavy hitting shortstops any more than Junior himself caused teams to look for great defensive CF than could hit 50 HRs … after all most CFs in Jr’s time were slightly built, and now CFs are bigger.
The following paragraph mentions two shortstops that were much heavier hitters than Larkin, that for some reason, didn’t compel other teams to find “heavy hitting shortstops”. It could just be that players that have good power AND the range to play a good SS are just rare, like CF with the same combination. That there were so many good shortstops of larger size in the game doesn;t mean Larkin transformed how teams scouted shortstops. It means there was a strange increase in the talent pool.
One could say that Cecil Fielder transformed the way teams scout 1B’s and use the larger 1B’s of today as evidence. ALL players are larger today, sometimes laughably so (if you watch ESPN Classic).
———————————–
I think the graph illustrates “Yount shouldn’t be a HoF lock”.
———————————
I think Larkin is a good discussion. Not a very big peak, and medium length career. Never had a 7 WAR (or greater) season. That would be the knocks against him.
Averaging 5-6 WAR for a decade would be in his favor. Performing at All-Star level for a decade is pretty damn distinguishing among your peers.
Larkin had an MVP year. Larkin was considered a better shortstop of his own era. Larkin was much more of a leader on a Reds team unlike Trammell, on a team with Whitaker and Morris. As unmemorable as Larkin was, can you think of one Trammell moment that stood out the most? To many, I’m sure the 30-HR year made the biggest difference.
…and he’s in!
Trammell belongs on the same graph:
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=1014396,335,1013157
Geez, with all the watered down VC selections how is a genuinely good player like Dahlen not in?