2012 Baseball Hall of Fame: Barry Larkin, SS Cincinnati

[Tony-OH]

Congrats to Larkin, he's a fully deserving HOFer. They definitely got this one right.

But I want to see the contortions the writers have gone through to justify Larkin going in but Trammell not getting particularly close. Larkin's top comp on bb-ref is Trammell. They both have rWAR totals in the high 60s. They both won multiple GGs and SSers and both ended up with about 1.25 career MVP shares. Of course Larkin got more Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers, partly because he wasn't competing directly with Cal Ripken. Trammell didn't win an MVP award but had an excellent case in '87 (2nd in WAR, lost to a clearly inferior George Bell), while Larkin did win in '95 despite finishing 5th in the league in rWAR.

Basically, they're two very similar, excellent candidates who were peers but Larkin somehow has been perceived as the better player.

It's a dumb way to determine players worth, but it would not surprise me if Larkin's 11 All Star games compared to Trammel's six is the main difference.

[DrungoHazewood]

Random Comment: I know he's a symbol of the steroid era, and if he hasn't been outed he likely did it, but I'm still slightly surprised that Juan Gonzalez didn't even make it to 5% when you consider the counting stats, a career .904 OPS, and two MVP awards. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe he was a Hall of Famer. Was he overrated? A great case can be made for that, steroids or no steroids. Did his breakdown at the end of his career cost him? Probably. But, a lot lesser players, steroids or no steroids, got 5% of the vote. Consider me slightly surprised.

Juan Gonzalez had a short career, won two shaky MVP awards (one of which was downright absurd), only played 140+ games in a season five times, and was a poor fielder. His rWAR total for his two MVP seasons combined was eclipsed by Jeff Bagwell in three different individual seasons. In 1996 he was arguably the 6th-best player on the Texas Rangers, yet he won the AL MVP.

[DrungoHazewood]

It's a dumb way to determine players worth, but it would not surprise me if Larkin's 11 All Star games compared to Trammel's six is the main difference.

It's especially dumb when your career runs in parallel with Cal Ripken's. Basically to make the All Star team back before there were 82 players on the roster, Trammell had to be the best shortstop in the league besides Cal.

[Moose Milligan]

It's especially dumb when your career runs in parallel with Cal Ripken's. Basically to make the All Star team back before there were 82 players on the roster, Trammell had to be the best shortstop in the league besides Cal.

Tony Fernandez, yo!

[Frobby]

Congrats to Larkin, he's a fully deserving HOFer. They definitely got this one right.

But I want to see the contortions the writers have gone through to justify Larkin going in but Trammell not getting particularly close. Larkin's top comp on bb-ref is Trammell. They both have rWAR totals in the high 60s. They both won multiple GGs and SSers and both ended up with about 1.25 career MVP shares. Of course Larkin got more Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers, partly because he wasn't competing directly with Cal Ripken. Trammell didn't win an MVP award but had an excellent case in '87 (2nd in WAR, lost to a clearly inferior George Bell), while Larkin did win in '95 despite finishing 5th in the league in rWAR.

Basically, they're two very similar, excellent candidates who were peers but Larkin somehow has been perceived as the better player.

12 time all star vs. 6 time all star. I think you are right that Trammel suffers a bit from playing in the same league as Cal, and to a lesser extent, Yount when he was a SS.

It seems to me there are very few 12 time all stars who aren't in the Hall, and quite a few 6-time all stars that aren't.

[byrdz]

Some highlights from his career:

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=20050485&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

[Sports Guy]

I am glad Larkin got in.

As for the rest of it? It just proves how awful the BBWAA is.

[Skeletor]

If Morris doesn't get in he'll be the first player to get to 67% with eligibility left and not get in.

He's going to make history then. This year was Morris's last realistic shot to get voted in. The writers surprised me on Morris. I thought he would definitely get in this year. Glad he didn't.

[BaltimoreTerp]

He's going to make history then. This year was Morris's last realistic shot to get voted in. The writers surprised me on Morris. I thought he would definitely get in this year. Glad he didn't.

A couple of the guys just on MLB Network said that they were going to think even more next year about voting for him because of that support. Which may not make much sense to us, but could get him over the hump in a year of possible PED users.

Even though if he began his career fifteen years later, he's Jeremy Guthrie or AJ Burnett (seriously, both have a career 105 ERA+).

[backwardsk]

12 time all star vs. 6 time all star. I think you are right that Trammel suffers a bit from playing in the same league as Cal, and to a lesser extent, Yount when he was a SS.

It seems to me there are very few 12 time all stars who aren't in the Hall, and quite a few 6-time all stars that aren't.

Similar to Cal and trammell, half of Larkin's AS run was when Smith was voted in. But they were both playing in a time where there were only 2 to 3 selections for SS.

Larkin made his first AS in 1988 and had a string until 2000 where he only didn't make it twice. He won the Silver Slugger in both years.

[DrungoHazewood]

Even though if he began his career fifteen years later, he's Jeremy Guthrie or AJ Burnett (seriously, both have a career 105 ERA+).

That overstates the case. Guthrie and Burnett did allow runs at the same rate, but Morris came up at age 21 and lasted until he was 39. He pitched 3800 innings. If you tacked Burnett's career on to Guthrie's you get a pitcher who allowed runs at the same rate as Morris but pitched 2/3rds as many innings.

It's kind of like saying Marty Cordova is Johnny Damon (seriously both have OPS+es between 100-105).

[DrungoHazewood]

12 time all star vs. 6 time all star. I think you are right that Trammel suffers a bit from playing in the same league as Cal, and to a lesser extent, Yount when he was a SS.

It seems to me there are very few 12 time all stars who aren't in the Hall, and quite a few 6-time all stars that aren't.

I'm sure there's a pretty high correlation there.

Just a quick glance it looks pretty good, a lot of guys who are deserving but have gotten little support had six or fewer AS appearances, like Raines, Whitaker, Grich, Trammell. Mark McGwire had 12. Reggie Smith had 7. Dewey had 62 rWAR, but only three AS appearances, and essentially no HOF support. Nettles also 62 rWAR, six AS apperances, and basically no HOF support. Fred Lynn had nine consecutive AS appearances but dropped off the HOF ballot after two years. Robin Ventura is probably not too far off an average HOF third baseman, but had two AS appearances and dropped off the ballot his only year.

I guess it makes sense. Both the BBWAA and the AS process to some degree reflect the popular consensus of who is good and who really isn't.

[MikeAD]

It's especially dumb when your career runs in parallel with Cal Ripken's. Basically to make the All Star team back before there were 82 players on the roster, Trammell had to be the best shortstop in the league besides Cal.

This is a great point. I think back to the early days of Nomar, ARod and Jeter. In 1997 Arod and Nomar made the All Star Team, Arod the Starter. In 1998 it was ARod, Jeter and Vizquel were on the team. 1999 Nomar started with Jeter and Vizquel on the bench. In 2000 ARod started with Jeter, Nomar AND Bordick on the bench. Back then, when it was happening, I was perplexed. Yeah there are like 22-25 position players on the All-Star team but when even a decade prior to that and especially 15-20 years and earlier that wold be insane. I don't think total All Stars (or even total Gold Gloves) should really have any weight in the All Star game, now because its pretty watered down, and back then because you could be GREAT and not make the team.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is a great point. I think back to the early days of Nomar, ARod and Jeter. In 1997 Arod and Nomar made the All Star Team, Arod the Starter. In 1998 it was ARod, Jeter and Vizquel were on the team. 1999 Nomar started with Jeter and Vizquel on the bench. In 2000 ARod started with Jeter, Nomar AND Bordick on the bench. Back then, when it was happening, I was perplexed. Yeah there are like 22-25 position players on the All-Star team but when even a decade prior to that and especially 15-20 years and earlier that wold be insane. I don't think total All Stars (or even total Gold Gloves) should really have any weight in the All Star game, now because its pretty watered down, and back then because you could be GREAT and not make the team.

I agree that AS appearances should have no real weight for HOF voting, but I think it's always been all over the place depeding on league and position and year. I actually don't think it's watered down very much today. Even with 30-some players on the roster, you're representing 14 or 16 teams. Back in the day you had 25-man rosters (I think) representing 8-team leagues. There were some truly bizarre selections even 30, 50+ years ago. Billy Hunter made the team in '53 in the midst of a -2 WAR season. And in the late 50s, early 60s there were 2 AS games per season.

[CA-ORIOLE]

It's a dumb way to determine players worth, but it would not surprise me if Larkin's 11 All Star games compared to Trammel's six is the main difference.

There have been questions about Trammel's defense in the past and I think that's the issue. The Tigers were pretty notorious for having "high grass" back in those days. On MLB Network the Baseball Prospectus writer noted that BP had developed a new defensive rating system which showed Trammel pretty poorly. He said he had changed his vote on Trammel based on that data. Heyman commented that it seemed unfair to be changing the opinion of someones defense 20 years after the fact. Kind of interesting. Also of note is that one of the researchers showed that Morris was not really a clutch pitcher per his reputation and his wins were pretty much based on offensive support.