Hall of Fame Voting and Barry Larkin

It took Hall of Fame voters three years to do it, but I want to congratulate Barry Larkin for being voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Larkin was so good, for so long, that I don’t know anyone who doubted he would someday be in the Hall of Fame. When he retired after the 2004 season, at the age of 40, Larkin had spent 19 years with the Cincinnati Reds. In the era of Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn, Larkin was a rare player who played with only one team during his entire splendid career.

He was a 13-time All Star, the 1999 National League Most Valuable Player, and two-time World Series Champion. From the late 80’s through the end of his career, Larkin was a franchise cornerstone and one of the top 10-15 players in the league.

My beef is this: what was there to think about over the past three years? Larkin retired in 2004 and was on the Hall of Fame ballot in 2010. He didn’t make the cut, receiving only slightly over 50 percent of votes his first year on the ballot.

In 2011, he was on the ballot again. While his percentage rose into the 60’s, he still wasn’t at the 75 percent he needed to get in.

This year, however, something changed. Larkin’s statistics didn’t. His 2,340 career hits were still on the board. His .295 batting average still sparkled.

I know some writers like to keep the title of “First Ballot Hall of Famer” for guys who are special — Gwynn and Ripken, for example.

Even using this argument, there is no way that more than 25 percent of writers should have failed to vote for Larkin the second time around. If they are going to split the Hall of Fame up in their minds into more than two categories (“First Ballot” and “Other”), then why have a Hall of Fame at all?

If those “categories” are important enough to Hall of Fame voters, why have everyone’s bust in the same room? Why not include a list of players who, for instance, made 5 or more All-Star teams and then rank them on a relative 1-10 scale. This way, we would know who the best of the best was… .

Arguments about relative placement of Hall of Fame baseball players are the ravings of insane baseball nerds — guys who think that voting Larkin into the HOF on the first ballot is somehow an affront to “First Ballot” guys like Ripken or Jeter.

————

Someday I’ll go to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York. Probably. When I do, I’ll walk through the rooms there and look at the memorabilia and the busts of the greatest players. I’ll see Larkin’s and I’ll see Ripken’s. In my heart, I’ll know that Ripken was better. HOWEVER, the last thing on my mind will be whether Larkin or Ripken got into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. So let me make this point – Hall of Fame voters: Stop it. I don’t know who votes and who doesn’t for the Hall of Fame. Let me repeat that.

Hall of Fame Voters: I do not know/care to know who you are. You have forgotten more about baseball than I’ll ever know, but by trivializing “when” a player gets into the Hall of Fame, you are demeaning careers that need to be honored.

A Hall of Fame player is a Hall of Fame player. Stop making the story about “when” they get in. There is no defense for Larkin not getting in last season and getting in this season. None.

—————-

And for Larkin’s co-inductee, Ron Santo, your delay has caused a man to miss his chance to be appropriately recognized. I happen to think that if you can’t make a decision about a player after one year, then maybe that player is not someone who should go into the Hall of Fame.

Santo was on the ballot for 15 years and never received more than half of the votes, not to mention the 75 percent you need to be elected. He remained a prominent public figure and people generally liked him, but that did not mean that the success of his baseball playing career, which was very good, changed one bit.

Congratulations to Ron Santo, his family etc… but again his induction makes the point, I think, that if you don’t know whether someone is a Hall of Fame player, they just aren’t. Sorry.