Andre Dawson - lone HoF inductee

[robinhoodnik]

...and really, How is it that Lee Smith keeps on NOT getting in?

[HoustonGM]

The results aren't what I would have chosen, but people are making way too big a deal out of this. If there were 5 blank ballots, then there were 5 people that thought none of them belong in the Hall of Fame. It is one thing to complain about someone voting for Morris and not voting for Blyleven, it is another to complain about someone choosing to say "None of the above". That seems to me to be a perfectly defensible vote.

How about when you defend it by saying that since Blyleven and Dawson haven't been voted in yet, they don't belong at all....yet you voted for both the year before? Because that was one of the blank ballots.

I'd also be willing to wager that of the other 4 blank ballots, 2 or 3 of them were "protest" ballots against...whatever...steroids or some nonsense.

[HoustonGM]

and a ring.

Larkin did everything in his career, stole bases, hit homers, batted for an average, drew walks, played a very difficult position well....

he literally did everything, his career isn't lacking anything....maybe not enough career homers? haha, i mean come on!

and I have to admit, as a young fan, I didn't like Larkin, because he was taking over at the nl all star game shortstop position from my fav player Ozzie....and he was on a rival team....but you gotta respect the guy..

I don't see how Larkin is left off, and how Bly could have been ignored....Alomar the same.

Larkin didn't do any one particular thing very great. Players that do everything well but no one thing exceptionally well are criminally underrated.

[HoustonGM]

...and really, How is it that Lee Smith keeps on NOT getting in?

He was a solid reliever for a long time but only had one or two seasons that were themselves "HoF-worthy." Rusty Staub is a comparable position player to Smith, I think.

[Jeffy25]

...and really, How is it that Lee Smith keeps on NOT getting in?

I am not really sure he deserves to be in, I personally wouldn't be voting for him....he was simply the first to be successful as a closer and gained career stat numbers simply by being allowed to do it the most. His career pales in comparison to the closers already in the hall....I think Hoffman and Rivera are hall of famers, but I feel Smith didn't do what they each did for long enough and as well.

If he got in, it wouldn't be a travesty, I just wouldn't vote for him....and he was a Cardinal in my lifetime.

[HoustonGM]

he was simply the first to be successful as a closer

He wasn't. He was just one of the first "one inning" closers.

[Jeffy25]

He wasn't. He was just one of the first "one inning" closers.

that's really what i should have said.....he did post a career sub 3 era...but I see Jason Izzy's career to be somewhat similar to Smith's...just Smith did it first.....same with Franco

In fact, I think the only reason Smith is discussed as a possible hall of famer is because he had the most career saves for awhile.

[HoustonGM]

Taking another look at Franco, I'd vote for him before I'd vote for Smith.

[dickay]

Larkin didn't do any one particular thing very great. Players that do everything well but no one thing exceptionally well are criminally underrated.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Again, he was..for a short time..the best SS in the game. I can't recall a SS during Larkins prime that was comparable. I'm sure there's likely one or two...but its a short list and Larkin was atop it on many of occassions. Sure, when compared to all positions he may have done nothing "great" but looking merely at SS of his time he was great on all accounts as far as I recall. He harbored in the era of great hitting SS's that followed with Nomar, Tejada, Jeter, etc.

[HoustonGM]

I don't necessarily agree with this. Again, he was..for a short time..the best SS in the game. I can't recall a SS during Larkins prime that was comparable. I'm sure there's likely one or two...but its a short list and Larkin was atop it on many of occassions. Sure, when compared to all positions he may have done nothing "great" but looking merely at SS of his time he was great on all accounts as far as I recall. He harbored in the era of great hitting SS's that followed with Nomar, Tejada, Jeter, etc.

I agree that he was a great shortstop. The sum of a player that does everything well is an exceptional player. The thing is...he doesn't have one particular skill you can point to and say "He was great at this." He was good defensively, had some pop, good on the basepaths, a good overall hitter, etc. But he doesn't have one skill that stands out...like say, Tim Raines on the bases, Mark McGwire's power, Randy Johnson's strikeouts, etc. and players like that are generally underrated compared to players with one standout skill.

Larkin was probably, as Bill James once said, one of the ten most complete players in the history of the game.

[dickay]

I agree that he was a great shortstop. The sum of a player that does everything well is an exceptional player. The thing is...he doesn't have one particular skill you can point to and say "He was great at this." He was good defensively, had some pop, good on the basepaths, a good overall hitter, etc. But he doesn't have one skill that stands out...like say, Tim Raines on the bases, Mark McGwire's power, Randy Johnson's strikeouts, etc. and players like that are generally underrated compared to players with one standout skill.

i dunno...as a SS of his era, I think pretty much ALL of his stats stand out as exceptional. When I look at a HOF'er, i compare him to those of his position. Of course there are exceptions...but thats how I look at it in general. And Larkin was IMO exceptional compared to his contemporaries of his era. He may not have been the best defensive SS of his era (oz of course) but he was amongst. He was the best offensive SS of his era hands down while providing great defense, baserunning and just as important the guy was as great an ambassador of the game as anyone.

[kenny1234]

Larkin also suffers in comparison with the shortstops around him - he follows Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken, and then sort of precedes Jeter and A-Rod, and isn't rated as high as any of those players. Being the 5th best shortstop of the past 30 years isn't a bad thing - but it means that he becomes slightly forgettable. (He might rank ahead of Ozzie, but that is the difference between being good at everything and being ridiculously good at one thing.)

[MichelleWie]

I think Rice and Dawson are bad picks. I think if you are going to put those two in then, how come Albert Belle got like only 5 votes and quickly fell off the ballot years ago. Despite his short career I think Belle was still better than both Rice and Dawson. I understand the part of him being a d-bag, but still. Alomar, Larkin, Raines, Blyleven & Trammel should all be in. Another player who fell off the ballot too fast was Lou Whitaker. I'm not sure if he's HOF worthy. But he deserved a longer look than what he got.

[dickay]

Larkin also suffers in comparison with the shortstops around him - he follows Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken, and then sort of precedes Jeter and A-Rod, and isn't rated as high as any of those players. Being the 5th best shortstop of the past 30 years isn't a bad thing - but it means that he becomes slightly forgettable. (He might rank ahead of Ozzie, but that is the difference between being good at everything and being ridiculously good at one thing.)

ugh lol...i knew there was another SS of that era i was forgetting. How could I forget about Ripken lol.

[HoustonGM]

i dunno...as a SS of his era, I think pretty much ALL of his stats stand out as exceptional. When I look at a HOF'er, i compare him to those of his position. Of course there are exceptions...but thats how I look at it in general. And Larkin was IMO exceptional compared to his contemporaries of his era. He may not have been the best defensive SS of his era (oz of course) but he was amongst. He was the best offensive SS of his era hands down while providing great defense, baserunning and just as important the guy was as great an ambassador of the game as anyone.

I don't disagree with any of this (except the part about him being the best offensive SS of his era "hands down"...if you limit that to the NL then I would agree, but his "era" spanned the careers of Cal Ripken and then A-Rod/Nomar/Jeter). Larkin is probably one of the top 10 shortstops of all-time and a more than deserving Hall of Famer. I'm just stating one of the likely reasons that he's underrated by the average fan and the voting populace. His value was spread out across the five tools rather than being largely concentrated in one or two of them. Such players do tend to be underrated.