Larkin enshrined in Cooperstown!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • FedEx227
    Delivers
    • Mar 2009
    • 10454

    #16
    VoicesofWrestling.com

    Comment

    • dell71
      Enter Sandman
      • Mar 2009
      • 23919

      #17
      Originally posted by FedEx227
      I'm going to need voting rights from all 4 Bill Mueller voters.

      Tony Womack too.
      Probably Boston homers. He won't even be on the ballot next year so no harm, no foul.

      Comment

      • Warner2BruceTD
        2011 Poster Of The Year
        • Mar 2009
        • 26142

        #18
        Originally posted by FedEx227
        I'm going to need voting rights from all 4 Bill Mueller voters.

        Tony Womack too.
        Pedro Gomez voted for Bill Mueller, so he's one of the four.



        Yes, PEDRO GOMEZ has a HOF vote, which is baffling enough.

        Comment

        • FedEx227
          Delivers
          • Mar 2009
          • 10454

          #19
          I get the whole "well they are doing it for their friends" "token vote" stuff. But for a group of people that can't be bothered to look at numbers it seems really silly that they have time to get votes in for their buds. It's not a major problem with the HOF voting probably Problem #1,012 but still...
          VoicesofWrestling.com

          Comment

          • FedEx227
            Delivers
            • Mar 2009
            • 10454

            #20
            Can anyone also explain why THIS guy was unable to stay on the ballot?

            .276/.363/.426, 17 HR, 73 RBI, 69.7 WAR, 116 OPS+

            Yet in his second year Larkin (.295/.371/.444, 15 HR, 71 RBI, 68.9 WAR, 116 OPS+) was able to make it.

            The stat line above is Lou Whitaker.
            VoicesofWrestling.com

            Comment

            • Warner2BruceTD
              2011 Poster Of The Year
              • Mar 2009
              • 26142

              #21
              Originally posted by FedEx227
              Can anyone also explain why THIS guy was unable to stay on the ballot?

              .276/.363/.426, 17 HR, 73 RBI, 69.7 WAR, 116 OPS+

              Yet in his second year Larkin (.295/.371/.444, 15 HR, 71 RBI, 68.9 WAR, 116 OPS+) was able to make it.

              The stat line above is Lou Whitaker.
              This, from Whitaker's BR adspace:

              Roberto Alomar: 2320 g at 2B, 116 OPS+, 63.5 WAR, 7 teams. Famous misdeed: Spat at umpire. Result: 2nd-ballot HOFer. Sweet Lou: 2308 g at 2B, 116 OPS+, 69.7 WAR, 1 team. Famous misdeed: Forgot uniform at 1985 ASG. Result: 2.9% of HOF vote. Go figure...
              I think Larkin and Alomar are better players than Whitaker, but the fact he received something like a half dozen votes and was gone from the ballot forever is a fucking joke.

              Comment

              • FedEx227
                Delivers
                • Mar 2009
                • 10454

                #22
                Both are better, but no reason they should've been 2nd and 3rd ballot HOF while Lou falls off the ballot.

                Insanity.
                VoicesofWrestling.com

                Comment

                • dell71
                  Enter Sandman
                  • Mar 2009
                  • 23919

                  #23
                  Originally posted by FedEx227
                  Can anyone also explain why THIS guy was unable to stay on the ballot?

                  .276/.363/.426, 17 HR, 73 RBI, 69.7 WAR, 116 OPS+

                  Yet in his second year Larkin (.295/.371/.444, 15 HR, 71 RBI, 68.9 WAR, 116 OPS+) was able to make it.

                  The stat line above is Lou Whitaker.
                  For starters, Larkin is widely considered among the 5-10 best players of all time at his position (same for Alomar to use another 2B) while Whitaker is not. Another reason is that Whitaker's time on the ballot came before there was a big push to really use metrics to evaluate players. At that time it was something only a few did. Looking at OBP and possibly SLG is as advanced as it got. NO ONE with a vote looked at WAR, OPS+ or even OPS as a way to measure performance. So if you're counting numbers don't look Hall-worthy at first glance that was it unless you had the aura and flash of Ozzie Smith which Whitaker did not. Who did? Had Bagwell hit the ballot back when Whitaker did, I wouldn't be surprised to see him suffer the same fate.

                  I agree that Whitaker deserved far more consideration than he received but we're really comparing apples & oranges. A better comparison would be why Trammell, a fellow SS receives so little support. Both of those guys are underappreciated, imho.

                  Comment

                  • Warner2BruceTD
                    2011 Poster Of The Year
                    • Mar 2009
                    • 26142

                    #24
                    Originally posted by dell71
                    For starters, Larkin is widely considered among the 5-10 best players of all time at his position (same for Alomar to use another 2B) while Whitaker is not. Another reason is that Whitaker's time on the ballot came before there was a big push to really use metrics to evaluate players. At that time it was something only a few did. Looking at OBP and possibly SLG is as advanced as it got. NO ONE with a vote looked at WAR, OPS+ or even OPS as a way to measure performance. So if you're counting numbers don't look Hall-worthy at first glance that was it unless you had the aura and flash of Ozzie Smith which Whitaker did not. Who did? Had Bagwell hit the ballot back when Whitaker did, I wouldn't be surprised to see him suffer the same fate.

                    I agree that Whitaker deserved far more consideration than he received but we're really comparing apples & oranges. A better comparison would be why Trammell, a fellow SS receives so little support. Both of those guys are underappreciated, imho.
                    I agree with all of this except for the Bagwell thought.

                    I think Bagwell would have been a first ballot lock if not for steroid suspicions.

                    Comment

                    • nflman2033
                      George Brett of VSN
                      • Apr 2009
                      • 2393

                      #25
                      I knew that Larkin won 9 Silver Slugger awards, but i heard on MLBnetwork today that the only Infielder who has won more is A-Rod

                      Comment

                      • FedEx227
                        Delivers
                        • Mar 2009
                        • 10454

                        #26
                        Originally posted by dell71
                        For starters, Larkin is widely considered among the 5-10 best players of all time at his position (same for Alomar to use another 2B) while Whitaker is not. Another reason is that Whitaker's time on the ballot came before there was a big push to really use metrics to evaluate players. At that time it was something only a few did. Looking at OBP and possibly SLG is as advanced as it got. NO ONE with a vote looked at WAR, OPS+ or even OPS as a way to measure performance. So if you're counting numbers don't look Hall-worthy at first glance that was it unless you had the aura and flash of Ozzie Smith which Whitaker did not. Who did? Had Bagwell hit the ballot back when Whitaker did, I wouldn't be surprised to see him suffer the same fate.

                        I agree that Whitaker deserved far more consideration than he received but we're really comparing apples & oranges. A better comparison would be why Trammell, a fellow SS receives so little support. Both of those guys are underappreciated, imho.
                        I just really don't like the positional standards for Hall of Fame. If there are 20 deserving second basemen then so be it. I don't see why being at a position that has more elite players makes you not worthy? He didn't play against Honus Wagner so why should that count against him?

                        I get your point completely and that comes from different ideas of what Hall of Fame standards are. But to punish and reward for the all-time depth of a position just seems beyond silly to me.
                        VoicesofWrestling.com

                        Comment

                        • Pills
                          Go Blue!
                          • Mar 2009
                          • 598

                          #27
                          I know he's on the Mitchell Report, but I'm actually astounded that Juan Gone is officially off the ballot. While I don't think he'd make it, I thought he'd be Mattingly-esque in the voting.

                          Looks like Bags will make it in a few years (maybe 2016, after a lot of the big names go), and Raines may go around then, too.

                          ETA: Looking at the voting, Morris is up 13.2%. It's possible he goes next year, or makes it in year 15. Bags was up 14.3%, and Raines 13.2%. Of course, this is a very weak year. It may just be that Morris goes with the Vets committee.
                          UglyChristmasLights.com - Celebrating 10 years with the 2011 collection!

                          Comment

                          Working...