barry larkin's gig on the mlb network has me thinking about his hof candidacy.
he is eligible in 2010. to me, he compares to alan trammell. a borderline case with a lot of people arguing from both sides.
larkin had 2300+ hits, was a perennial all star, won an mvp and a world series, and was a leader on the field. i just don't know if its enough. heck, i don't know what the writers consider enough anymore. for me, though, i never went to a game to see him play. he wasn't a draw for me the way brett, schmidt, rose, maddux, pedro, piazza, etc. were.
if it's any consolation, barry, i much prefer you to harold on tv, though.
if it's any consolation, barry, i much prefer you to harold on tv, though.
3 comments:
You couldn't have picked a better comp for Larkin than Trammell. Not only is Trammell the player most offensively similar to Larkin, but both have a HOF Monitor of 118.5 (likely HOFer is over 100) while having HOF batting standards well below average for a HOFer. They are both unusual cases that happen to be identical to each other.
Personally, I wouldn't put either guy in the HOF. I love both players, and they were both great. Both played for one team their entire career, which is great. But neither is quite good enough for the HOF. I think Larkin has a better chance of actually getting in than Trammell, and I give Barry a 30% chance of making it.
BTW I'm reading your blog just waiting for the post about the cards I sent you. :)
andy - it's coming this week. i am woefully behind in my trade posting.
Post a Comment