The year we make contact

2010: It’s not just the title of a Roy Scheider movie I like a lot more than I probably should, it’s also the next time we’ll have Hall of Fame results. Today, FanHouse’s Matt Snyder takes a look at the list of next year’s first-time eligibles. He has Roberto Alomar as “probable,” Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff, and Edgar Martinez as “debatable,” Andres Galaraga, Ellis Burks, and Robin Ventura as “doubtful,” and a bunch of fun names as one-and-dones.

I’m inclined to flip-flop Alomar and Larkin. Not because I think that Larkin is more deserving of induction than Alomar is, but because I think a lot of logic-challenged voters do.

For one thing, though Alomar received considerably more MVP support over the course of his career than did Larkin, Larkin actually won the award once, and if Alan Trammell and Bert Blyleven are any example, the Hall of Fame voters extract a penalty for the lack of end-of-season hardware. I also think that voters will give Larkin more credit for his World Series ring than they will Alomar for his two, with the reasoning being that Alomar had better teammates than did Larkin and thus somehow was required to carry less of a load. That’s hooey of course — Alomar was a beast in 1992 and 1993 — but Joe Carter’s shadow looms large. Finally, though Snyder dismisses it due to the fact that there is an accepted apology on the record, if you think that a good number of Hall of Fame voters won’t hold the spitting incident against Alomar, you’re crazy.

Ultimately I think they should go in and both will go in. I just think that the voters will make Alomar wait longer than Larkin.


Print This Post
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Larry Seltzer
Guest
Larry Seltzer

Doesn’t it also hurt Alomar that he was such a disappointment with the Mets?

Brian O'Neal
Guest
Brian O'Neal
I think Larkin and Alomar are both first-ballot Hall of Famers. I don’t know about the Joe Carter shadow . . . he’s not getting much respect from Hall voters – I mean, compare him to Jim Rice . . . see your point though. Alomar has the demerits of not playing for one team his entire career, of being in a spitting at an umpire incident, and playing a position that is not as glamorous as Larkin. Alomar’s MVP stats were helped by the quality of the teams he played on though, don’t you think? Larkin was even better… Read more »
mkd
Guest
mkd

It’s funny, I’ve scattered a few comments across the intertubes stating that this whole Jim Rice fiasco has exhausted me on caring about the HOF. Apparently this was a pack of rotten lies.

Edgar for the Hall of Fame!

Pete Toms
Guest
Pete Toms

I only follow HOF debates by osmosis, but for what it’s worth, Alomar is the Jays greatest player to date.  ( This coming from somebody who thinks Stieb was superior to Morris, which is more about my biases than any objective evaluation )

Daniel
Guest
Daniel
I have to disagree with this one – as much as Larkin’s good guy/gamer image will help him, I think his lack of dominance in any statistical categories will hurt him.  He is basically a contemporary of Ripken, and if Raines is hurt by being the second best leadoff guy while Henderson played, why wouldn’t Larkin be hurt by being the second best shortstop while Ripken played?  Don’t get me wrong, I thought Larkin was great while he was playing and would not hesitate to vote for him if I could, but I think he may fall just short of… Read more »
The Common Man
Guest
The Common Man
“I also think that voters will give Larkin more credit for his World Series ring than they will Alomar for his two, with the reasoning being that Alomar had better teammates than did Larkin and thus somehow was required to carry less of a load.” I think it’s good to remember that, while Larkin was a key component of his Reds team in 1990 that won the series, he was far from the best/widely touted player.  The Nasty Boys got all the headlines, Jose Rijo won the series MVP, Eric Davis was the best player on that team.  Actually, 1990… Read more »
Chris Kash
Guest
Chris Kash

Craig, 2010 is a great movie, on it’s own merits.

on topic, Alomar has the 2 rings and the defensive reputaion, so that will put him in. I could honestly see Larkin being left out for 2 or 3 years. Voters will site his durability issues, his lack of milestone numbers and say his D doesn’t measure up to contemporaries like late-career Ozzie, or Vizquel, just because he wasn’t terribly flashy.

After 2009 I have no faith in the BBWAA to make a rational decison as a body.

Aaron Moreno
Guest
Aaron Moreno

I say Larkin gets in his first year because people like him, and he is perceived as being a classic shortstop just before the steroid era.

Ron
Guest
Ron

I think Kurt Stillwell should get votes that year, for being the player traded away so Larkin could be the regular SS.

I mean, its only fair.

Tony
Guest
Tony

Barry,

Joe Carter was never the best hitter on his team, let alone the league.

APBA Guy
Guest
APBA Guy
I was living in DC during the Alomar incident, while he played in Baltimore, and I saw the incident in real time on TV. It will hurt his vote total. It wasn’t just the spitting, which is bad enough when you read it on the page. It was also how ugly the whole episode looked. Robby had to be restrained by multiple players, with an alarmingly savage look on his face. It just made Robby look insane. Then he compounded the damage by claiming that Hirschbeck (the ump) hadn’t been the same since Hirschbeck’s son had died (of a rare… Read more »
JT
Guest
JT

Growing up in the Cincinnati area, I’ve always been curious how Larkin was perceived outside of the city. I pretty much expect him to get about 50% this year and take maybe 3-4 years to get in. Which is a shame in this Reds fan’s eyes, but that’s the price you pay when you don’t have a “NY” on your cap.

Then again, Molitor got in on the first ballot, and I never considered him a Hall of Famer, let alone a first-ballot HOFer, while he was playing.

Bill
Guest
Bill
I’m shocked that someone thinks this…I’ve always assumed Alomar would be a shoo-in (maybe 1st ballot, maybe 2nd) while Larkin would have to sweat it out. I think they’re both definitely deserving, but Alomar got all the press throughout their careers, that one MVP award be damned. He teamed up with Ripken to make the Best Middle Infield Ever, then teamed up with Vizquel to make the New Best Middle Infield Ever. (People overrated his D quite a bit, just like they did Omar’s. And Ripken’s. But he was good.) Meanwhile, Larkin toiled away in Cincy and missed like 30… Read more »
The Common Man
Guest
The Common Man
“At the time most print reporters, and many players and fans, felt that Alomar had done himself permanent reputational damage….  Clearly, despite more than 12 years passage of time, that judgement has proven correct.” Is that really clear?  I’m not sure.  I don’t know that we’ll actually have the answer to that until next year.  I have a hard time believing one incident will overturn 17 seasons that left him as one of the top 10 2B of all time.  I mean, people bring up the spitting incident as a possible factor, but has anyone actually said they wouldn’t vote… Read more »
VanderBirch
Guest
VanderBirch
Gotta go with Bill and Daniel on this one. Larkin is the type of player that always seems to be underappreciated by the BBWAA. While he did win an MVP, he didn’t hit any major career milestones nor dominate any facet of the game (like stealing a ton of bases or playing Ozzie Smith D). Larkin was sort of an uber-Trammel. Strong on-base guy, good power for a SS, 370 odd steals and a good percentage and solid D for a long period of time, but nothing that really sears in the memory. Given the inability of the BBWAA to… Read more »
wpDiscuz