Longtime Reds shortstop Barry Larkin was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame today. Larkin, a Cincinnati native, spent all nineteen seasons with the Reds, hitting .295/.371/.444 with 2340 hits and 198 home runs in his career. He was a twelve-time All-Star, three-time Gold Glove winner, and the 1995 National League Most Valuable Players.
All great credentials I'm sure, but what really put him over the top was his complete destruction of the Royals in clutch situations. What everyone remembers about Barry Larkin was how he owned Kansas City. In five games against KC, he went 14-for-23, with a home run, two triples, two steals and five RBI, good for an OPS of 1.522, easily the best of his career against any one opponent.
Larkin would first face the Royals on June 22, 1998. Larkin would go 3-4 with three singles, but former first round pick Jim Pittsley would shut down the Reds in a 3-0 Royals victory. Larkin was just getting started. The next night he went 3-5 with two triples and an RBI, but again the Royals - known for their pitching - had Pat Rapp shut down Cincy for a 6-3 victory.
Larkin stewed for an entire off-season, but in 1999, when he saw the Royals on the schedule again, he was ready. Although he would go just 1-5 in their first matchup, his leadership brought the Reds to a 9-4 victory.
In the second game of that doubleheader, Larkin stepped up to the plate in the top of the tenth in a 3-3 game to face Royals closer Jeff Montgomery. What happened next is an image that is etched into the minds of every fan. Larkin deposited a Montgomery fastball over the fence for a three-run home run, his third hit of the game. Reds fans can still remember the immortal call of Reds announcer Marty Brennamen that night.
"The pitch....Larkin drives it deep to left! The Reds have finally vanquished the Royals! Ding-dong, the wicked witch is dead!"
Demoralized, the Royals would drop the final game of the series 14-3. Larkin collected four hits and was named Series MVP.
Here's to you Barry. While your name may still be hated around these parts, dammit, we respect you. You faced the best and rose to the challenge.
2 recs | 86 comments
Awesome.
Love this
Old Man Duggan - January 9, 2012
Congrats Barry!!! shoulda been elected on the 1st ballot.
DickHowser4ever - January 9, 2012
Full ballot
Barry Larkin 86.4
Jack Morris 66.7
Jeff Bagwell 56.0
Lee Smith 50.6
Tim Raines 48.7
Alan Trammell 36.8
Edgar Martinez 36.5
Fred McGriff 23.9
Mark McGwire 19.5
Don Mattingly 17.8
Dale Murphy 14.5
Rafael Palmeiro 12.6
Bernie Williams 9.6
--Juan Gonzalez 4.0
Under 1%
Vinny Castilla (6 votes), Tim Salmon (5), Bill Mueller (4), Brad Radke (2), Javy Lopez (1), Eric Young (1).
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
Vinny Castilla, 6 votes
There is no justice in this world.
KyleM - January 9, 2012
Larry Walker
22.7
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
that is some serious bull right there
BeauJackson - January 9, 2012
2011 ballot for reference
Roberto Alomar 90.0
Bert Blyleven 79.7
Barry Larkin 62.1
Jack Morris 53.5
Lee Smith 45.3
Jeff Bagwell 41.7
Tim Raines 37.5
Edgar Martinez 32.9
Alan Trammell 24.3
Larry Walker 20.3
Mark McGwire 19.8
Fred McGriff 17.9
Dave Parker 15.3
Don Mattingly 13.6
Dale Murphy 12.6
Rafael Palmeiro 11.0
Juan González 5.2
Harold Baines 4.8
John Franco 4.6
Kevin Brown 2.1
Tino Martinez 1.0
Royals Medic - January 9, 2012
How did Juan Gone lose support?????
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
Obvious...
The 2012 first time class is full of so many great candidates like Bernie Williams...Royals Medic - January 9, 2012
Tim Raines
Personally, I think he should be getting more support. Outstanding lead off man, good base stealer, good at the plate. He just had the bad luck to play too many years for the Expos.
Bagwell deserves election I think. I would have voted for Javier Lopez.
UCrawford - January 9, 2012
Maybe the Royals can sign Lopez and get him back in the ballot in six years
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
Would He Be An Upgrade?
That I had to think about that question for a second disturbs me.
UCrawford - January 10, 2012
Hmm... Okay.
I can’t believe Jack Morris is still getting significant votes. It’s surreal. And then, of course, Edgar Martinez and Jeff Bagwell are very distant and it appears that they will not ever be inducted.
hawkinscm87 - January 9, 2012
Put Tim Raines on that list as well.
hawkinscm87 - January 9, 2012
I think Bagwell gets in
Morris would get in next year, but there is a deluge of no-doubters for the next few years, and Morris only has two years left I think, so its going to be hard. Bagwell well get in, but he’ll probably have to wait a decade for two reasons – so the no-doubters get in first, and so the PED hysteria dies down and we see there is no evidence on him.
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
maybe the Baseball Writers are waiting to induct Bagwell and Biggio together. killer B induction.
DickHowser4ever - January 9, 2012
And teammate Jose Lima
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
maybe his wife's tits can sing the national anthem too.
ChrisCEIT - January 9, 2012
Thank goodness then, if Morris doesn't get in.
hawkinscm87 - January 9, 2012
All three (and Raines) will get in.
Revisionist baseball historians will take over, repaint the narrative, and all will be right in the world (well, except for Morris getting in). For Edgar, it may take a while, but it will happen. Bagwell will likely get in by 2020.
Old Man Duggan - January 9, 2012
Interesting take by Joe Posnanski on Larkin and Trammell
just a couple excerpts…
By Baseball Reference, Barry Larkin had 68.9 WAR, Alan Trammell 66.9.
By Fangraphs, Barry Larkin had 70.6 WAR, Alan Trammell 69.5
“You could reasonably argue that Larkin was a slightly better player. But I’m not sure I’ve heard a good argument how the Hall of Fame line could be drawn in the slender gap between them.”
Royals Medic - January 9, 2012
That damn 1987 MVP vote
Trammell shoulda won it. If he has that under his belt, I think he has a lot more support.
Probably hurt that he was contemporaneous with Cal Ripken.
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
Definitely.
Because you can’t say “well, he defined his position for that era” like you could with Sandburg or Jim Rice.
Dadunca - January 9, 2012
Did you mean to type that in sarcasm font?
Rufus R. Jones - January 9, 2012
Nope.
That’s a common argument that I’ve heard guys with votes make.
Dadunca - January 9, 2012
I understand that it is a common argument, and I understand it
But I don’t consider Sandburg or Rice to be in that category.
Sandburg, at least was one of the best players at his position during his career. Jim Rice definitely did not re-define anything.
Rufus R. Jones - January 9, 2012
Well, great for you.
Dadunca - January 9, 2012
Jack Morris is going to be a hall of famer
May God have mercy on all our souls for allowing this to happen.
kcbottom9th - January 9, 2012
Whatever.
The Hall of Fame is a sham without Dale Murphy.
Dadunca - January 9, 2012
Dale falls into the too short of a career with me
Mattingley is in the same boat.
Jeff Zimmerman - January 9, 2012
If Rice is in...
Dadunca - January 9, 2012
That was a joke IMO
Jeff Zimmerman - January 9, 2012
This is that weird problem the HOF has created.
Rice shouldn’t be in, but regardless, he is. So if he’s in, how do you keep out guys like Murphy? How can you do one but not the other? It’s the whole issue with the Hall of Very Good Debate.
KyleM - January 9, 2012
you dont compound the mistake of a guy like rice....
by putting in other undeserving canidates
billybeingbilly - January 9, 2012
I say the same thing about Pete Rose...
Royals Medic - January 9, 2012
Charlie hustle huh
never got to see the man play since hes old as dirt, but I’ve heard good things.
Kansas City Keith - January 9, 2012
I Irrationally Hated
Rose as a player, but there is no denying his skills. He was good at not making outs, and in his prime he had some power for a MIF.
philofthenorth - January 9, 2012
Rose's accomplishments are much easier to ignore today
than the day he retired. He excelled at 1) hits, and 2) BA. He was a negative player defensively over the course of his career. He did not have great power. His SB% was 57%!
Rufus R. Jones - January 9, 2012
He walked a ton too
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
he is the epitome of grit (pre Bloomie that is)
buddyball - January 10, 2012
In his prime
He wasn’t a middle infielder. Was not really a 2B after 1966. Played till 1986.
Rufus R. Jones - January 9, 2012 via mobile
I Can't Believe
I’m defending Rose here. He had very good stats for a COF from ‘67 to ’71, and held his own after that, given the run environment. The Reds had Morgan and Concepcion in the middle from ’71 through the Big Red Machine years, so Pete played the field where he could. I still don’t like him.
philofthenorth - January 9, 2012
But I forced you to defend him
Now you know how defense attorneys live.
Rufus R. Jones - January 9, 2012 via mobile
I Feel So
Dirty.
philofthenorth - January 10, 2012
sounds like another round of naked snowblowing...
buddyball - January 10, 2012
This list is good and all
but where the fuck is joe randa, he must of got in already.
Kansas City Keith - January 9, 2012
KEVIN APPIER NOW.
KyleM - January 9, 2012
good article but you forgot to use the sarcasm font when you wrote
a Jeff Montgomery
fastballbuddyball - January 9, 2012
Pretty expected result
This was a pretty uninspiring year of new candidates, so Barry getting in overwhelmingly is as it should be. I’m hoping Raines, Bagwell, and Edgar all get in eventually, and I’m starting to reconsider Trammell in light of all the comparisons being made to Barry.
Keeping my fingers crossed that Morris doesn’t make it in, but I don’t think a player has ever gotten 2/3’s of the vote and NOT been voted in eventually. And, sadly, the election of good-but-definitely-not-great pitchers ship already sailed with Bruce Sutter.
DarthYoshi - January 9, 2012
Gil Hodges
Has the most votes without ever getting in – 63%.
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
Was he a pitcher
for some reason when i think gil hodges i think of like sandy koufax or niekro
Kansas City Keith - January 9, 2012
No, Barney
philofthenorth - January 9, 2012
appreciate
the well thought out response fred
Kansas City Keith - January 9, 2012
That Was A
Reference to the Chris Farley/Patrick Swayze Chippendale dancers skit on SNL. Classic.
philofthenorth - January 9, 2012
yeah I've seen that before
wasn’t kevin nealon a judge on that skit, I didnt remeber thier names but yeah that was some pretty funny shit.
Kansas City Keith - January 9, 2012
first base and outfield
although he probably gets as many votes for being a manager as a player
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hodgegi01.shtml
buddyball - January 10, 2012
I Vaguely Remember
The last years of his career. I remember him more as the Manager of many crappy teams, including The Amazin’s in ’69. Looking at B-R, he had a really nice peak from ’49 to ’57, but his pedestrian BA and good but not great counting stats killed his chances. His end results are very similar to Dale Murphy, but he logged almost all of his prime time at 1B, whereas Murphy was able to stay in CF for a long time.
philofthenorth - January 9, 2012
well that answers that
Kansas City Keith - January 9, 2012
since I was a Mets fan pre- and during 1969, Gil Hodges will always be in the
Buddyball Hall of Fame
buddyball - January 10, 2012
There really is nothing more wasteful in the off season than reading the comments and clumns regarding the HOF vote.
If I read any more references to Bagwell’s votes (to this point, he got 41% first year and 56% his second) being a referendum on PED use, I’m going to puke.
That, and the references to Dave Parker just remind me to go back into my cubbyhole until the FanFest at the end of January.
Blech.
ChrisCEIT - January 9, 2012
I like that word
and intend to use it from now on, generically, for members of the BBWAA: clumns.
2X2L - January 9, 2012
LOL
I liked that too
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
The Blechs Are
Like the Blahs
with a lighter skin tonephilofthenorth - January 9, 2012
It was intentional.
No, really, it was.
ChrisCEIT - January 9, 2012
Lee Judge would rather us not play HOF voter, too
Rufus R. Jones - January 9, 2012 via mobile
It's not even that I mind playing armchair HOF voter.
It’s the same stupid arguments every year, and the same sad takes, with a whole host of new players. I mean, there are arguments being made that Juan Gone should finish with more votes, because, uh, why? So he can tell his grandkids about that day he finished with 26.4% of the HOF vote?
ChrisCEIT - January 9, 2012
to think we had a chance to get him for Gubicza
but no, we HAD to have Stillwell
sm7600 - January 9, 2012
I don't think we did have a shot at him
Larkin was a hometown kid and a first round pick. They weren’t trading him. Greg Schaum says he talked to a Royals exec from the time and he said the same thing.
The Reds wanted Goobie for Stilwell or Jeff Treadway. We wanted to give up one of our lefties instead – it ended up being Danny Jackson.
RoyalsRetro - January 9, 2012
I also recall
It being heavily rumoured that KC was talking to the Red Sox about a Gubicza for Jackie Guitierez (SS) trade after the 1985 season. Seriously.
Rufus R. Jones - January 9, 2012 via mobile
Pretty sure
Jim Fetterolf told me that. Heard it from Judge, who heard it from Frenchy, who heard it from Dayton, who found it scribbled on a piece of scrap paper in an old walnut chest that was given to him by John Schuerolz when he left Atlanta. Small world, huh?
On the flip side, it also said “ask about Benzinger.”
Rufus R. Jones - January 9, 2012 via mobile
When Talent Like
Benzinger slips through your fingers, it was just cruel fate.
philofthenorth - January 10, 2012
Actually
Story I heard was that Larkin was in play until Marge Schott shot it down.
BlueEyes_Austin - January 11, 2012
The ONLY reason Bagwell didn't get in is because...
…..everyone ASSUMES he was roided.
Guilty by association. He was a GREAT player. Hit for a high average, got on base, hit home runs, stole some bases, won an MVP, etc.
He should have gotten in. Besides, how do we know Barry Larkin wasn’t juiced? They played much of their careers at the same time.
Kim DeJesus - January 10, 2012
That's The Million Dollar Question
For myself, I always looked at evaluating hitters from the steroid era like this…we don’t know how many pitchers were enhanced either, so how can we really judge which stats were legit and which weren’t. I think we should just treat it, statistically, like we would the 1920s (lots of offense) or the 1960s (dominant pitching) and write it off as a fluke of the rules (or lack) at the time. In terms of judging players, I’m only in support of condemning those who actually got busted with a positive steroid test.
UCrawford - January 10, 2012
so no punishing mcgwire or bonds or sosa?
they’re rewarded b/c they retired before there was any real testing? a HOF with mcgwire and sosa but no arod is a fucking joke
billybeingbilly - January 10, 2012
Following your logic, it's a joke now?
Pete Rose isn’t in the Hall but I’m pretty sure he’s not the only player to ever bet while being involved in the game.
Warden11 - January 10, 2012
pete rose should be in...
but the rules were well defined with regards to betting on the game. do it, get caught, youre out of baseball. no playing, no managing, no HOF. this is not so with steroids. i dont think its that difficult to judge the guys who have been caught doing steroids. clemens, bonds and arod should be in. sosa, palmeiro, mcgwire should be out. they just werent on that level. guys with no concrete evidence against them ie bagwell, should simply be judged on their merits.
billybeingbilly - January 10, 2012
McGwire out but Bonds in?
I’m guessing you’re basing that on Bonds just being an amazing player and totally ignoring everything else?
Warden11 - January 10, 2012
Where Did The
Steroid Era begin? Bonds had great stats and was an elite defender through his age 30 season, 1995. McGwire had good numbers until two injured seasons in ‘93 and ’94. In’95, at age 31, he turned into the monster who would break the single season HR record. Was ’95 the dividing line here? 2001 is clearly when Bonds started putting up the preternatural lines, and he was 36. What do we really know?
philofthenorth - January 10, 2012
We don't know
but the stories most commonly believed are that 1) McGwire was using steroids at an early stage of his career, possibly having been influenced by the success of his teammate Canseco on the A’s, and 2) Bonds was not using steroids until after 1998, when he decided to beat McGwire and Sosa at their game on their terms.
Now if you believe that you can also believe that McGwire’s achievements were artificially inflated throughout virtually his entire career, while Bonds achieved a record worthy of the Hall of Fame before his PEDs years.
However, it is also possible, because PEDs usage has never been scientifically shown to affect baseball performance, and also because that the power numbers during the “Steroid Era” jumped for players grouped by body type, defensive position, handedness, IQ, and native language, as well as by suspected PEDs usage, that PEDs were not the primary reason for anyone’s power spike after 1994.
So, what do we know? Not enough to divide the sheep from the goats, that’s for sure.
2X2L - January 11, 2012
also possible...
…to believe that PEDs were not the primary reason etc.
Where’s that edit button?
2X2L - January 11, 2012
I don't really get this, never have.
They increase muscle mass, recovery, and strength (with proper nutrition and training). Those three things definitely help baseball performance.
Warden11 - January 11, 2012
Yes.
You can’t put up numbers if you aren’t in the game, and PED’s have been shown to increase one’s recovery time. Ask Cal Ripken if he thinks it’s ok that Andy Pettitte took PED’s just to return quicker (assuming Ripken didn’t take them, either). There is also some evidence I’ve read suggesting that PED’s enhance vision and hand/eye, as well; basically they improve all of one’s male hunting skill set, which also have applications for sports.
setupunchtag - January 11, 2012
Any ideas on what else needs to be done to prove it, other than taking a look at MLB statistics, circa 1995-2005 (or so)?
Rufus R. Jones - January 11, 2012
I Tend To Agree With Warden's Assessment That Steroids Improve Baseball Performance
If you look at late-career Bonds, the stats were just so completely atypical for a player in his age bracket that it would be denying reality to claim that a) he wasn’t taking something and b) it didn’t help his performance.
That said, I’m always going to be someone who tends towards only condemning when there’s hard evidence available. If a player tested positive for steroids, keep him out…if not, I don’t think it’s right to condemn him absent proof. And it’s not like most of these guys who didn’t get caught aren’t going to be made to wait anyway…the HOF will keep them waiting until such time as they decide they’ve made their point.
UCrawford - January 11, 2012
Completely atypical, yes, unprecedented and still unique --
but even though there has been nothing like it before or since, you claim that its cause is self-evident.
Really?
2X2L - January 13, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Royals Review to post a comment.