Who deserves it?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Here's a list of players. Please pick anyone you believe deserves to be in the Hall. I want to heap everything into one for my benefit.

[Domenic]

Jim Thome and Barry Larkin are there for me, one-hundred percent. I also selected Sheffield, though his alleged PED usage has me more on the fence than anything. Everyone else is close, but not really close enough to merit a great deal of consideration on my behalf.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I always like to go with McGraw. He was pretty consistent throughout his career, rather than having a huge peak. I appreciate a reliever like that.

[jjpm74]

Thome and Larkin are definitely a yes. The rest are in the gray area, but welcome in the conversation.

[Mike90]

Thome, Larkin, and Sheffield are easy IN for me, and the other guys are relatively close except for Rowe.

I think most of these players are good for a cooperstown debate, but I'm not sure why you picked these specific players and not others. They don't seem to be related. Just random or is there a connection I'm missing?

[PVNICK]

Larkin was an automatic yes. Thome goes as well. Sheff seems to be teflon coated regarding the PEDs, so in he goes. I've voted yes on Morris in other polls, but am moving in the other direction.

[gman5431]

The only slam dunk for me is Jim Thome. As a Reds fan i am intrigued by Larkin's case and was suprised to see his overwelming support here. I dont see him going first ballot when his turn comes up, but maybe i was underestimating his chances. Very nice. In addition to Thome and Larkin i went with personal favorites Newcombe and Hodges. Not a supporter of Sheffield but i admit he will get in, eventually. I guess when he gets in depends if the steroid bias has worn off by then or not.

G Man

[KCGHOST]

Thome, Larkin, and Sheffield. The PED's thing could cause a change in my Sheffield support.

[Domenic]

Barry Larkin deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, and I am not sure that he will make it, due to his beginning his career when Cal Ripken Jr. was the premiere shortstop in the game, and ending it when Garciaparra, Tejada, Rodriguez, and Jeter were the "new breed" of shortstop, and dominating the American League in many categories.

Still, I believe Larkin was better than Ripken, and very much deserving enshrinement.

[SABR Matt]

Larki was definitely demonstrably more SKILLED than Ripken...both offensively and defensively...but Ripken is the greater player IMHO...the longevity goes a long way for him.

[Domenic]

I cannot really argue with that - Ripken's durability allowed him to produce more over a long period of time. Larkin's career is certainly one for the 'what if' files - I wonder how he would stack up to Ripken if he had been healthier during the prime of his career.

[RuthMayBond]

Larki was definitely demonstrably more SKILLED than Ripken...defensively....We will agree to disagree there

[SABR Matt]

I cannot really argue with that - Ripken's durability allowed him to produce more over a long period of time. Larkin's career is certainly one for the 'what if' files - I wonder how he would stack up to Ripken if he had been healthier during the prime of his career.

I'm quite certain he could have...he wouldn't ahve needed 20 years of health either...he was a big step better offensively and defensively in his prime than Ripken (those two great seasons of Cal's excluded)...if he'd just played 150 healthy games every year instead of being so limited...his career could have been the same number of years and he'd have Cal beat.

[SABR Matt]

We will agree to disagree there

What...no smart alecky comment with 147 emoticons? LOL

I really think Ripken's defense is badly overrated by the perception that he was big and should therefore have been bad but was instead solid. It's kind of like the public opinion of Sarah Palin's debate - "boy I expected her to bomb out miserably and she sounded almost credible! She did great!" Which is not actually how she did...she was merely adequate...but if you go in expecting a disaster, adequate seems awesome. It's the same with Cal's D. He was smart enough to position himself well enough that despite his size and general lack of defensive tools, he managed to play a slightly above average shortstops when you would expect it to be a trainwreck. Result? People think he was a gold glover when in fact he was generally NOT.

[RuthMayBond]

What...no smart alecky comment ?

It's kind of like the public opinion of Sarah Palin's debate - "boy I expected her to bomb out miserably and she sounded almost credible! She did great!" Which is not actually how she did...she was merely adequate...but if you go in expecting a disaster, adequate seems awesome.
It seems like you took care of the smart alecky comment.

<He was smart enough to position himself well enough that despite his size and general lack of defensive tools, he managed to play a slightly above average shortstops when you would expect it to be a trainwreck.>

What, no PCA with 147 of your stats?

[matstars]

Thome is a 100% lock.

Career OPS of .966
Averaged 112 RBI, 41 Jacks and .279 batting average over a season adjusted (162 games) in 18 seasons and 2160 at bats

> 500 career Jacks. almost 400 career doubles. 962 career extra base hits in those 2160 at bats...

Man that's just absurd!

[RuthMayBond]

962 career extra base hits in those 2160 at bats...
That *would* be a lock

[SABR Matt]

It seems like you took care of the smart alecky comment.

<He was smart enough to position himself well enough that despite his size and general lack of defensive tools, he managed to play a slightly above average shortstops when you would expect it to be a trainwreck.>

What, no PCA with 147 of your stats?

I've already provided that comparison in other threads. :)

[BlueBlood]

For the record, I was falling asleep and saw a lot of ho-hum names so I ignored the fact that Barry Larkin was on the bottom. He'd be in the lead right now.