Jan 2, 2012, 9:27 AM EST
Over at ESPN David Schoenfield points out something interesting. That while we’re all assuming that Barry Larkin — who got 62% of the vote last year — will be pushed over 75% of the vote and into the Hall of Fame this year, it’s not a mortal lock. At least if you look at the historic gains players who have notched 60%+ of the vote year-by-year have received:
While [being over 60% last year] is a positive sign for Larkin, as you can see from the above chart, not all the players made it immediately upon reaching 60 percent. The average percentage gain in election year for those 12 was 10.8 percent, so if Larkin receives that increase, he’ll fall just short.
Schoenfield thinks — as do I — that Larkin will top 75% this year and make it. But man, I am sort of hung up on the possibility that he won’t now. Maybe I’m just overly prone to suggestion this morning.
Anyway, I’m wondering what it would mean for the Hall of Fame if we have a year — like we had back in 1996 — with no one elected. This is especially intriguing in light of all of the worthy candidates that the Hall voters appear to be poised to pass on for now and the foreseeable future due to steroids stuff. It’s going to be bad enough a year from now when we’ll have likely established that the Hall of Fame has kept out the best hitter (Bonds) and pitcher (Clemens) of a generation.
If they’re also passing up guys like Larkin, I’ll really start to struggle to see the point of the place.
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (101)
- The politics of “The Cardinal Way” (67)
- Robinson Cano wants the Mariners to bring in Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana (64)
- Reporter calls Ian Kinsler as self-absorbed as A-Rod (60)