Larkin to the Hall?

It's a tough call, but I say yes. Why? First, he's a 12-time All-Star. Second, he won 3 Gold Gloves and would have won 6 or 7 more if not for Ozzie Smith. Third, he won the MVP in 1995. Fourth, he's nearly a .300 career hitter with over 2,300 hits.

My only reservation is that he was not the premiere shortstop in the National League for any extended period of time. In addition:

"The offensive evolution of the shortstop position has shrunk (Larkin's) numbers," said Mike Klis of the Denver Post, who will vote for Larkin but doesn't think enough of his colleagues will. "He also hung on too long. If he would have retired three years ago, I think he would have been a first-ballot guy. But the longer he played, the more mediocre he became. Five years from whenever he retires, a significant number of voters will remember many ordinary years."

I think the point that he held on a few too many years is a good one. However, to punish Larking for what the position has BECOME versus what it WAS when Larkin played is wrong.