Survey says 48.4%

So apparently 48.4% of the Baseball Writers' Association of America are idiots. I was right, in that Larkin got at least 50%. But the problem is that the writers who voted against Larkin (and deserving others like Edgar Martinez) have either no strategy for making their decision or have one that, however well articulated, is absurdly myopic and obviously ignorant of Baseball Reference.

Consider Howard Bryant of ESPN. In his report on his vote, he gives six criteria for that he thinks make a player hall-worthy. None of them are bad, and you could base your vote on any single one to demonstrate that you actually gave the matter some thought. Unfortunately for Bryant, two of his criteria BLATANTLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. Witness:

2. Dominance over longevity
3. Lengthy period of top-level production

Uh huh. Further, in his explanation of #2 there, he wonders 'During a five- to seven-year period, was this player the most dangerous, dominant SOB in his league?' Which is the wrong question to ask, else THERE WOULD NEVER BE A SHORTSTOP IN THE HALL OF FAME (except Ripken, who gets in as much for being a stand-up human and the Streak as anything else).

When he gets down into #3 he's really grasping at straws, throwing up Dave Stewart and Albert Belle as examples of meteoric superiority that didn't last long enough. Let's take these one at a time. He complains that Stewart's four 20-win seasons were sandwiched by long periods of mediocrity. Now wins are an overrated stat, but since that's what Bryant is dealing in, let's talk about losses: in THREE of his four 20-win seasons, Stewart lost at least 11 games. His ERA+ for his entire 16-year career is 100. That means that he was precisely average over the course of his career. He had a seasonal ERA+ greater than 118 just three times, and one of those was in his first season when he pitched only 43 innings. My point is that Dave Stewart isn't in Hall of Fame because he wasn't all that remarkable in the first place.

Albert Belle, on the other hand, was first, second or third in Runs Created three times, and in the top 10 six times (which would fit under Bryant's five-to-seven year window for #2). In 10 seasons as a full-time player he averaged 37 home runs and 100 RBI PER YEAR. If you don't like Albert Belle, which is fine because I don't like Barry Bonds, that's fine. But saying that Albert Belle didn't produce beyond a five-year window or that he wasn't a dangerous SOB is altering history to fit your version of it.

Barry Larkin was among the top five shortstops in Runs Created in every five-year span starting in 1987 and going through 2002. That's sixteen seasons and 12 five-year spans. That period exposes him to both the low-scoring late '80s and the steroid-fueled late 1990s, and compares him at various points in his career to Ozzie Smith, Cal Ripken, Alan Trammell, Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter and Nomar Garciaparra. No player who, like Larkin, was elected to 12 All-Star teams isn't in the Hall of Fame.

You wanna be subjective? OK. Was he ever the most feared SOB in the league? No. Did pitchers worry if he came up late in the game with a runner on? Um, yeah. Top 10 in AB/SO six times. He took three Gold Gloves away from OZZIE SMITH, who is only in the Hall of Fame because of his career as a vacuum cleaner for the Cardinals.

I could go on, and I likely will when I read more ridiculous assertions about how out machines like Andre Dawson were 'feared.' Suffice to say for now that 51.3% probably means that Larkin goes in next year with Blyleven and Alomar or the year after. That doesn't mean the writers know what they're doing, though.

I miss FireJoeMorgan.