I watched Larkin play his whole career. Great player, just not a hall of famer. Their should be a distinction.
Just my opinion. Everyone is free to disagree.
I disagree. I too watched Larkin play his entire career. Perhaps my perspective is a little biased since I am a lifelong Reds fan, but he DID redefine the SS position. You argue that Ozzie did, and he did to an extent during HIS time, but I'd argue Davey Concepcion was the same caliber of defensive player as Smith (actually better imo). Barry Larkin transformed the way organizations drafted and evaluated shortstops. Teams started looking at shortstops with a little more power. Guys that were bigger and stronger and more athletic than the typical shortstop. You used to get these short, little guys who would hit eighth and just slap at it. Barry changed all that and how teams drafted.
His WAR numbers (Wins Above Replacement-WAR calculates the total number of wins that any player adds to his team over the course of a season by comparing the player's performance with that of a fictitious replacement) is better than every other retired shortstop NOT in the HOF, and ranks fifth among those who are; and is better than Ozzie Smith, Lou Boudreau, Pee Wee Reese, Luis Aparicio, Bobby Wallace, Joe Sewell, Joe Tinker, and Dave Bancroft — who are all currently in the Hall of Fame. In addition the guy had a career .366 OBA — better than the career numbers for Hall of Fame shortstops Banks, Pee Wee Reese, Cal Ripken Jr., Robin Yount, Dave Bancroft, and Bobby Wallace. He was the first SS to be in the 30-30 club, was a 12-time All Star, was intregal to the Reds winning the 1990 World Series, and won the 1995 MVP in the National League.
He does not have 500+ home runs like Ernie Banks, 3,000 hits like Yount, the record for most consecutive games started like Cal Ripken Jr., or 13 Gold Glove awards like Ozzie Smith. He does, however, possess the cumulative statistical resume to be worthy of a Hall of Fame induction, and I'm happy for him. He deserves it.