Allan Trammell

[Eddie Collins]

Is it just me, or is he a candidate for best player not in the hall?

.285(+.21)/.352(+.22)/.415(+.14)

FA: +.9, Range +.36

1,231 Runs
2365 Hits
412 2B
185 Homers
236 Steals
1003 RBI

.333 Postseason BA

6 ASG
4 GG

I rate him as the 10th best shortstop of all time. where is the support?

[J W]

I just don't know. Too many other recently great shortstops, I guess. Maybe Trammell just wasn't in the headlines enough. Maybe people have forgotten already what his numbers meant as a shortstop, in his time.

And maybe some people (I'm thinking the Anti Pee Wee Reese crowd) think there shouldn't be ten shortstops in the HOF.

[Brad Harris]

Trammell is the best eligible player at his position not in the Hall of Fame. That puts him in elite company for the honor right there. Additionally, he's better than over half the Hall of Famers at his position. More supporting evidence.

Final answer? Close, but I'm not inclined to say "yes".

Trammell, however, may be the most unnoticed great player on the BBWAA ballot presently.

[Zeth]

If Alan (one "l") Trammell's career had ended five years earlier he would have gone in on the first ballot. His only problem was that by the time he came eligible, Rodriguez, Garciaparra and Jeter had taken over the game, boosted by the 1990s inflated hitting stats. Sooner or later, after this silly hitting era ends and people start to get perspective, Trammell will find his much-deserved way into the Hall. In fact, unless they notably improve soon, it seems likely Trammell will rate ahead of Nomar and Jeter by the time they retire.

I was young, but I remember people frequently referring to Trammell in the 1990s as "future Hall of Famer Alan Trammell." Trammell didn't get help from his contemporary era, of course, competing with Ripken and Ozzie, who both were legitimately better. But he was better than any SS in the 1970s and possibly the 1960s and 1950s too.

[dgarza]

It seems that well known SS/2B duos have 1 step up when it comes to election. Trammell and Sweet Lou we the pair in their day, were they not? It seems that this would help both of them.
Alan and Lou has similar stats.
But Alan hit .300+ 7 years, about 1/3 of the time, but his overall is still .285
Trammell is more well rounded than Julio Franco or Tony Fernandez. These guys , PLUS Ripken PLUS(for a time)Yount were all playing , not only at the same time, but IN THE SAME DIVISION!

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally posted by dgarza
well rounded than Julio Franco or Tony Fernandez. These guys , PLUS Ripken PLUS(for a time)Yount were all playing , not only at the same time, but IN THE SAME DIVISION!

Don't forget Bobby Meacham.

[The Commissioner]

I don't see Trammell as being anywhere near the "best player not in the Hall", however, he does definitely deserve to be there in Cooperstown. Unfortuinately, the 70 votes (13.83%) that he received on the ballot last time around don't leave me optimistic as to his chances. Hopefully, the old-timers will eventually see fit to elect him.

[Vinnie2112]

Tram & Sweet Loooooouuuuu not in the hall!!!!! When they have the numbers,gold gloves,world series,(tram MVP),all-star games,19 years together it all adds up. Pretty much tells me the "MEN" who vote have no clue.GOOD GOING GUYS.

[Vinnie2112]

I forgot Jack Morris. Winnest pitcher in the 80's. What else can he do.(I forgot he hated the Media)

[J W]

Originally posted by Vinnie2112
I forgot Jack Morris. Winnest pitcher in the 80's. What else can he do.(I forgot he hated the Media)

He could've posted a career ERA better than 3.90.

[Captain Cold Nose]

History will not look at the 80's very kindly. There will be a handful of players who achiever stardom in that decade who will make the hall of fame. But not too many who will go down as all-time greats. Morris was one of the best in a decade that falls short, at least regarding pitchers.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
History will not look at the 80's very kindly. There will be a handful of players who achiever stardom in that decade who will make the hall of fame. But not too many who will go down as all-time greats. Morris was one of the best in a decade that falls short, at least regarding pitchers.

This is a matter of circumstance more than player quality.

The 80's were an era where there was relative parity between hitting and pitching, so you don't have hitters compiling stats like the 1930's or now, or pitchers compiling stats like the 1910's or 1960's.

Further, there were no dynasties, so no teams like McGraw's Giants, the Big Red Machine, or (take your pick) Yankees to create legions of stars.

Last, some of the most legendary players of the 80's were not just associaited with that era, but only played about half the decade at the heights of their powers. Schmidt and Clemens come to mind. There wasn't a "Monster of the 1980's" the way that say, Bonds and Griffey posted ridiculous numbers ever single year of the 90's.

[Cougar]

Oh, and Trammell is a HOF, no question. It'll just take the institution some time to catch up.

[Zeth]

Morris's record, aside from team-dependent wins, just from the 1980s doesn't particularly scream Hall of Fame at you. Roger Clemens and Doc Gooden were better even though they only pitched half the decade. Dave Stieb, Fernando Valenzuela, Rick Reuschel, Orel Hershiser, Dave Stewart... there are quite a few non-HoF pitchers in the 1980s who were as good as Jack Morris, or very close. Nolan Ryan and Bert Blyleven pitched through the 1980s, too.

[dgarza]

Originally posted by Cougar

Last, some of the most legendary players of the 80's were not just associaited with that era, but only played about half the decade at the heights of their powers. Schmidt and Clemens come to mind. There wasn't a "Monster of the 1980's" Didn't Schmidt win 3 MVPsin the 80s? That's not considered dominant? He's evenly split tween 70s and 80s.

I consider Clemens more 80s than 90s because of the clubs he played with in the 80s. And the spot light he got. I'm not sure his Jay years will be remembered much. I think his general association will be with the late 80s-very early 90s Sox.

But , right, there's not a lot of dominance in the 80s. 3 of the AL MVPs were pitchers.
And a lot of "Dale Murphy" types.

and look at the CY winners: Steve Stone, Pete Vuckovich, John Denny, La Marr Hoyt, Willie Hernandez, Steve Bedrosian, Mark Davis, Rick Sutcliffe. Not a lot of future HOFers.

7 major awards (MVP,CY,ROY) went to relievers. the end of the 70s was the beginning of the trend. (4 winners from 74-79)

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by J W
And maybe some people...think there shouldn't be ten shortstops in the HOF.

Considering that there are twice that many shortstops already honored with bronze plaques, it's safe to assume such people haven't been counted among the voters for the past 68 years.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by dgarza
Didn't Schmidt win 3 MVPsin the 80s? That's not considered dominant? He's evenly split tween 70s and 80s.

Schmidt is of course the closest; my point was is started tailing off rapidly as the decade came to a close. He is evenly split between the 70's and 80's, with his best years being 1980 and 1981.

[J W]

What about Cal Ripken? Or would you say he achieved more stardom in the 90's because of his "streak"?

How about Eddie Murray for that matter? Or was he just consistently great, but not dominant, per say? I can see that.

What about Tony Gwynn? I'd call him dominant, just not in a "power hitter" sense. Does he fall into the 90's category as well?

And, yes, there are the relievers... which begs the question concerning Sutter, Gossage, and Eckersley. Was the 80's the decade of the relief pitcher? Hard to say...

[J W]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Considering that there are twice that many shortstops already honored with bronze plaques, it's safe to assume such people haven't been counted among the voters for the past 68 years.

Ah, but how many of them were voted in by the BBWAA? Nine:

Aparicio, Appling, Banks, Boudreau, Cronin, Maranville, Smith, Wagner, and Yount.

Now you can tack on a couple of old-timers if you wish, and I would think by today that the BBWAA would vote for Arky Vaughan given the chance... but that still means there are only 12 or 13 guys to compare Trammell to at this point in his voting history.

[leecemark]

that list of 80's cy young winners did put some perpective on what claiming morris was the best pitcher of the 80's (which he wasn't) really means. it is the least impressive run of award winners in history.
on trammel, he really got the shaft by a) the explosion of offensive numbers IMMEDIATELY after he retired and b) the arrival of arod, derek and nomar at the same time. adjusting for era he may in the final analysis be as good as two of them, though obviously no arod (will he surpass honus as best ss ever? will he go back to ss soon?). i think trammel was also a better ss than yount, though yount's OF career added on makes him the more valuable overall.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trammell was the real AL MVP of 1987; it was ridiculous that George Bell won.

Trammell's DP partner, Lou Whitaker, was one-and-done on the HOF ballot. I wonder if, subconsciously, Trammell draws low poll numbers because Whitaker and Trammell were extremely similar and extremely close in ability and career totals. Supporters of Whitaker have often complained (with justification) that Trammell was portrayed as a leader and a holler guy because he was white, while Lou was portrayed as a guy making it on ability, alone. This bias, IMO, has been reflected in HOF voting. Trammell deserves to be in the HOF, but if the writers elect him, their treatment of Whitaker becomes an indictment of the BBWAA for crass racism.

[538280]

Both Trammell and his DP partner Whitaker deserve to be in IMO.

How does Trammell and Whitaker's faring in the vote bode for Barry Larkin though? Larkin, of course, should be in almost certainly as well, but he was very similar to both those players. He was better than Trammell, though, and will probably do slightly better, but I doubt he makes it. The writers really frustrate me. Tim Raines is another one coming up who most likely will be stiffed, but my system has him one of the top 50 players of all time! :ughh

[Fuzzy Bear]

Both Trammell and his DP partner Whitaker deserve to be in IMO.

How does Trammell and Whitaker's faring in the vote bode for Barry Larkin though? Larkin, of course, should be in almost certainly as well, but he was very similar to both those players. He was better than Trammell, though, and will probably do slightly better, but I doubt he makes it. The writers really frustrate me. Tim Raines is another one coming up who most likely will be stiffed, but my system has him one of the top 50 players of all time! :ughh

Trammell is much more similar to Larkin than I thought. Actually, I think Trammell was slightly better, but Larkin had better BA and OBP stats. Larkin also won an MVP award, and deserved it. Trammell deserved at least one MVP award, but he never won one.

Larkin was the best SS in his league for a period of years. Trammell played in the shadow of Ripken, although Trammell was better than Ripken in some of those years, and especially in 1987.

I think Larkin will get in, but not on the 1st ballot.

[JimAbbott]

Those great Tiger dudes deserve more respect and Hall of Fame inductions. I'm talking Sweet Lou, Trammell, Morris and Parrish. I suppose we can leave Gibby, Petry, Hernandez, Lopez, Wilcox, Herndon, Lemon and Bergman out.

[mac195]

Trammell was the real AL MVP of 1987; it was ridiculous that George Bell won.

Trammell's DP partner, Lou Whitaker, was one-and-done on the HOF ballot. I wonder if, subconsciously, Trammell draws low poll numbers because Whitaker and Trammell were extremely similar and extremely close in ability and career totals. Supporters of Whitaker have often complained (with justification) that Trammell was portrayed as a leader and a holler guy because he was white, while Lou was portrayed as a guy making it on ability, alone. This bias, IMO, has been reflected in HOF voting. Trammell deserves to be in the HOF, but if the writers elect him, their treatment of Whitaker becomes an indictment of the BBWAA for crass racism.
If you find racism in Trammel getting more HOF attention than Whitaker, you'll find it anywhere. Trammell is the better HOF candidate. Not by much, but he's clearly better, on the strength of his solid peak. Both players have gotten less attention from the voters than they deserve, but I would not see much reason to complain if Trammell is eventually elected while Whitaker is kept out.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you find racism in Trammel getting more HOF attention than Whitaker, you'll find it anywhere. Trammell is the better HOF candidate. Not by much, but he's clearly better, on the strength of his solid peak. Both players have gotten less attention from the voters than they deserve, but I would not see much reason to complain if Trammell is eventually elected while Whitaker is kept out.

The racism comes from perceptions by writers that Lou Whitaker was a guy who had talent, but didn't really apply himself, whereas Trammell worked hard to expand his abilities. Joe Falls was the worst offender in propulgating this garbage among sportswriters, but there were others. Bill James pointed this out in his 1991 Baseball Book. There was a clear pattern; one year Trammell would have the better year, and the next year Whitaker would have the better year. James also pointed out that it was Trammell, not Whitaker, who first hit .300, so Trammell was as good as Whitaker at the time they both arrived in the big leagues. What Falls (and others) noted was that Whitaker was a more laid back player, while Trammell was intense. Trammell, ever the holler guy, became a manager (and a lousy one at that).

Trammell gets a bonus over Whitaker for playing shortstop and having a higher BA, but Whitaker hit more home runs than Trammell. Whereas Trammell was the second best shortstop in the AL during the 1980s, Whitaker was the best AL second baseman of the 1980s. Trammell is Whitaker's second-best comp on similarity scores; his best comp is Ryne Sandberg.

This is a case where there would be an incredible injustice, and an injustice that could not be attributed to anything else but subtle racism, if Trammell were to make it, while Whitaker was denied. These guys played as a team for there entire careers, except for one year where Trammell played after Whitaker retired. They turned in careers of almost identical value. Even their aging patterns were similar. Why else, than, would Whitaker (who came to the voters first) be one-and-done, while Trammell remained on the ballot? How do you explain Whitaker getting only 15 votes his first time out, while Trammell got 74 votes just a year later on his first time out?

If I were a black ballplayer, I would be outraged if Trammell were inducted while Whitaker was one-and-done. That's unfair to Trammell, but look at the unfairness to Whitaker. This is a situation that needs both attention and correction, in the name of fairness and decency. And this is a rare, but real, situation where inducting one, but not the other, would be a real and hurtful wrong done.

[brett]

The difference is that Larkin was viewed as a likely future hall of famer during his prime. People forsaw him continuing on career paces that would eventually put him in.

Trammell grew as a HOF candidate. No one would have called him a hall of famer just after '84. '87 was an awesome year, but I still don't think people ever referred to him as a future hall of famer until right up near the end when his full career could be appreciated.

My feel is that Larkin will get in. I never felt that Trammell would get in. Not that he didn't deserve it, just a feeling of where people stood when he retired.

The real problem with the preception of Trammell by people who watched his career was that he never had that string of 4-6 good years in a row. His career is generally viewed as having a developing period from '78-'82 where he showed signs of putting it all together in '80, but then inconsistency in '81 and '82, THEN a very good two year period in '83 and '84 (although overshadowed to the extreme by Ripken and Yount), then just as he looked like he was stringing together some seasons, he couldn't hold it together in '85 (.312 OB%). Then the highlight in '87, but don't forget that there was "something funny" with the balls that year. Boggs hit 24 homeruns and had a career season. Molitor had a career year. Trammel was one of 5-6 guys putting up mysterious career numbers. That season becomes somewhat dubious. After that, he had good years in '88, '90 and '93, none being consecutive, and two with 121 and 112 games played and who wants their starting shortstop playing only 120 games?

So basically we have two very good years, a mysterious bump in '87, and then a 9 year finale which only produced 3 good somewhat full seasons.

I'm just talking perception here.


Both Trammell and his DP partner Whitaker deserve to be in IMO.

How does Trammell and Whitaker's faring in the vote bode for Barry Larkin though? Larkin, of course, should be in almost certainly as well, but he was very similar to both those players. He was better than Trammell, though, and will probably do slightly better, but I doubt he makes it. The writers really frustrate me. Tim Raines is another one coming up who most likely will be stiffed, but my system has him one of the top 50 players of all time! :ughh

[JimAbbott]

That is not right that Whitaker didn't get the minimum votes. He clearly deserved that

[mac195]

Trammell gets a bonus over Whitaker for playing shortstop and having a higher BA, but Whitaker hit more home runs than Trammell.
Whitaker was the better hitter for his career. Trammell was a better fielder at a slightly more important position. Overall, I'd rate them about equal for career value. But while Trammell was excellent in 5 out of 6 consecutive years from '83-'88, Whitaker never had a peak. If you think peak value counts for anything, you have to give Trammell the edge as a HOF candidate.

This is a case where there would be an incredible injustice, and an injustice that could not be attributed to anything else but subtle racism, if Trammell were to make it, while Whitaker was denied.
That's hogwash. Even if Bill James says it. I was suprised to see Whitaker get dropped from the ballot so quickly, but given his lack of great seasons, it is understandable that the writers don't see him as a HOFer, without any need to explain it in terms of racism.

[538280]

Here's a telling comparison that I think makes the HOF case for Lou Whitaker. Why is Frankie Frisch better than Lou Whitaker? Frisch of course flew into the HOF, and is generally considered a solid HOFer. Whitaker, of course, went off on the first ballot. But if you look at their numbers, it's hard to see why.

Of course Frisch has better raw numbers, and therein probably lies the reason that he is regarded to be so much better. However, he played in one of the highest offensive eras of all time, while Whitaker played in basically a neutral era. Comparing their OBP and SLG to league averages, Whitaker comes out the edge, 117 OPS+ to 110.

..............Rel. BA.....Rel. OBP.....Rel. SLG
Whitaker....105.........110.............107
Frisch........108.........105.............105

Notice how, when comparing to league averages, there is not a huge difference in BA, despite what the raw numbers (.318 for Frisch versus .276 for Whitaker) would tell you. Whitaker basically did everything Frisch did offensively, and walked a little more and hit for a little more power.

As far as Whitaker not having any great seasons, it's hard to see any seasons where Frisch was a truly great hitter either. His career high OPS+ is 132, which is very good for a 2Bman, but then Whitaker had FIVE seasons higher than that. Charting their 5 best OPS+ seasons, Whitaker comes out an easy edge:

Whitaker: 142, 136, 133, 133, 133
Frisch: 132, 131, 129, 126, 119

This is also ignoring the very important factor of league quality. Whitaker of course played against much tougher competition than Frisch.

As far as defense, Frisch may be better, but I'm not so sure. Frisch played at a time when 2B was less important than it is in the modern day. Less DPs makes second base so much less important. If Frisch has an edge, it's not huge, and we haven't applied positional importance to offense either.

Other factors? Baserunning? Frisch did steal more than Whitaker, and deserves some credit for that, but hardly enough to make everything up. Longevity? But Whtiaker played more games. Contributions to the game? Frisch did manage, but then he was a hot headed one and largely unsuccessful. Whitaker was a light hearted easy going, but still hard playing, good clubhouse influence. Frisch also screwed the HOF for years to come.

Overall, I don't see how Frisch holds up against Whitaker when ran through a formal analysis.