Whitaker and Trammell as a unit?

[Food]

Hello, Commish and everybody else.

I've been lurking for a while, and this is my first post. I'm looking forward to some cool discussions here. I apologize pre-emptorily for any irritation I cause by dredging up a few old threads that are particularly interesting to me.

I know that neither Whitaker nor Trammell are HOF-bound individually, but I'm curious how baseball fans would feel about their induction as a unit? The Hall has the Tinker-Evers-Chance unit, and I feel that Trammell and Whitaker, while never having had pop songs written about them or anything, were such a fixture in Tiger Town, inseparable from both Detroit and each other, might be kinda neato. Trammell was an almost HOFer, and Whitaker was an almost-almost HOFer. Throughout the 80s, when I'd think of the Detroit Tigers, I'd think of Whitaker and Trammell, and I'd wager most baseball fans during the 80s felt the same.

I know it'll never happen, but I'd like to know how you would feel about a Whitaker-Trammell plaque.

[DoubleX]

Hi Food, and let me be the first to weclome you.

Trammell and Whitaker are definitely one of the all-time best DP combos, especially considering how long they played together, but I don't think we should put players in based on a boost from a teammate. Players should be in as individuals.

That being said, I do think Trammell belongs in and I could go either way on Whitaker, but he's probably just on the outside for me.

[Captain Cold Nose]

While the Tigers had plenty of good players in the 80's (they were the decade's winningest team until that horrible 1989 season) Tram and Sweet Lou are very highly regarded because they did spend their entire careers in Detroit. Whitaker got a lot of credit for retiring instead of moving on after the 1995 season, as well as passing up more money from Atlanta at one point to finish out his career where he started.
It would indeed be neato if they could go in the same year if they were to be elected. But I would want them to get in on their own merits, not as a tandem.

[Gee Walker]

I can't think of any 20th century eligible shortstop better than Trammell who is not in the Hall of Fame. Thank you very much, Dave Concepcion... and there are lots of them who were lesser players who are in, including, in my opinion, Maranville, Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Aparicio, Boudreau, Rizzuto, and Ozzie Smith. Yes I know about Ozzie's defence, but Trammell was your basic B+ on defence... and hit more home runs in one year than Ozzie did in a decade.

In my opinion, Trammell has been hurt by playing in Detroit, despite doing everything right in 1984. He was robbed of the MVP in 1987 by some clueless reporters who could only see George Bell's RBI's (which, frankly, was the entire George Bell picture). His managerial career was a disaster.

With Whitaker, it's more complex - did Joe Gordon have a long enough career to get him in (his peak is higher than Whitaker's), and will Bobby Grich ever get any respect at all? But at the other end, I can assure you that Whitaker had a better career than Mazeroski, Lazzeri, Schoendienst, and arguably Carew and Doerr.

The Tigers have had exactly one post-war Hall of Famer, in Al Kaline. I fear that Trammell, Whitaker, and Morris will go the way of Bill Freehan, who must be the best eligible catcher not in the Hall of Fame. Thank you very much, Ted (DH) Simmons.

[Freakshow]

Welcome aboard!

Trammell has been identified at BBF as one of the ten most deserving among eligible players for the HOF. The BBFHoF and the Hall of Mistakes agree on this.

Whitaker is one of the top 15 secondbasemen in career value according to the major analytical systems. That he was never in the running for MVP knocks him down some, but to me he's still HOF caliber.

But heavens, no, not on the same plaque! It's the source of some of the Hall's worst selections, players riding in on the coattails of their great teammates.

[Cougar]

They should both be in on their individual merits.

[DoubleX]

With Whitaker, it's more complex - did Joe Gordon have a long enough career to get him in (his peak is higher than Whitaker's), and will Bobby Grich ever get any respect at all? But at the other end, I can assure you that Whitaker had a better career than Mazeroski, Lazzeri, Schoendienst, and arguably Carew and Doerr.

I'm a big Joe Gordon fan. I think if not for missing time during the war, he might be in. Grich has flown way under the radar. Definitely very fine player who probably should be in. I agree with you about putting Whitaker ahead of everyone else you listed, except Carew. I can see an argument for Whitaker over Carew strictly at 2B, but in terms of entire career and career value, I can't see any argument for Whitaker over Carew.

[538280]

I know that neither Whitaker nor Trammell are HOF-bound individually, but I'm curious how baseball fans would feel about their induction as a unit?

No two players should be inducted as a unit. The HOF is about individual honors. I would be completely opposed to any players getting in because they were a part of a famous group (famous outfield, infield, team, whatever).

However, I disagree with you completely that neither Trammell or Whitaker deserve it individually. I think they both do. So, I would support their induction but would not support the idea of them going in as a group.

[KCGHOST]

No two players should be inducted as a unit. The HOF is about individual honors. I would be completely opposed to any players getting in because they were a part of a famous group (famous outfield, infield, team, whatever).

However, I disagree with you completely that neither Trammell or Whitaker deserve it individually. I think they both do. So, I would support their induction but would not support the idea of them going in as a group.


That is exactly my position. The Tinker-Evers-Chance simultaneously election was one of the worse farces ever foisted offon the HoF. Getting elected on a jingle. Good grief.

I think Trammell deserves election and Whitaker deserves a much more serious look. And I could have that backwards.

[Chisox]

I think both deserve it.
They each deserve it. To enshrine them as one would be a dis-service to them, considering some of the nominees who are enshrined individually (that Cubs trio).

[tigers527]

No offense to the people that do that sabremetrics stats stuff. But Alan Trammel does not belong in the HOF. He had 3 really good years, then spent each of the rest of the seasons of his career injured at least for parts of the year.

Whitaker however, belongs on the ballot at least. When you look at his numbers and Ryne Sandbergs numbers they are as close as can be over 20 years (thereabouts) of baseball. Rhino has more homers, SB (alot more) and a higher AVG., sweet Lou has a better OBP. more R and 2B.

[Cougar]

No offense to the people that do that sabremetrics stats stuff. But Alan Trammel does not belong in the HOF. He had 3 really good years, then spent each of the rest of the seasons of his career injured at least for parts of the year.

Whitaker however, belongs on the ballot at least. When you look at his numbers and Ryne Sandbergs numbers they are as close as can be over 20 years (thereabouts) of baseball. Rhino has more homers, SB (alot more) and a higher AVG., sweet Lou has a better OBP. more R and 2B.

Half right. Your comment about Trammell just isn't true. (Starting with the spelling of his name.)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/trammal01.shtml

Look at Trammell's career. From 1978-1987, the first 10 full years of his career*, Trammell was quite durable, playing in no fewer than 139 games in any of those seasons, excluding the strike season of 1981 (when he played in 105 of 109 games).

Trammell turned 30 in 1988, and at that point he did get rather brittle.

* Excluding a cup of coffee in 1977.

[tigers527]

Half right. Your comment about Trammell just isn't true. (Starting with the spelling of his name.)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/trammal01.shtml

Look at Trammell's career. From 1978-1987, the first 10 full years of his career*, Trammell was quite durable, playing in no fewer than 139 games in any of those seasons, excluding the strike season of 1981 (when he played in 105 of 109 games).

Trammell turned 30 in 1988, and at that point he did get rather brittle.

* Excluding a cup of coffee in 1977.

Touche to both the injuries and the spelling. However the thrust of the point was 3 really good years. And thanks to your hyper-link I see that part is more less true. Taking into account the season and career accolades at the bottom, maybe he does deserve more consideration. But putting him in makes Bill Buckner look like a shoe in??? yes???

[SABR Matt]

Resounding NO!! to that comment.

Bill Buckner was not a gifted fielder (though he wasn't as bad as his reputation now) and, in fact, was not as good in his peak offensively as Trammell was. No statistical measure worth the e-space its' printed on would claim Buckner was a more valuable player than Trammell.

[538280]

Touche to both the injuries and the spelling. However the thrust of the point was 3 really good years. And thanks to your hyper-link I see that part is more less true. Taking into account the season and career accolades at the bottom, maybe he does deserve more consideration. But putting him in makes Bill Buckner look like a shoe in??? yes???

Bill Buckner? Is that a joke comparison? Buckner was a 1B, and his OPS+ was 99. Trammell was a SS, and his OPS+ was 110. Trammell had more defensive value and offensive value. They're not even comparable players. Trammell was a special player, the best player in the league in 1987 and one of the best AL players of the 1980s. Buckner was basically a long lasting journeyman who did nothing especially well and really wasn't worth all that much.

[tigers527]

Bill Buckner? Is that a joke comparison? Buckner was a 1B, and his OPS+ was 99. Trammell was a SS, and his OPS+ was 110. Trammell had more defensive value and offensive value. They're not even comparable players. Trammell was a special player, the best player in the league in 1987 and one of the best AL players of the 1980s. Buckner was basically a long lasting journeyman who did nothing especially well and really wasn't worth all that much.

Let's see a joke? maybe a little? However, he did lead the league in BA in 1980....thats one more year then Trammell. He recorded 350 more hits in his career. The offensive numbers are simular. Granted 1B is little easier on the career. <shrugs> maybe it is a joke?? maybe its not.:rolleyes:

[538280]

Let's see a joke? maybe a little? However, he did lead the league in BA in 1980....thats one more year then Trammell. He recorded 350 more hits in his career. The offensive numbers are simular. Granted 1B is little easier on the career. <shrugs> maybe it is a joke?? maybe its not.:rolleyes:

I don't really know what to say to this. If you really think Trammell and Buckner are comparable in value.....then I don't know what to say to you.

[tigers527]

I don't really know what to say to this. If you really think Trammell and Buckner are comparable in value.....then I don't know what to say to you.

Ok Ok..you caught me. No I do not think Buckner and Trammell are comparable. I just don't think Trammell belongs in the HOF (although, he should still be on the ballot). The point I was assininely making was that it is a slippery slope that could end in Buckner. Trammell did not dominate his position for a long enough period, yes he had a few great years surrounded by mostly mediocre years. It is the hall of fame not the hall of pretty good. All the other sports HOF's fall prey to the HOPG syndrome. That's about the only thing I can say about the BBHOF is that it does about as good a job (aside from the big market bias) as it can keeping out the boarderline people. When history looks back it would shrung its shoulders at Trammell (and I had a Trammell signature mitt when I was a wee one). Although, maybe current SS are the cause of the shrugging. I would think history would shrug those same shoulders @ Ozzie Smith. But hey thats just me.

Gold Gloves are the worst accolade to look at (hell, Palmaroid got one for what 28 games at 1st base?) for HOF consideration. :)

[SABR Matt]

Ozzie Smith is more than qualified for the hall despite the mediocre hitting...

As is Trammell...both of them get there because they bring more than one skill to the game.

[538280]

Ok Ok..you caught me. No I do not think Buckner and Trammell are comparable. I just don't think Trammell belongs in the HOF (although, he should still be on the ballot). The point I was assininely making was that it is a slippery slope that could end in Buckner. Trammell did not dominate his position for a long enough period, yes he had a few great years surrounded by mostly mediocre years. It is the hall of fame not the hall of pretty good. All the other sports HOF's fall prey to the HOPG syndrome. That's about the only thing I can say about the BBHOF is that it does about as good a job (aside from the big market bias) as it can keeping out the boarderline people. When history looks back it would shrung its shoulders at Trammell (and I had a Trammell signature mitt when I was a wee one). Although, maybe current SS are the cause of the shrugging. I would think history would shrug those same shoulders @ Ozzie Smith. But hey thats just me.

Gold Gloves are the worst accolade to look at (hell, Palmaroid got one for what 28 games at 1st base?) for HOF consideration. :)

You still don't understand though. Trammell was a great player (one of the top 5 in the league) in his good seasons, and in his "mediocre" seasons he was still one of the best SS in the league. A 100 OPS+ is a very good figure for a SS, and that's usually where Trammell was in his "mediocre" seasons. Add that on with his good fielding, and the fact he was a truly special player for about five years, and you've got a HOFer.

Look at what really constitutes value (summarized in total player metrics like Win Shares, WARP, and Matt's PCA).

[SABR Matt]

Normalized wins, sorted in descending order for Trammell:
Yr WinTotal
1987 15.87
1983 11.96
1986 11.77
1990 11.43
1984 10.34
1988 9.18
1980 8.01
1982 7.13
1993 6.44
1981 6.09
1985 4.93
1978 4.55
1979 4.33
1989 4.26
1991 3.81
1994 1.9
1995 1.26
1992 1.24
1977 -0.31
1996 -0.42

10 normalized win seasons are about the line at which great players produce consistantly and Trammell had 5 such seasons...hardly mediocre. He also had another 5 seasons where he produced more than 6 normalized wins. That's 10 years as an impact player and top notch shortstop.