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!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.