Al Yellon
Editor
A New York Mets Quiz - May 25
Grant Brisbee
Editor
Lessons From Baltimore - May 25
Jeff Sullivan
Editor
How Close They've Come To The Sculpture - May 25
Rob Neyer
National Baseball Editor
Albert Pujols Finally Driving In Runs, Still Not Walking - May 25
Dan Moore
Contributor
Joey Votto And The Twilight Of The Giant First Basemen - Apr 14
Jason Brannon
Hot Corner Scribe
The 9th Inning Is Different - May 25
Jim Baker
Contributor
eBay Item Of The Day - May 25
Marc Normandin
Contributor
What's Wrong With Ike Davis? - May 25
Wendy Thurm
Contributor
Baseball On Par With Other Professional Sports In Dealing With Bad Umpires - May 20
SB Nation Baseball Hall of Fame
Alan Trammell didn't make the Hall of Fame on Monday, but another shortstop did. What's the difference between the two?
Jan 9, 2012 - Barry Larkin was elected to the Hall of Fame today. Alan Trammell was not. I'm not going to argue that this is some grave injustice that needs to be rectified with civil disobedience and letter-writing campaigns, but the difference between how the two players were treated by the Hall of Fame voters is striking. Let's take a look at the career statistics for both:
| Alan Trammell | Barry Larkin | |||
| AVG | .285 | .295 | ✔ | |
| HR | 185 | 198 | ✔ | |
| RBI | 1003 | ✔ | 960 | |
| OBP | .352 | .371 | ✔ | |
| SLG | .415 | .444 | ✔ | |
| rWAR | 66.9 | 68.9 | ✔ | |
| fWAR | 69.5 | 70.6 | ✔ | |
| SB | 236 | 379 | ✔ | |
| OPS+ | 110 | 116 | ✔ | |
| Gold Gloves | 4 | ✔ | 3 | |
| All-Star Games | 6 | 12 | ✔ | |
| CRiL | 1 | 0 | ✔ |
Larkin takes him in most categories. I think that most people would acknowledge that Larkin had the better career, even after injuries are taken into account. But look at those WAR margins -- razor thin, both with the Baseball-Reference metrics and the FanGraphs metric. Trammell played 20 seasons; Larkin played 19. Over their respective careers, they were pretty comparable in value.
This wouldn't mean much if Larkin was juuuuust good enough to squeak into the Hall of Fame. Larkin getting in after a couple of decades or a Veteran's Committee ballot wouldn't add to Trammell's cause. But Larkin got in on his third year of eligibility with 86 percent of the vote. Larkin wasn't a borderline case -- he didn't satisfy the extra-super-special-first-ballot-bonus-points ninnies, but he was clearly a Hall of Famer in the voters' eyes right from the beginning.
It's that last statistic up there that's the reason for the gap between the HOF perception gap between Larkin and Trammell. CRiL is a proprietary statistic I developed specifically to measure shortstops against each other. It's a park- and era-adjusted stat that can sum up a shortstop's Hall-of-Fame chances in a single number. It stands for "Cal Ripkens in League." Larkin outpaces Trammell easily on this one.
Again, it's not that Larkin wasn't better than Trammell. By most metrics (and obviously in the court of public opinion), he certainly was. But if Larkin is a Hall of Famer, Trammell certainly deserves a closer look. The gap between them wasn't that big. The biggest difference between the two is that Larkin was almost always the best offensive shortstop in his league. His competition was Ozzie Smith in his mid-to-late 30s, Jay Bell, and Jeff Blauser. Contenders would come and go like so many Wil Corderos.
Trammell was always shortstop 1b or 1c in the American League through no fault of his own. He didn't just lag behind with CRiL -- his candidacy also took a hit because of his RYiL numbers. Robin Yount was in the AL too, often putting up seasons worthy of MVP votes. Considering that Trammell played with two first-ballot Hall of Fame shortstops, his six All-Star team selections are even more impressive.
Another difference between Larkin and Trammell is that the latter had a sidekick who was also worthy of the Hall of Fame. For just under two decades, Lou Whitaker played along Trammell, making All-Star teams and hitting at a position where most teams shouldn't have a hitter. The two rode around on tandem bikes and finished each other's sentences, and there might have been a tendency to pretend that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. If Trammell played a couple decades with Doug Flynn, maybe he would have stood out more.
Please don't take this as an article suggesting that Larkin is unworthy, or that Trammell was Larkin's equal. Larkin is a clear Hall of Famer, and if I'm picking an all-time team in some sort of draft, he gets snatched up well before Trammell. But the gap in voter excitement between the two is curious -- one skated in easily in his third try, whereas the other one might not ever get a simple majority of the vote. But Larkin was never overshadowed by anyone other than an aging Ozzie Smith. In the arena of visibility, Trammell was contending with two first-ballot Hall of Famers and a double-play partner who was a perennial All-Star.
That tired old argument of "They call it the Hall of Fame for a reason," might actually mean something after all. If Trammell wanted in, he could have been more famous. And if he wanted to be more famous, he shouldn't have played at the same time as all those famous dudes. Not sure what he was thinking there. But it hasn't done wonders for his candidacy, even if he'd be a worthy entrant into the Hall.
20 comments
7
Jan 11
27
Jan 10
40
Jan 10
Grant Brisbee:
Alan Trammell: Victim Of Context
20
Jan 9
3
Jan 9
2
Jan 9
30
Jan 9
3
Jan 9
Yankees Sign John Maine To Minor-League Deal
Lance Berkman's Knee Surgery Will Have Him Out 8-10 Weeks
Orioles, Adam Jones Reportedly Agree To Extension +1
Ryan Howard Still Taking Batting Practice
John Danks DL'd With Shoulder Tightness
Austin Jackson Heading To Disabled List +1
Emilio Bonifacio Will Have Thumb Surgery +1
Brewers' Marco Estrada On DL With Quad Strain +1
Rumor: Yankees For Sale, Denied By Team +2
Brian Roberts Draws 2 Walks In Rehab Start
More News »
Comments
Jack Morris
Trammell is hurt by Jack Morris being the #1 candidate from those Tigers teams, according to the voters. He’s had to line up behind someone who doesn’t deserve election.
It’s weird to me how the voters have latched on to Jack Morris as the top candidate from the 1980s Tigers. To me there are several people who deserve a discussion, but Morris by no means is on the top.
To me, Whitaker definitely belongs in, Alan Trammell probably does (I like Whitaker as a candidate better than Trammell, though).
Then Darrell Evans has a good case, but, I think, falls short.
Then, I think, there’s Jack Morris and Lance Parrish, two guys who don’t really belong in the Hall but wouldn’t be absolute jokes.
Then there’s Chet Lemon, who is closer than people would ever think, and Kirk Gibson, a “star player” who never got to the level of real consideration for the HOF.
By bWAR:
1. Whitaker (69.7) – #1 among non-HOF 2B
2. Trammell (66.9) – #2 among non-HOF SS (behind Bill Dahlen)
3. Evans (57.3) – #5 or 6 among non-HOF 3B (depending on where you put Edgar Martinez)
4. Lemon (49.9) – #5 among non-HOF CF (5.5 WAR ahead of Dale Murphy)
5. Morris (39.3) – #56 among non-HOF modern-era starters
6. Gibson (37.1) – #21 among non-HOF LF
7. Parrish (35.7) – #10 among non-HOF C
This list, by the way, also indicates how Morris was able to rack up all those wins.
by Stephen Suffron on Jan 9, 2012 7:43 PM EST reply actions
Whitaker, Trammell, and Evan I can get behind as HoFers
I am a big hall guy. Whitaker is 7th all time at second base in rWAR. Trammell is 10th for shortstops in rWAR. Evans is 15th all time at third base.
Lemon is 20th all time for center fielders, not quite good enough for me. And Parrish is 25th all time for catchers, again HoVG like Lemon, but not HoF.
Gibson and Morris don’t belong anywhere near the HoF.
by cookiedabookie on Jan 9, 2012 8:19 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with this to some extent.
(Edited reprint from another site:)
Last night I read a piece about Jack Morris, who has spent 13 years on the ballot. It made the point that if Morris doesn’t make it this year (and he didn’t) he is unlikely to make it at all, given the HoF classes coming up in the next two years. But why should Jack Morris’ HoF chances diminish because of who else is on the ballot, or because Trammell is “ahead of him in line”? Shouldn’t Jack Morris be evaluated ON HIS OWN CREDENTIALS and be found either worthy or wanting based ONLY on what Jack Morris did? Why should he be held up in comparison to Trammell or Barry Bonds or Mike Piazza? They have nothing to do with Jack Morris, but their presence on the ballot or on the waiting list significantly affects whether Morris makes it or not. And to me, that’s dumb.
But it’s the kind of thing the 15-year ballot encourages. I just think it would have been far better for everyone involved if 13 years ago the voters had told Jack Morris, once and for all, "You’re not worthy," and be done with it. Then he wouldn’t have to (metaphorically) sit by the phone every year until he’s an old man, and we wouldn’t be subjected to stories about Jack Morris waiting by the phone every year until we’re old men.
-As for Trammell, I’ll suggest that if he goes in the Hall then Whitaker has to go in too, and maybe the BBWAA thinks that’s just too cute.
by bucdaddy on Jan 9, 2012 8:21 PM EST up reply actions
Because you can only vote for ten guys a year
If Jack Morris was the tenth guy on your ballot this year (based on merit – as in you think he is the tenth most deserving eligible player), you probably won’t vote for him next year. Depending on which WAR you prefer, I think Morris was between about 9th and 14th of this year’s candidates, so having him near the end of you ballot is reasonable this year, presuming you vote for 10 guys.
Larkin got in. No one dropped off at the 15 year mark this year. You probably weren’t voting for any of the guys who were dropped for receiving less than 5% of the vote. This means you still have eight guys ahead of Morris
Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Schilling, Piazza and Lofton will go on the ballot next year. If you are strictly voting by merit, and not considering time on the ballot or anything else, I don’t see how you can still vote for Morris. He will not be close to one of the 10 best candidates on the ballot next year. He was much closer this year. By rWAR (which crushes Morris compared to fWAR, but BBREF has a handy list), Morris is 22nd among eligible players in 2013.
In 2014, Maddux, Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina will go one the ballot (though Dale Murphy, who you probably voted for, drops off), so Morris still has problems being among the top 10. Assuming no one got in in 2013 (unlikely, but possible), he’d be 28th by rWAR.
by macomeau on Jan 10, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
I was just reading a piece by Adam Darowski
about which pitchers were hurt or helped the most by their defense. Five of the top 14 most helped were on the Robinson/Belanger/Grich/Blair Orioles. Jack Morris was tenth. Darowski’s comment was “If Jack Morris ever gets in the Hall of Fame, he should go in wearing Lou Whitaker’s cap and Alan Trammell’s jersey.”
This is a case where Trammell and Whitaker’s defensive skill arguably shows up on Morris’s stats, not their own.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 9, 2012 10:19 PM EST up reply actions
CLEARLY the best team in RBI Baseball thanks to the above
http://dee-nee.com/rbi/detroit.shtml
Jeez, remember Matt Nokes?! Hahaha
by Brian Mangan on Jan 9, 2012 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
Heh Matt Nokes
I met him at a card show when I was a kid. I still have his autograph around here somewhere.
by Jael31 on Jan 10, 2012 5:36 AM EST up reply actions
I am an Angels fan
I always played as the Tigers. Unless I wanted to steal bases. Then it was the Cardinals.
R.I.P. Nick Adenhart - Always an Angel
by Kernel on Jan 10, 2012 10:25 AM EST up reply actions
On Gold Gloves
The reason Larkin only has 4 is because his career overlapped with Ozzie Smith’s. If Ozzie was a Yankee, Larkin would have a half-ton of GGs.
by Jigokusabre on Jan 9, 2012 8:52 PM EST reply actions
By that logic
If Trammell played for the Yanks, and didn’t have Ripken in the AL, so would Trammell. It goes to prove the point that Larkin’s All Star and Silver Slugger awards aren’t as impressive when you have little to no competition.
by Mark @ Hou on Jan 9, 2012 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
though to be clear, on GGs, Trammell wasn't losing them to Ripken
Ripken only won 2 Gold Gloves. He had great hands, a rocket arm and excellent positioning and baseball smarts, but didn’t have the ‘range’ to consistently win GG mind-share.
After Trammell won 4 of 5 AL GGs from ’80-84, it was Tony Fernandez who went on a streak and won 4 straight AL Gold Gloves from ’86-89.
Ripken didn’t win his first GG until ‘91 and as is typical of the GG voters, was probably driven more on his stellar offensive performance that year. (Although he did earn 2.3 dWAR (baseball-reference) that year so it wasn’t like he was bad or anything). The point being, this was long after Trammell’s GG years.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
by mmmmm on Jan 10, 2012 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
Trammell SHOULD
be in the HOF.
He was that good.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
Follow @cocktailsfor2
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 9, 2012 9:15 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Great article
I can’t understand how Larkin gets 85% and Trammell less than half.
Ripken, Yount and Fernandez have more to do with it than anything on the field.
Maybe the Jeter, Tejada and Nomar have something to with it too. These guys put up huge numbers and led to more unfair comparions.
by Mark @ Hou on Jan 9, 2012 10:25 PM EST reply actions
RHiM
Tim Raines suffers from Ricky Henderson in Majors. If they hadn’t been roughly coeval you could ’ve said Raines was the Best Lead-off Hitter of His Generation and that makes a better narrative.
Even though he was a tremendous offensive force, Raines suffers by that context.
by DavidS on Jan 9, 2012 11:56 PM EST reply actions
But Henderson has 30 bajillion more WAR then Raines
Raines was an excellent ballplayers, but not nearly on Ricky’s level.
by aronofsky40 on Jan 10, 2012 4:00 AM EST up reply actions
But that was the point
Rickey was so great that he made Raines look average, which shouldn’t diminish the fact that Raines was a damn good player himself.
by ahoque on Jan 10, 2012 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
I concur
And the Larkin v Ripken comparison sorta parallels.
Larkin comes up short compared to Ripken, but he was clearly the ‘dominant SS for the NL’ during the 90s.
Raines comes up short compared to Rickey, but he was clearly the ’dominant leadoff hitter for the NL during the 80s.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
by mmmmm on Jan 10, 2012 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
Everyone comes up short to Rickey in lead off hitter land.
by Cap M on Jan 10, 2012 9:51 PM EST up reply actions
Oh Raines was an excellent ballplayer
No doubt about it.
And I’d consider him a borderline candidate.
But not anything like a lock. Depends on how big your hall is.
by aronofsky40 on Jan 11, 2012 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
Miguel Tejada four checks, Trammell one.
At a glance, Miguel Tejada gets four checks vs. Larkin and Trammell, bringing Trammell down to just one check.
Sorry, I am counting the CRiL stat ‘in reverse,’ awarding the check to Tejada, allowing for the concurrent American League presence of A-Rod, and also Omar Vizquel, Derek Jeter and even Cal Ripken himself. Tejada just had no chance at at a Gold Glove and never had an easy path to the All-Star game.
Not trying to diminish Larkin’s wonderful 12 All-Star appearances, but if it’s 6 All-Star game tie vs Trammell and Tejada – then here a clear edge goes to Tejada based on CriL.
==
Adding the stat ‘Runs’ to this list, awarding one more check to Larkin.
It’s possible Tejada could play a couple of more years and stretch ahead of these other two in Base Hits, and Runs, but it’s a medium long-shot at this point.
==
Miguel Tejada is 5th all-time in consecutive games played with 1152.
Is it worth mentioning that the newfangled stats that group players numbers into imaginary 162 game bundles pretty much work against really durable guys like Tejada who did actually play every game, and maybe played tired sometimes?
Sort of the same statistical fallacy category that awards positive WAR to guys like Jack Cust who over time and in context have been proven to be true replacement level players, and therefore should be WAR = 0?
==
Hall of Fame and PED use just really has all the writers running for cover. The way it shapes up now, guys are getting in (Robbie Alomar) and on the way (Piazza, Thome) on the basis of never being caught red-handed, which is being morphed into somehow never been suspected, and therefore we can vote this candidate.
I am for clean sports but the HOF vote trending is really working against showing the daylight in the whole situation.
Regardless of his possible innocence, the whole “Jim Thome has never ever been associated with blah blah blah,” is just a wrong anointing, random, and just for example ignores his playing for years with Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, and Jason Grimsley. It’s just a cooked up half-solution, and it is happening.
PED suspect Mike Piazza is gonna get this ‘never any evidence’ treatment, too – but somehow Ivan Rodriguez won’t, and will have to wait years. How does that work?
==
Ryan Braun getting busted is good and illuminating for the sport because it puts the ‘Steroid Era,’ right back in the present. What Victor Conte recently said is true – guys have moved on to fast-dissolving roids. Plus, apparently there is some kind of ADD drug craze among MLB players, too.
==
No real honest discourse exists about the overall PED health issues, raising fun questions like why are guys like Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte apparently suggesting to their own family members to take PEDS?
Even better, why do so many policemen where I live really have the appearance of being on roids these days, too?
Thank you – have a nice day!
by rubesANdbabes on Jan 15, 2012 2:02 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed