Which of these players would you elect to the Hall?

[Triad]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Yet, 60 years ago, there was a shortstop who outhit almost every walloping first-baseman for a decade (Vern Stephens), and nobody takes his HoF credentials seriously. If Stephens' actual credentials were bolstered by today's automatic shortstop value-increment, he would be a front-runner. In fact, compared to Lou Boudreau (who is in the Hall), Stephens outhit Boudreau in many seasons of their congruent careers, always with much more power.

I've always thought that both Stephens and Trammell belong in. To me, if a player is better than at least a third of the players at his position already in the Hall, he should get in.

[jtur88]

Boy, that was really quick. Can you also delete his crap, or is banning all you can do?

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Triad

I've always thought that both Stephens and Trammell belong in. To me, if a player is better than at least a third of the players at his position already in the Hall, he should get in.

Trammel opens the Tinker/Evers/Chance conumdrum. How do you put Trammel in, without Whitaker? And few of their contemporaries would have traded Frank White even-up for Whitaker, so (stats notwithstanding), you'd have to consider White too. And then you have to hold at bay all the advocacies for Trillo, Randolph, and Lopes.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Trammel opens the Tinker/Evers/Chance conumdrum. How do you put Trammel in, without Whitaker? And few of their contemporaries would have traded Frank White even-up for Whitaker, so (stats notwithstanding), you'd have to consider White too. And then you have to hold at bay all the advocacies for Trillo, Randolph, and Lopes.

Not to mention Jr. Gilliam.

The above references what I call the "Trickle Down" approach to HoF inductions and is the main reason why I argue that we should have fewer players being inducted and no players added who have already gone through elligibility and been rebuffed.

The bumper sticker summary is....any argument about someone's shrine worthy qualifications which rests on comparing him to the worst players who have been inducted, is an argument which when extended to its logical conclusion, winds up inducting nearly everyone. If Orlando Cepeda is in, how can we not induct Tony Perez? And if Tony Perez is in, how can we not induct Ron Santo? Okay, so we induct Ron Santo and then it becomes "If Ron Santo is in, how can we not induct Greg Nettles?" Then we induct Greg Nettles and it becomes "If Greg Nettles is in, how can we not induct Pedro Guerrero?" And if Pedro is in, how do we neglect Rusty Staub and if Rusty Staub is in how do we overlook Jimmy Wynn, Boog Powell..etc etc etc. and before you know it, the Hall is chockoblock with George Foster, Darrel Evans and Aurelio Lopez and so on.

The answer to this problem is not inducting Orlando Cepeda in the first place. Sure he was a terrific hitter for a few years, but he was never the mega star of the league, he wasn't even the megastar of his own team. Tony Perez wasn't the best player on the Big Red Machine, he was behind Morgan, Bench and Rose. Not putting them into the HoF doesn't turn them into retroactive bad players, but it does recognize that there is a large gap between very good and excellent.

Applied to the Trammel argument, I take the position that he does not belong. The mere fact that it is hard to argue why Trammel should be in while Lou Whitaker is denied, tells us that we should not induct Trammel. Trammel was a terrific player, a wonderful asset to the Tigers and had that tremendously impressive season in '87. But was he the biggest star at his position during his career? No, Yount, Ripken and Ozzie were the stars. Did he have any benchmark stats such as 3000 hits, 700 stolen bases, a lifetime .300 hitter, numerous consecutive gold glove awards, ten or more All Star appearances? Nope...he wasn't close to any of those things.

Was he an annual contender for the MVP award? (No, he finished in the top ten three times, never won...although perhaps he should have in '87.) Was he the best player on a team which made the post season on a regular basis? No, in 20 seasons, the Tigers reached the post season twice.

So...what are the arguments for his induction? That he was a solid shortstop for a decent team? That's HoF material?

[WilsonC]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Would anyone argue that if Ichiro had begun his career in MLB rather than in Japan, his numbers would have been mediocre or poor, and then suddenly at age 28 he would have turned into Ichiro!, the .330 hitter he has been while in MLB?

I think that as with the case of Jackie Robinson, you take circumstances into account and back end the stats for him. I think that had Ichiro begun over here, he would be a cinch for 3000 hits and 500 stolen bases, numbers which would get him into the HoF with or without the fact that he was a pioneer.

There is precedent for voters considering circumstances, Jackie Robinson, Sandy Koufax and Kirby Puckett all were inducted because the voters chose to fill in those missing numbers. In the case of Albert Belle, they have elected not to do so. Does Ichiro belong with that first group or with Albert?

I think one of the interesting things with Ichiro is that we actually do have a reliable record of his playing performance prior to coming over to MLB. There's speculation, of course, in terms of imperfect translations of how Japanese competition compares with MLB competition, but in his case his first full season in Japan was very similar to his last full season - there's year-to-year fluctuation, but it's pretty much a straight line in terms of his playing level from age 20 to 26 in Japan. Then, starting immediately he's played at a consistent level since coming to MLB - again, year-to-year fluctuation, but more or less a straight line in playing level. Based on that, there's really only two plausible possibilities:
1. He was a consistent player from age 20 to 26, then took a dramatic leap forward before his age 27 season, or
2. He's been playing at a more or less consistent level since age 20.

With contact hitting typically being one of the first skills to peak, the second seems far more likely. If this is true, it's really not even a particularly strong speculation to suggest that, had he started his career in MLB from the time he was ready to be an everyday player, he'd have a realistic shot at Rose's hits record.

[Triad]

I would argue that Trammell was the best shortstop in baseball cumulatively from 1987-1990, which is rather impressive, though still on its own not enough to be worthy of the Hall. Trammell basically took over the mantle from Ripken, who could claim it from 1983-1986. Ozzie Smith was never the best shortstop in baseball for any multi-year period. Robin Yount went to the outfield in 1985.

Trammell had five seasons at 130 OPS+ or better. That is an excellent extended peak for shortstops.

Comparisons with all the BBWAA shortstop selections:
14 - Honus Wagner
6 - Ernie Banks
5 - Robin Yount (3 as shortstop)
5 - Alan Trammell
4 - Lou Boudreau
3 - Cal Ripken
3 - Joe Cronin
2 - Luke Appling
0 - Rabbit Maranville
0 - Ozzie Smith
0 - Luis Aparicio

Other various shortstops:
11 - Alex Rodriguez (7 as shortstop)
7 - Arky Vaughan (should've been a BBWAA selection)
5 - George Davis
5 - Barry Larkin
3 - Vern Stephens
3 - Bill Dahlen
3 - Nomar Garciaparra
2 - Derek Jeter
1 - Miguel Tejada

So Trammell is in very good company. His other years weren't too bad either. He also had a 120 and 113 season, which would be the 2nd or 3rd best seasons for a lot of these guys.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The mere fact that it is hard to argue why Trammel should be in while Lou Whitaker is denied, tells us that we should not induct Trammel.

Trammell's worthiness has nothing to do with Whitaker. They were two separate people. I consider Whitaker a borderline candidate. Whitaker had four 130 OPS+ seasons, although for 2nd basemen it's not quite as impressive as it would be for shortstops. Their career stats are quite similar, but look a little deeper. Whitaker received MVP votes only once, finishing 8th. Trammell had finishes of 2nd, 7th, 9th, 15th, 19th, 20th, and 21st. That shows a noticeable discrepancy between the two players. Trammell was regarded several times as a premier player while Whitaker wasn't.

This is why looking at career totals is so deceiving. It can make consisently good players seem like very good players.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Was he an annual contender for the MVP award? (No, he finished in the top ten three times, never won...although perhaps he should have in '87.)

That's actually quite good for a shortstop.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The bumper sticker summary is....any argument about someone's shrine worthy qualifications which rests on comparing him to the worst players who have been inducted, is an argument which when extended to its logical conclusion, winds up inducting nearly everyone.

I agree with this. The lowest common denominator argument isnt' a good one, as you say. However, if a player is better than 1/3rd of the players at his position who are already in, isn't that a decent argument? Not rock solid, but pretty decent. And by the way, Graig Nettles couldn't hold Ron Santo's jockstrap. Santo had six seasons of 130 OPS+ or better, and Nettles had only one. Nettles' career high was 134, while Santo had seasons of 164, 161, and 153. If you're going to use examples to make your point, you need better ones than that. Don't be talkin' smack about my man Santo. He's more deserving than half the players who are in the Hall right now.

One other thing, Tony Perez is somewhat underrated by those who say he's overrated. Perez' first five full seasons were as a 3rd baseman, which give them even more value. He had seasons at 3B of 158, 140, 125, 121 and 120 OPS+. And of course he wasn't the best player on his team. He had three other upper level Hall of Fame caliber players alongside him. This is no sin.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Based on that, there's really only two plausible possibilities:
1. He [Ichiro] was a consistent player from age 20 to 26, then took a dramatic leap forward before his age 27 season, or
2. He's been playing at a more or less consistent level since age 20.

I believe you're right. Probabilistically, the odds are overwhelming that the bridge from age 26 to age 27 was not that much of a jump, considering there were no other large jumps anywhere else in his Japan and U.S. careers. One of Ichiro's greatest attributes is his consistency.

Welcome back, WilsonC. Haven't seen you around in a while. Did you come back to see if anyone was threatening Jimmy Rollins' AB record?

[jtur88]

And that raises the Sadaharu Oh question.

[Grandstander]

Triad

Trammell's worthiness has nothing to do with Whitaker.

Oh, I know. I was commenting on the remarks of others, not trying to compare them. My reference was to the fact that people fuse them as Hall candidates, and whether that is justified or not, it is a factor in considering induction to a Hall which calls itself "Fame."

You are taking the left brained approach, employing weighted stats to establish that Trammel does compare to other greats in some areas. Most of the time I'm a pure left brainer myself, but here we are dealing with art and that is a right brain venue, To wit:

My theory is that we should pay more attention to that "fame" part. Consider:

We have those players whose early accomplisments are such that after only a few years, we are saying things like "Barring injury, he's a lock for the Hall." We would say this now about Albert Pujols and Johan Santana, we are almost ready to say it about David Wright and Brandon Webb. In the past we said it about Frank Thomas and Rickey Henderson and Cal Ripken and we were right. We said it about Will Clark and Bret Saberhagen and Don Mattingly and we were wrong. Let us collect both the winners and losers in the above class and call them the "Buzz Players"...the ones who before they turn 30, force the fans to start thinking of them as probable HoFers.

Then there is another class, the non buzzers, the ones who you don't really think of as Hall candidates until they are close to, or have already retired. Trammel falls into this class, as did Tony Perez and it's these types of players against whom I wish to discriminate. Reduced to a slogan it would be...."If when people are watching you play, they aren't thinking of you as a Hall of Famer, then you probably aren't one."

What I favor is a Hall composed of the winners from that first class exclusively. I want it filled with those players that entered the Hall speculation realm before they turned 30. Who doesn't belong by my standards are the ones who finish their careers and become candidates as afterthoughts. And that's describes Trammel. There wasn't any buzz about him as a HoFer while he was playing. Keep in mind, my argument isn't about wheter or not there should have been more buzz, it is that the absense of a buzz means that the fans aren't seeing him as an immortal of the game.



So,when you come at me with your statistical arguments, I do not reject them as false, I demand that they be accompanied by buzz. I suppose that it is a matter of private prejudice, but my preference is for an exclusive Hall, one which admits only those players who everyone recognized as big stars.

Further, I would modify the admissions procedures so that a player is elligible just once, none of this reject for several years and then admit stuff. What is that anyway, some form of writer's punishment for players? Sure, you can go in the Hall, but I'm sentencing you to a few years of purgatory first? Since the Hall is not set up on a graded scale and all members are considered qualified, then a simple, one time yes or no ought to be all we need. Instead we have this unofficial defacto class system the voters conduct... he's a first ballot, he has to wait a year, he has to wait five years and he has to wait for the vets committee. It isn't as though a person becomes any more or less qualified for the Hall the longer that they are made to wait, The stats stay the same, so the determination can be made with one vote. They don't need extra years to convince themselves that Soandso was a Hall of Famer after all. And those extra years always mean that we are dealing with a player that the voters actually question as a candidate.

One shot voting would really sharpen the standards and most likely eliminate those afterthought style candidates.

Please class all that I write here as an expression of what I would like rather than some argument that this is the only correct way to do it. Other people obviously think differently and we should keep in mind we aren't talking about anything that serious. The HoF is a private organization launched as a gimmick to promote tourism for Cooperstown NY via exploitation of the invention of baseball myth. It's a museum and arguing about which pieces of art belong and which do not, is always going to ultimately be a matter of some fairly random ideas which we develop.

And that's what I meant about art and right brained thinking being a factor. Numbers alone aren't enough, the art part is the fame part. If you wish to allow the metaphor to wash over you, a possible response from you might be be that Trammel is one of those works of art that isn't found to be great until after the artist's death.

[WilsonC]

Originally Posted by Triad

Welcome back, WilsonC. Haven't seen you around in a while. Did you come back to see if anyone was threatening Jimmy Rollins' AB record?

That AB record is an exciting one! I've just been a little busier here lately.

One of the things with a player like Trammell - and Whitaker falls in the same basic category - is that he was the type of player who wasn't elite at any one skill, but rather someone who was good to very good at a number of skills. He was a good contact hitter, but no .320 hitter. He had solid power for the position, but wasn't a 30 HR threat. He could run, but wasn't the type to steal 30+ bases a year. He had pretty good plat discipline, but didn't have leadoff-type OBP's. He was a very good fielder, but he wasn't Ozzie.

In a lot of cases, a player like Trammell tends to be overlooked, because he's not on many leader boards and doesn't win as many accolades as guys who dominate a particular area of the game. Of his contemporaries, I'm comfortable saying Ripken was a greater player. Beyond that, though, I don't think Yount was any better, rather he was about as good over a longer period to achieve a magic milestone. Nor do I consider Ozzie better - he was also about as good, but with his value concentrated very strongly on defense.

Santo's a little bit like that as well - he's a player with a balanced skillset, of the level that is typically elected easily, but because of his lack of dominance in a specific area was overlooked.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

We have those players whose early accomplisments are such that after only a few years, we are saying things like "Barring injury, he's a lock for the Hall." We would say this now about Albert Pujols and Johan Santana, we are almost ready to say it about David Wright and Brandon Webb. In the past we said it about Frank Thomas and Rickey Henderson and Cal Ripken and we were right. We said it about Will Clark and Bret Saberhagen and Don Mattingly and we were wrong. Let us collect both the winners and losers in the above class and call them the "Buzz Players"...the ones who before they turn 30, force the fans to start thinking of them as probable HoFers.

Then there is another class, the non buzzers, the ones who you don't really think of as Hall candidates until they are close to, or have already retired. Trammel falls into this class, as did Tony Perez and it's these types of players against whom I wish to discriminate. Reduced to a slogan it would be...."If when people are watching you play, they aren't thinking of you as a Hall of Famer, then you probably aren't one."

I hear where you're coming from now, and that's fair if you're consistent about it. It's all a matter of where you want to draw the line. This is the basic argument that makes me question Bert Blyleven's or Phil Niekro's worthiness. They were never one of the best pitchers in the game for any multi-year period. And they didn't have that buzz you speak of. I think the worst element of Hall of Fame selection is in reaching arbitrary career milestones. I believe 3000 H, 500 HR, or 300 W aren't necessarily enough. It can depend in what context they occurred. Doc Cramer had 2705 hits, and with any luck he could've had 3000, but he still would've been no better than the likes of Willie McGee. Cramer played only 13 full seasons, but he had the misfortune of not getting his first full season in until he was 27. In another universe, he could have conceivably had 3200 hits, and still been a marginal player. He never had any very good seasons. And yet he would've been voted into the Hall for longevity and nothing else. Someday we're going to get other players like this coming along. It's bound to happen.

I personally think there are too many in the Hall of Fame right now. All of Frankie Frisch's buddies (heck, take Frisch himself out of the Hall for mucking it up so bad if we're looking for scandals!), Rizzuto, Mazeroski, Ozzie Smith, Phil Niekro, Ernie Lombardi, Early Wynn, George Kell, etc. Of the 230 or so Hall of Fame players, there's a wide discrepancy when you get to the lower 25%. It's a big drop-off, and that's what's disconcerting to me.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

What I favor is a Hall composed of the winners from that first class exclusively. I want it filled with those players that entered the Hall speculation realm before they turned 30.

There are going to be some notable exceptions, like Hoyt Wilhelm or Dennis Eckersley, so how do you account for those?

Also, there was the buzz for Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, and I think Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa got their fair share of buzz in the second half of their careers.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Further, I would modify the admissions procedures so that a player is elligible just once, none of this reject for several years and then admit stuff. What is that anyway, some form of writer's punishment for players?

That's reasonable. I think the process is self-serving, and leaves room for a lot of politics to go on.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

They don't need extra years to convince themselves that Soandso was a Hall of Famer after all. And those extra years always mean that we are dealing with a player that the voters actually question as a candidate.

I think it's also a clear indication that the voters are ill-informed on valuing a player's worth.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Other people obviously think differently and we should keep in mind we aren't talking about anything that serious.

It would be serious to Santo if he got in. But overall, I know what you mean.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Numbers alone aren't enough, the art part is the fame part. If you wish to allow the metaphor to wash over you, a possible response from you might be be that Trammel is one of those works of art that isn't found to be great until after the artist's death.

I can live with that. Trammell wasn't a stellar player, but if we were to pick the 200 greatest players, he'd be on the list I think. It all depends on how large you want the Hall to be.

[Grandstander]

Triad:

There are going to be some notable exceptions, like Hoyt Wilhelm or Dennis Eckersley, so how do you account for those?

Interesting cases, I think that Smoltz is going to have to rely on the "Eckersley Exception" as well. Here we are speaking of buzz players, but of buzz players whose buzz did not start until late in their careers. That's rare and I am open to making exceptions for rare circumstances. That does not describe Trammel's career, he peaked in his late 20's/early 30's and it wasn't a matter of him suddenly performing with excellence at an age where it is not expected.

I can live with that. Trammell wasn't a stellar player, but if we were to pick the 200 greatest players, he'd be on the list I think. .

I suspect that this would be a matter of the list being constructed by the left brained or right brained approach. You are correct that Trammel has the numbers behind him, I looked him up in Bill James' Win Shares book and he is tied with Jeff Bagwell and Jake Beckly for the 133rd slot all time.

But if you were deprived of the numbers and challenged to list the 200 greatest in history, would Trammel come to mind? Consider the following players...Fred Mcgriff, Bill Dickey, Ducky Medwick, Home Run Baker, Nellie Fox, Bobby Bonds, Orlando Cepeda, Jim Rice, Jim Palmer, Harold Baines....that's a sampling of players whose career Win Shares are fewer than Trammels, yet I would speculate that all of the above would get placed on a fan's list of top 200 before Trammel came to mind.

And, oh....while I was looking, I noticed that Greg Nettles, poo pooed by others as a Hall candidate, has more career Win Shares than does Trammel, he's the 128th greatest ever according to Bill James. Ron Santo is the 123rd greatest ever. Is that the difference between Hall and no Hall? Five slots in the Win Shares list? And how about Darrel Evans? Should he be in and Santo not? Evans is the 73rd greatest player ever by Win Shares. If we are going by numbers, the Santo champions really should focus on getting Darrel in first.

And one more thing...it was suggested that Ripken was the premier shortstop of the era and that Yount and Trammel were more or less even. Not so according to Win Shares. Cal collected 427 shares in his career, Yount had 423......Trammel had 318, quite a dropoff.

Ozzie Smith piled up 325 Win Shares in his career, more or less on par wiith Trammel, but you have to admit Ozzie was light years ahead of Alan in the art part, the fame part.