So why isn't "Sweet" Lou in the Hall of Fame?

[DTroppens]

I don't have issues with Lou not in, just as I wouldn't if he was in.

But I did see this list....
Top WAR players NOT in the HOF.

This was done in 2010, so some of this has changed. But everyone above Lou will be in or would be in if not for controversy. And quite a few people below him are now in as well.

BTW, Tram isn't that far down the list.

WAR Data: Best Position Players Not In the Hall of Fame » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive

[Charles Liston]

Yeah, Jim Campbell admitted that he let the '68 team get old. As for the '80's I really liked what Herndon brought to the '84 team but it would have been nice to move him then, and see what HoJo could do in left in '85. In any case, that was an underachieving team for sure and it doesn't do your Hall chances any good to miss opprtunities like that.

[Antrat]

Some guy called into Boers and Bernstein today and said that he didn't think Greg Maddux should be a first ballot Hall of Famer, because he never overpowered anyone and because all his wins came from the benefit of a big strike zone.

That guy is an idiot.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Yeah, Jim Campbell admitted that he let the '68 team get old. As for the '80's I really liked what Herndon brought to the '84 team but it would have been nice to move him then, and see what HoJo could do in left in '85. In any case, that was an underachieving team for sure and it doesn't do your Hall chances any good to miss opprtunities like that.

Campbell/Fetzer ate dollars and crapped dimes - he and Lajoie couldn't adjust to the new economic paradigms in baseball, and it showed by the late 80's.

[Motor City Sonics]

I think the fact that Tram & Lou never sought much publicity is a big reason why they are not in. Lou Whitaker is a strange man - a very strange man - and very aloof. Not a bad guy by any means, but not exactly chummy to many people. Tram was flat out humble - even to the point of not having an agent or making ab big deal about his contracts.

Morris did't get 300 wins. He didn't get 3,000 strikeouts. He never won a Cy Young or Cy Young Rummer Up. I can see why (in the stat-driven mind) he hasn't gotten in - but I think he will get in within the next two years.

Gibson - not even close. He had some great moments, but he wasn't a great player.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I don't have issues with Lou not in, just as I wouldn't if he was in.

But I did see this list....
Top WAR players NOT in the HOF.

This was done in 2010, so some of this has changed. But everyone above Lou will be in or would be in if not for controversy. And quite a few people below him are now in as well.

BTW, Tram isn't that far down the list.

WAR Data: Best Position Players Not In the Hall of Fame » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive

The top 8 on that list, without one shred of doubt in my mind, deserve to be in the HOF:

Lou Whitaker	69.7	1977	1995	2390	8570	1386	2369	420	65	244	1084	1197	143	75	.276	.363	.426	.789	*4/D
Barry Larkin	68.9	1986	2004	2180	7937	1329	2340	441	76	198	960	939	379	77	.295	.371	.444	.815	*6/4D
Bobby Grich	67.6	1970	1986	2008	6890	1033	1833	320	47	224	864	1087	104	83	.266	.371	.424	.794	*46/35D
Edgar Martinez	67.2	1987	2004	2055	7213	1219	2247	514	15	309	1261	1283	49	30	.312	.418	.515	.933	*D5/3
Alan Trammell	66.9	1977	1996	2293	8288	1231	2365	412	55	185	1003	850	236	109	.285	.352	.415	.767	*6/D5478
Ron Santo	66.4	1960	1974	2243	8143	1138	2254	365	67	342	1331	1108	35	41	.277	.362	.464	.826	*5/4D6739
Roberto Alomar	64.1	1988	2004	2379	9073	1508	2724	504	80	210	1134	1032	474	114	.300	.371	.443	.814	*4/D6
Tim Raines	64.0

[TJ]

I remember reading an article by Bill James back around 1986 about how the Tigers had historically never made the big moves to turn a great team into a dynasty. He felt they were always content to stand pat and that it held them back. It was more of an opinion piece than a statistical analysis. He wrote that it happened back in the the 30s, 40s and 60s and that it seemed to be happening again in the 80s. It was depressing to read at the time. The current team has not won any championships yet, but you can't accuse them of standing pat.

Well, that's hard to say. The 1930s Tigers, who could have been a dynasty, were sidetracked by the Yankees developing into the greatest dynasty in the sport's history at about the same time. Mickey Cochrane's beaning didn't help, but IIRC James also had an article which showed he was on the definite downswing as a player before the beaning.

The 1960s-70s group was sidetracked by the Orioles also putting together a real dynasty. Also the sudden flameout of Denny McLain's career -- comparable to Cochrane's injury -- didn't help either, although the franchise certainly recovered with the highway-robbery deal with the Senators. But still McLain having a normal progression of his career probably would have won the Tigers another pennant or so in the period 1967-73.

The 1980s grouping was probably the REAL lost dynasty in the history of the Tigers franchise. There was no other superteam dominating the AL in the 1980s -- the Tigers probably should have been that team.

While we're playing "what might have been," I suppose the 1980s Tigers could also have had a prime-of-his-career Mark Fidrych as the ace of the staff.

[tiger337]

Well, that's hard to say. The 1930s Tigers, who could have been a dynasty, were sidetracked by the Yankees developing into the greatest dynasty in the sport's history at about the same time. Mickey Cochrane's beaning didn't help, but IIRC James also had an article which showed he was on the definite downswing as a player before the beaning.

The 1960s-70s group was sidetracked by the Orioles also putting together a real dynasty. Also the sudden flameout of Denny McLain's career didn't help either, although the franchise certainly recovered with the highway-robbery deal with the Senators. But still McLain having a normal progression of his career probably would have won the Tigers another pennant or so in the period 1967-73.

The 1980s grouping was probably the REAL lost dynasty in the history of the Tigers franchise. There was no other superteam dominating the AL in the 1980s -- the Tigers probably should have been that team.

Good points. They did let their late 60s team get old without attempting to update it though. The mid sixties were winnable too, especially 1967. That was a great team and I think they could have gotten more out of it. I do think the Tigers have historically kept their great teams together and not made bold moves to take it to the next level. I actually don't think that's all bad. I like seeing teams develop their own and watch the team grow together.

By the way, Cochrane was close to being done as a player before the beaning and had a nervous breakdown the previous year. It probably affected him more as a manager than as a player.

[DTroppens]

That's crazy. For the most part can't you say that about almost EVERY SINGLE AL TEAM AFTER BABE RUTH JOINED THE YANKEES? Of course, not including the Yankees.

No one, certainly during the eight-team AL era once Babe became a Yankee, were competing with the Yankees and becoming a dynasty.

Yet, the Tigers had their share of success. And certainly had it from 1934 right up until 1950. You can excuse 1942-1944 because of WW2. No one had their "legit" teams then. And even 1945 had only some of the players back by season's end. But all the other seasons the Tigers had firsts in 1934, 1935 and 1940 with seconds in 1936, 1937, 1946, 1947 and 1950. So in 12 seasons (and I'm not even counting 1945 when the Tigers won the World Championship since that was still more or less a war season) the Tigers won four AL pennants and took second five other seasons. Was anyone else competing that consistently well against the Yankees at that time?

But it's not like the Tigers didn't make key moves to win those World Series titles. Cochrane before 1934, Newsome during 1939 and then Bartell before 1940. In 1945, there was nothing to trade to make the World Series. Most everyone still wasn't home. In 1968 they didn't do anything dramatic, but it's a good thing they didn't. And if it wasn't up to managers having faulty health (1966) and then Kaline's injury and McLain's mob/accident injury (1967), that had the chance of being a pretty good era. And in 1984 they traded for Willie Hernandez but were very active to get Darrell Evans in free agency.

Yeah, the Tigers weren't crazy aggressive. But, who from 1920 until 1970 really was? It seems like a weird thing to bring up.

[TJ]

Actually the Yankees' dynasty didn't REALLY take off until Babe Ruth left -- during the 14 seasons Ruth was in NY, the Yankees won 7 AL pennants, but so did Cleveland, Washington 3 (!!) and Philadelphia 3 during that time span.

It was only after Ruth left and the DiMaggio-era group took over that the Yankees began their era of near-TOTAL dominance of the AL.

[DaBishop]

I don't have issues with Lou not in, just as I wouldn't if he was in.

But I did see this list....
Top WAR players NOT in the HOF.

This was done in 2010, so some of this has changed. But everyone above Lou will be in or would be in if not for controversy. And quite a few people below him are now in as well.

BTW, Tram isn't that far down the list.

WAR Data: Best Position Players Not In the Hall of Fame » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive

Not to get off track, but the craziest thing I see on this list is for a guy often considered to be one of the best ever in baseball lore, Shoeless Joe's WAR is nothing to write home about.

[tiger337]

Yeah, the Tigers weren't crazy aggressive. But, who from 1920 until 1970 really was? It seems like a weird thing to bring up.

You may be right. I tried to find Bill James' article to see what he said about the teams of the 30s and 40s, but couldn't find it. Without studying it a lot more carefully, I'm not sure what they could have done especially in the 40s with World War II.

[TigersFan81371]

I was watching a countdown on MLB Network last night: Top 40 Players Not In The Hall Of Fame. I didn't catch the very beginning, so I don't know if there was a specific formula they were using to determine their rankings. Freehan was in there, near the bottom. Whitaker was right around 22 or 23. Tram was 7. Morris was 2. For the record, Tim Raines was 1.

[tiger337]

Not to get off track, but the craziest thing I see on this list is for a guy often considered to be one of the best ever in baseball lore, Shoeless Joe's WAR is nothing to write home about.

That's because he was banned from baseball at age 30 for his involvement in the Black Sox scandal.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

While we're playing "what might have been," I suppose the 1980s Tigers could also have had a prime-of-his-career Mark Fidrych as the ace of the staff.

Unless Mark learned to strike a lot more people out, I'd say it was unlikely he would have been in the majors in 1985, injury or not.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I was watching a countdown on MLB Network last night: Top 40 Players Not In The Hall Of Fame. I didn't catch the very beginning, so I don't know if there was a specific formula they were using to determine their rankings. Freehan was in there, near the bottom. Whitaker was right around 22 or 23. Tram was 7. Morris was 2. For the record, Tim Raines was 1.

Morris at #2 told me all I needed to know about the list.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Didn't the Tigers go and get Al Simmons, Earl Averill, Alvin Crowder and guys like that to bolster the team in the 30's? I don't think they were done in by lack of aggressiveness. They seemed to be fairly aggressive and free spending for that era.

I'd say the biggest thing that did the Tigers in the late 30's was that Schoolboy Rowe got injured and they couldn't find an arm to replace him. By the time Newhouser got good, the core had completely aged out. Too bad they let Carl Hubbell get away - he would have helped them in a big way in competeing against the Yankees.

[TigersFan81371]

Here's a blog about MLB Network's list.

MLB Network’s Top 40 Non-Hall of Famers « Brettkiser's Blog

[tiger337]

Morris at #2 told me all I needed to know about the list.

I'm sure MLB had to list him high whether the creators of the list agreed with it or not.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Actually the Yankees' dynasty didn't REALLY take off until Babe Ruth left -- during the 14 seasons Ruth was in NY, the Yankees won 7 AL pennants, but so did Cleveland, Washington 3 (!!) and Philadelphia 3 during that time span.

It was only after Ruth left and the DiMaggio-era group took over that the Yankees began their era of near-TOTAL dominance of the AL.

Bear in mind that the late 20's A's were an absolutely loaded team - they practically make up a wing of the Hall of Fame and all deserving. I'd say there wasn't any team in the AL competeing against the Yankees from 1936 - 1960 that were comparable to those A's teams.

Washington had Walter Johnson putting up pretty good seasons with fine support for the first two pennants, and the third Senators' pennant (1933) Ruth was not nearly the player he had been (though he was still damned good).

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I'm sure MLB had to list him high whether the creators of the list agreed with it or not.

Why? There are any number of guys that were famous that could have been slotted there. Or are you suggesting they did that to help justify how well Jack has done in the HoF voting?

[Yoda]

Morris at #2 told me all I needed to know about the list.

That is how the Hall selects it's players though. He's probably the 2nd closest guy to actually getting in... or close to it. There list is probably pretty accurate from the standpoint of who will actually get in, whether we agree with it or not.

[tiger337]

Or are you suggesting they did that to help justify how well Jack has done in the HoF voting?

This is what I meant. He's probably going to get in next year, so I think they had to rank him high.

[The Truman Show]

Unless Mark learned to strike a lot more people out, I'd say it was unlikely he would have been in the majors in 1985, injury or not.

I doubt that. He would have just been an 80s version of Doug Fister. His K/BB was still well above average.

[DTroppens]

Actually the Yankees' dynasty didn't REALLY take off until Babe Ruth left -- during the 14 seasons Ruth was in NY, the Yankees won 7 AL pennants, but so did Cleveland, Washington 3 (!!) and Philadelphia 3 during that time span.

It was only after Ruth left and the DiMaggio-era group took over that the Yankees began their era of near-TOTAL dominance of the AL.

But I think seven in 14 years is pretty good.
That's not leaving much for anyone else.

[DTroppens]

Not to get off track, but the craziest thing I see on this list is for a guy often considered to be one of the best ever in baseball lore, Shoeless Joe's WAR is nothing to write home about.

I noticed that too.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I doubt that. He would have just been an 80s version of Doug Fister.

Yeah - his K/BB in 77 was impressive, albeit in a limited number of innings. If he was able to maintain a BB/9 at or under 1.5 and a K/9 north of 5, he would have not only had no trouble being in the league at age 30, he would have been pretty damned effective. OTOH, I don't know as that is a reasonable assumption either. Something in between '76 and '77 would have likely made him a #3 or #4 pitcher, and not the anchor of the rotation as suggested.

In summary, I overstated. I also don't think Fidrych was likely to be an ace for the Tigers '83 - '87, though.

[DTroppens]

You may be right. I tried to find Bill James' article to see what he said about the teams of the 30s and 40s, but couldn't find it. Without studying it a lot more carefully, I'm not sure what they could have done especially in the 40s with World War II.

I liked what Bill James did for baseball by getting the statistical data out there for people and expanding what we knew about baseball through that data, but let's face it, he wasn't the best friend of the Tigers back in the 1980s. He always seemed to have an ax to grind when it came to the Tigers, particularly Sparky. And to think the guy that traditionally will back whatever he says with the data suddenly doesn't do it. Come on, you know if he thought that was the case about the Tigers, he stayed up one night until 5 a.m. to see if he was right. When he couldn't do it, he threw it out there as "a thought."

Maybe history is distorting in my mind how "bad" or "little" it was, but I remember thinking frequently "Gosh, give the Tigers a break already" a lot when I read stuff he did, opened my Abstracts and stuff like that. If I get a chance, I'm going to check my 80s Abstracts tonight.

I think he suffered from Tiger-envy in the 1980s. He wanted to be a Tiger fan, but didn't know how he could make that happen.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

But I think seven in 14 years is pretty good.
That's not leaving much for anyone else.

7 in 14 years only looks bad in comparison to a couple other Yankee eras and maybe the Jackie Robinson Dodger era.

The Tigers have only made 10 World Series in 110 years, for example, and they have been fairly competitive for most of their existance.

EDIT: In 110 years, the Tigers have won 4 World's Series. In 14 years with the Babe, the Yankees won 4.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I liked what Bill James did for baseball by getting the statistical data out there for people and expanding what we knew about baseball through that data, but let's face it, he wasn't the best friend of the Tigers back in the 1980s. He always seemed to have an ax to grind when it came to the Tigers, particularly Sparky. And to think the guy that traditionally will back whatever he says with the data suddenly doesn't do it. Come on, you know if he thought that was the case about the Tigers, he stayed up one night until 5 a.m. to see if he was right. When he couldn't do it, he threw it out there as "a thought."

Maybe history is distorting in my mind how "bad" or "little" it was, but I remember thinking frequently "Gosh, give the Tigers a break already" a lot when I read stuff he did, opened my Abstracts and stuff like that. If I get a chance, I'm going to check my 80s Abstracts tonight.

I think he suffered from Tiger-envy in the 1980s. He wanted to be a Tiger fan, but didn't know how he could make that happen.

The Tigers played tough against his Royals. FWIW. And Sparky and him didn't seem to like one another, IIRC.

[DTroppens]

I was watching a countdown on MLB Network last night: Top 40 Players Not In The Hall Of Fame. I didn't catch the very beginning, so I don't know if there was a specific formula they were using to determine their rankings. Freehan was in there, near the bottom. Whitaker was right around 22 or 23. Tram was 7. Morris was 2. For the record, Tim Raines was 1.

I always thought Freehan was the No. 1 Tiger to have a beef. Dominant AL catcher for 10 years with a good bat and good glove. One can make a pretty good argument he was the AL MVP in 1968, particularly considering he was a catcher.

[tiger337]

I liked what Bill James did for baseball by getting the statistical data out there for people and expanding what we knew about baseball through that data, but let's face it, he wasn't the best friend of the Tigers back in the 1980s. He always seemed to have an ax to grind when it came to the Tigers, particularly Sparky. And to think the guy that traditionally will back whatever he says with the data suddenly doesn't do it. Come on, you know if he thought that was the case about the Tigers, he stayed up one night until 5 a.m. to see if he was right. When he couldn't do it, he threw it out there as "a thought."

Maybe history is distorting in my mind how "bad" or "little" it was, but I remember thinking frequently "Gosh, give the Tigers a break already" a lot when I read stuff he did, opened my Abstracts and stuff like that. If I get a chance, I'm going to check my 80s Abstracts tonight.

I think he suffered from Tiger-envy in the 1980s. He wanted to be a Tiger fan, but didn't know how he could make that happen.

Everybody was praising the Tigers during that time, so he would point out things about them which weren't so good. He was always a contrarian like that. I doubt he was envious since his favorite team - the Royals - was also successful during that period.

I think the Tigers did disappoint during the 80s, so he was right about that. That 1984 team was one of the greatest teams for any franchise I've watched in my life and the next couple of years were a big let down.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I always thought Freehan was the No. 1 Tiger to have a beef. Dominant AL catcher for 10 years with a good bat and good glove. One can make a pretty good argument he was the AL MVP in 1968, particularly considering he was a catcher.

Freehan, Trammell, and Whitaker all have much better cases than Morris.

I also think Tommy Bridges and Dick McAuliffe have better cases as well.

And Darrell Evans, while I think on it.

But I don't think nearly as highly of Morris' career (relative to HoF standards) as most, I'd guess.

[DTroppens]

I was just looking at the Tigers' 1941 minor league affiliates to see if the war hurt them. There are the obvious suspects on some of the teams but two popped out that the Tigers never had on their team.

Sal Maglie and Eddie Robinson.
Both left Tiger affiliated team between the 1941 and 1942 seasons. That didn't help matters. It would've been nice to see them stay on Detroit teams.

But even in 1941 you have Birdie Tebbetts, Rudy York, Barney McCoskey, Hank Greenberg, Hal Newhouser, Dizzy Trout and even Tommy Bridges on the team. That's a nice nucleus for a few years.
On one team you had Hutchinson, Mullin and Trucks coming up and probably ready to contribute. On another Evers. That's a pretty nice group to start with. I know the Yankees put together a pretty nice group as well, but the Tigers are certainly capable of competing with the Yankees in 1942-1945 (the Tigers won in 1945, but I'm looking at that as a war year without the studs around for the most part). It's too bad that era didn't play itself out.

It's also too bad the Tigers didn't keep at least Maglie
Your rotation could've been
Bridges, Maglie, Trout, Newhouser and Trucks for a few years. Wow, would've that been a nice five. And Maglie was more than ready to join the show when he left for the War based on his minor league numbers.

Here's the Tigers' farm system (actually everyone's farm system) in 1941.

1941 Minor League Affiliations - Baseball-Reference.com

[DTroppens]

I thought he was a Boston fan. If I knew he was a Royals' fan, I forgot.

[DTroppens]

I'm creating a baseball set of cards for Statis-Pro baseball for the 1932 Texas League. If you see Beaumont's squad, then it's easy to see why.

1932 Beaumont Exporters Statistics -- Minor Leagues - Baseball-Reference.com

But, St. Louis' Houston team in the Texas League a year earlier had that team beat pretty good.
1931 Houston Buffaloes Statistics -- Minor Leagues - Baseball-Reference.com
Seeing Dizzy Dean and Joe Medwick on the same Texas League team had to be pretty cool.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I thought he was a Boston fan. If I knew he was a Royals' fan, I forgot.

He is a Royals fan. He went to work for the Red Sox.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I was just looking at the Tigers' 1941 minor league affiliates to see if the war hurt them. There are the obvious suspects on some of the teams but two popped out that the Tigers never had on their team.

Sal Maglie and Eddie Robinson.
Both left Tiger affiliated team between the 1941 and 1942 seasons. That didn't help matters. It would've been nice to see them stay on Detroit teams.

But even in 1941 you have Birdie Tebbetts, Rudy York, Barney McCoskey, Hank Greenberg, Hal Newhouser, Dizzy Trout and even Tommy Bridges on the team. That's a nice nucleus for a few years.
On one team you had Hutchinson, Mullin and Trucks coming up and probably ready to contribute. On another Evers. That's a pretty nice group to start with. I know the Yankees put together a pretty nice group as well, but the Tigers are certainly capable of competing with the Yankees in 1942-1945 (the Tigers won in 1945, but I'm looking at that as a war year without the studs around for the most part). It's too bad that era didn't play itself out.

It's also too bad the Tigers didn't keep at least Maglie
Your rotation could've been
Bridges, Maglie, Trout, Newhouser and Trucks for a few years. Wow, would've that been a nice five. And Maglie was more than ready to join the show when he left for the War based on his minor league numbers.

Here's the Tigers' farm system (actually everyone's farm system) in 1941.

1941 Minor League Affiliations - Baseball-Reference.com

What also hurt them, though it wasn't in that time frame, but rather right after the war was letting Billy Pierce go. That was a historically dumb move.

[The Truman Show]

Yeah - his K/BB in 77 was impressive, albeit in a limited number of innings. If he was able to maintain a BB/9 at or under 1.5 and a K/9 north of 5, he would have not only had no trouble being in the league at age 30, he would have been pretty damned effective. OTOH, I don't know as that is a reasonable assumption either. Something in between '76 and '77 would have likely made him a #3 or #4 pitcher, and not the anchor of the rotation as suggested.

In summary, I overstated. I also don't think Fidrych was likely to be an ace for the Tigers '83 - '87, though.

It's really impossible to say. We would need data to see if hitters could have adjusted to him or not. But what he did in 76 was not like a Galarraga-esque insane feat of BABIP or something similarly unique.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

It's really impossible to say. We would need data to see if hitters could have adjusted to him or not. But what he did in 76 was not like a Galarraga-esque insane feat of BABIP or something similarly unique.

It isn't like his K/BB was otherworldly, either.