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

[Brian]

Going over stats his are right there with two of the best second basemen to play the game.

Joe Morgan:

268 hr

689 rbi

449 doubles

96 triples

.271 ba

Fielding % .981

Ryan Sandberg

282 hr

1061 rbi

403 doubles

76 triples

.285 ba

fielding % .989

Sweet Lou

224 hr

1084 rbi

420 doubles

65 triples

.276 ba

fielding % 984


Thoughts?

[Antrat]

Morgan had 1133 RBI ----- but I agree, Lou should be closer than he is.

[Biff Mayhem]

Joe Morgan:         268 hr 1133 rbi 449 doubles 96 triples .271 ba Fielding % .981

Ryan Sandberg       282 hr 1061 rbi 403 doubles 76 triples .285 ba fielding % .989

Sweet Lou           224 hr 1084 rbi 420 doubles 65 triples .276 ba fielding % .984

Cleaned up for easier reading.

[Antrat]

Baseball Ref has Morgan with 1133 RBI.
Joe Morgan Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

[RedRamage]

Here's my thoughts:

Some how the voters got this concept in their heads that unless you are one of the super high greats you don't deserve to get in on the first year of eligibility. It's a very odd idea in my opinion. Why is a person more eligible after they have been on the list one or more years vs. the first time?!?

Regardless, this is how many voters think. A person they might otherwise support in their 2nd or 3rd year won't get their support the first year. This is what happened to Lou. Too many voters looked at him and said: "Yeah, maybe, but he's not good enough for first year eligibility." And because too many voters felt that way, he didn't get the minimum to stay on the list. He was a victim of the silly "1st ballot means more" idea.

[tiger337]

Whitaker was not in Morgan's class as a player. He's pretty close to Sandberg. One reason I think Whitaker got so little support was because he didn't have any big years. He was very consistent and durable, but I think voters look at how many huge years a player had. There is also a theory that the Whitaker/Trammell combo hurts each individually. I believe some people tend to see them as a duo rather that than as individual stars.

I would vote for Whitaker, but you can make an argument either way. What I disagree with is that Sandberg got in so easily and Whitaker was off the ballot the first year. There was not enough difference between the two where so many would select one and not the other. I think Whitaker was wrongly overlooked.

[The Truman Show]

2B in general get killed in HOF voting. Bobby Grich is pretty close to Whitaker, and he got 2.6% of the vote.

[Antrat]

Did I mention that Morgan has 1133 RBI?

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'm hopeful that the veteran's committee will look at both Trammell and Whitaker eventually.
Still believe that certain writers (not named Lee Panas) disliked Whitaker, hurting his vote count.

[Antrat]

I see that Biff corrected the RBI thingy.
Good.
It was like that booger on someone's face that is bothering the hell out of you.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Better than a face on a booger though.

[Charlie1]

I'm hopeful that the veteran's committee will look at both Trammell and Whitaker eventually.
Still believe that certain writers (not named Lee Panas) disliked Whitaker, hurting his vote count.

Maybe because of his attitude toward the National Anthem?

[John_Brian_K]

They should have a hall of fame for the hall of fame...really.

The HoF really doesn't do anything for me as a fan.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Maybe because of his attitude toward the National Anthem?

I don't think his religion was a factor, moreso his reluctance to be interviewed. Although Jim Rice did finally get in and he was notorious for his silence.

[DaYooperASBDT]

2B in general get killed in HOF voting. Bobby Grich is pretty close to Whitaker, and he got 2.6% of the vote.

Bobby Grich was a damned good player, plus power and a great, great glove. I'm assuming you rank Grich ahead of Frank White, then?

[Corky]

Maybe related - if he got in would his JW status keep him from attending the ceremony?

[The Truman Show]

Bobby Grich was a damned good player, plus power and a great, great glove. I'm assuming you rank Grich ahead of Frank White, then?

Well, I would hope everyone has Grich ahead of White.

[will the thrill]

Sandberg had 9 gold gloves and an MVP

Lou had 700 more at bats and still comes in under with 17 less hits and 38 less homers.

And the stat nobody here mentioned yet is Steals.

Morgan 689!
Sandberg 344
Whittaker 143

So Lou had a lower average, less hardware (Morgan had 2 MVP and 5 GG), less homers and 200 and 550 less steals. The numbers aren't near as close as the OP makes them look.

Joe and Ryne had 10 all-star games each, Lou only 5.

In reality, Lou was a great player for a 5 year stretch 83-87

Sandberg had a 9 year stretch of greatness and Morgan had a 6 year stretch of all-time greatness, 2 MVPs, 5 top ten MVPs

[DaYooperASBDT]

Well, I would hope everyone has Grich ahead of White.

Some people have tried to comp Whitaker with White, but I just don't see it.

[tiger337]

Sandberg had a 9 year stretch of greatness and Morgan had a 6 year stretch of all-time greatness, 2 MVPs, 5 top ten MVPs

Sandberg had more great years than Whitaker, but it wasn't nine years. He wasn't that great between 86-88. it was six years - 84-85, 89-92. If you're going to call sandberg great from 86-88, then Whitaker was great for about 15 years.

And 83-87 weren't even Whitaker's best years. Gold gloves don't mean crap and they got tired of putting him in the allstar game because he didn't want to go.

[will the thrill]

I went with the stats over the 9 year span for Ryne, and he average .295-24-82 with 27 sb and a 128 OPS+ for that span. even with his two down years added in. Lou's best seasons statisticly were his last 5 with a 133 OPS + during that stretch, but he was playing less than 120 games a year by that point, and was essentially only playing vs righties

[Buddha]

Whitaker isn't in the Hall of Fame because he was always good to very good, but never great.

[will the thrill]

Whitaker isn't in the Hall of Fame because he was always good to very good, but never great.

I agree, loved Lou as a player and still believe Whittaker, Trammell, Gibby and Morris all are hampered by being on the Tigers in the 80's. If you look at players on teams with less "stars" they always look more valuable in the media's eyes because they're al that a team has. Lou had an OPS 100 points higher than Roberto Alomar in 1991, but Alomar finished 6th in MVP voting.

[Buddha]

Whitaker, Trammell, Gibson, and Morris aren't in the HOF because all of them are flawed candidates.

Trammell was hurt too much, which led to too many subpar seasons.
Whitaker never had any MVP caliber years.
Gibson was hurt too much and only had one MVP year which was given to him because of "intangibles."

Morris just isn't a HOF pitcher. He gets by because of self-promotion and the myth that he was always good in big games.

The Tigers in the 80s had a collection of very good but not great players (except Trammell, who was great but injured too much). It's just a quirk of history. The fact that none of them are in the HOF has nothing to do with the fact that they played in Detroit.

[tiger337]

Whitaker had more good years than almost any second baseman, but not so many great ones. His longevity is pretty rare for a middle infielder though - 15 consecutive years of 100+ WAR for a 2B. You can see it in the WAR comp between Whitaker and Sandberg:

Whitaker 4 years or 5+ WAR. 13 years of 3+ WAR.
Sandberg 6 years of 5+ WAR 9 years of 3+ WAR.

A lot of people talk about how Whitaker was platooned at the end of his career and it's true, but he was still good when he played. He contributed more at the end of his career than Sandberg did.

Since I value longevity as much as peak, I think they are pretty close. Sandberg is a little better, but I wouldn't put him in a different class.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Trammell should have had one MVP award for sure. And there are several in the HOF who never had an "MVP" season, IMHO.
Morris seems the weakest of the three, yet is getting the most votes, go figure.

[tiger337]

I think Whitaker and Trammell are borderline candidates. I'd put them in there, but it's not a crime they aren't in. It's a crime Whitaker has been totally ignored. Lots of guys with far less impressive careers than him got a good number of votes.

Gibson and Morris don't belong in the HoF. Morris will get in because he is in the media and is a huge self promoter. Those types are usually put in by the VC. He'll just get in a little earlier.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I love Gibby, but he's not even close to a HOF level for an outfielder.

[Dirk Diggler]

Lou does himself no favors in the PR department.

During spring a couple years ago, he was referring to himself in the 3rd party when discussing why he wasn't going to attend the 84' reunion. Add that into having your own team decide your not welcome around and that isn't a very good sign.

[The Truman Show]

Whitaker might not deserve to be in only because the hall has stupidly high standards for 2B, but otherwise, I think anyone with over 60+ WAR deserves a hall invite.

[The Truman Show]

Some people have tried to comp Whitaker with White, but I just don't see it.

White isn't even as good as Placido Polanco.

[tiger337]

I don't take similarity scores too seriously, but the closest comparables to Whitaker are Snandberg and Trammell:

Lou Whitaker Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

[The Truman Show]

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.

[Brian]

I happen to believe with players who are going to be on the ballot from the 'roid era the Veterans comm. may begin to vote in some of these boarder players rather than put in known cheaters.

[DET Mr Malefic]

I think Whitaker and Trammell are borderline candidates. I'd put them in there, but it's not a crime they aren't in. It's a crime Whitaker has been totally ignored. Lots of guys with far less impressive careers than him got a good number of votes.

Gibson and Morris don't belong in the HoF. Morris will get in because he is in the media and is a huge self promoter. Those types are usually put in by the VC. He'll just get in a little earlier.

I think Chet Lemon is a more qualified HoF candidate than Gibson and roughly equal to Morris. I wouldn't vote for him, but I just find it interesting that he's never brought up when he really deserves to be part of the conversation if those guys are going to be in it.

Whitaker and Trammell are, as you've noted, in a class above those three.

[TJ]

In the Days Before The Internet and teams on cable TV 157 games a year, national popular opinion on athletes in non-media-central cities (i.e. everyplace except N.Y. and L.A.) was very often shaped to a large degree what the Legendary Sportswriter in Town said about them on out-of-town broadcasts (where the LSWIT would commonly do guest spots) or in syndicated columns or the Sporting News, where many of them were regulars. That's how people used to learn about players around the league.

In Detroit, the LSWIT was, ohhh, a guy let's call.... "Moe Phallz."

Moe Phallz hated Lou Whitaker's guts because LW would not come and bow before him and kiss his pinky ring as most other athletes in town did.

Moe Phallz carried on a career-long campaign to paint Whitaker as a space-case air head, a scatterbrained ding-a-ling who coasted through games on sheer talent, a lazy slaggard who continually sluffed off.

In the meantime he continually carried on about how Alan Trammell, whose statistics were uncannily similar to Whitaker's, was a gritty gutty hard-working competitior.

So among the media of most of the nation, thanks mainly to Moe Phallz, the primary image of Whitaker was of a lazy lackadaisacal dingbat.


In fact, Whitaker and Trammell both are much much much more qualified than the large majority of the middle infielders already in the HOF.

If Whitaker and Trammell do not belong in the HOF, 70% of the SS/2Bs already in there should be thrown out.

[tiger337]

If Whitaker and Trammell do not belong in the HOF, 70% of the SS/2Bs already in there should be thrown out.

Most of the questionable players got in through the Veteran's Committee. Trammell probably will too. Hopefully Whitaker as well.

[Charles Liston]

Those guys from the '80's team would all have a better chance at the Hall if they had appeared in 3 or 4 World Series, like they should have.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Don't get me started on Sparky, Charles!

[tiger337]

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.