If Trammell retires a year earlier, are both he and Lou in the Hall of Fame?

**RedRamage** · 01-09-2013, 08:36 AM

Here's an interesting story linked from the home page:

Playing one more season hurt Alan Trammell's Hall quest | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

This paragraph sums up the authors point nicely:

I think if Trammell and Whitaker would have hit the ballot in same season, instead of in succeeding years, it would have helped both players immeasurably. Were there ever any two players in baseball who were thought of together more than Trammell and Whitaker? They were a double-play combination for 20 years and were the 1-2 hitters for one of the best single-season teams in history.

It's an interesting idea and I think it has some merit. I certainly think that more people would have been inclined to vote for Lou if he and Tram showed up at the same time. I'm not sure that it would have been enough. I think they would still just "scrap by" for a while before falling off after the 15 year limit. But at least Lou wouldn't have been dropped after the first round.

And this of course points out just one more problem with the Hall of Fame voting. It something like this can change how a person votes, then it highlights a flaw. Clearly Tram's decision to play another year had ZERO effect on what Lou accomplished in baseball. It didn't add one iota to any stat category for Whitaker, and yet I'm quite sure it would have kept him in the voting longer.

This is one area where I think the NFL hall of fame does it better. A committee meets and discusses a group of finalists. Here people can make a case for or against individuals. A players who might not be as well known to some voters gets to hear from the rep of that team who can push for his guy and gives stats, examples, what-ever to support the case.

**Mr. Bigglesworth** · 01-09-2013, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by RedRamage

Here's an interesting story linked from the home page:

Playing one more season hurt Alan Trammell's Hall quest | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

I don't buy the premise, though that is purely a gut feel on my part and have nothing substanative nor precedent to back it up.

**rhino** · 01-09-2013, 09:45 AM

I've heard this theory before. I don't buy it either.

And why is it always phrased as "If Tram hadn't played one more season......" why isn't it ever if Lou had played one more season. After all in his last season his line was .293/.372/.518/.890

**tiger337** · 01-09-2013, 09:53 AM

I don't think they would be in, but I think enough people would have voted for both that Whitaker would have stayed on the ballot.

**Yoda** · 01-09-2013, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by rhino

I've heard this theory before. I don't buy it either.

And why is it always phrased as "If Tram hadn't played one more season......" why isn't it ever if Lou had played one more season. After all in his last season his line was .293/.372/.518/.890

He also only played half a season his last two years.

**DTroppens** · 01-09-2013, 10:34 AM

I think both are just missing one more great year and that's probably what hurts them more than anything anyone can throw out there.

If Tram's 1989 season was like his 1987 season, he has 200 home runs and is knocking on 2,500 hits. Those numbers sound a lot better than 185 and 2,300 hits. And it would give him a stretch of seasons where he either batted .300, hit for good power or both without a lull season mixed in there.
Of course, it can be argued a few seasons he missed games could've gotten him to those numbers as well.

If Whitaker hits for power and gets another 20 to 25 home runs in his career, getting him well beyond 250 home runs, I think it would help as well. It would've upped his slugging percentage just a few notches higher, his RBI well beyond 1,000, and possibly got his batting average to .280 (doing this off the fly really quick). If he could've combined power for average one season (one of those seasons he batted .320, either 82 or 83, but had something like 12 home runs), that would've been nice as well. That way he could've had one of those MVP-like seasons.

**RedRamage** · 01-09-2013, 02:55 PM

I think it's highly unlikely that either makes it into the Hall the "normal" way. But I also think there is probably a better than 50% chance they make it in via the veterans committee.

**Greenwit** · 01-09-2013, 03:33 PM

No one got in this year.

**Beat it Clown** · 01-10-2013, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by RedRamage

I think it's highly unlikely that either makes it into the Hall the "normal" way. But I also think there is probably a better than 50% chance they make it in via the veterans committee.

Based on numbers, the normal way is the veterans committee.

**Sven Draconian** · 01-10-2013, 05:42 PM

I'm really not sure I think either deserve to be in (oohhh, ahhh)

Neither of them ever led the league in a meaningful offensive category. Neither were fixtures in the all-star game (not that the AS game is the be all, end all). They combined to have 1 great season (Tram in 87).

Whitaker posted 4 seasons with a WAR over 5 (highest were 6.6 an 6.5). OPS+ of 117
Tram posted 6 seasons with a WAR over 5 (with 8.0 being the highest). OPS+ of 110

Of the 2, I think Trammel has a stronger case. Now, WAR has some issues with evaluating defense so do have more value than WAR indicates.

In my opinion, being good for a long time should not put somebody in the hall of fame (personal preference). I prefer higher peaks.

**Nastradamus** · 01-10-2013, 06:28 PM

Whitaker is 62nd overall in WAR if we are going to discuss that stat. He's ahead of Banks, Larkin,Yount,Biggio,Ozzie Smith and others. Plenty of HOFers.

**RedRamage** · 01-11-2013, 03:35 PM

One of my peeves with the HOF voting method is this stupid concept of "first ballot" HOF. The idea that someone might be HOF worthy, but they aren't worthy enough for me to vote for them in their first year of eligibility. I don't understand this concept at all. Obviously there is nothing that the players have done that has moved from up the scale between their first and second year of eligibility, so why would you vote in year 2, but not 1? It's stupid.

Now I just read this story about a possible chance in voting rules helping Morris. This paragraph highlights another reason that the HOF voting is stupid:

"Raising the cap, or eliminating it altogether, could aid Morris big-time, because voters usually are sympathetic toward players who are so close and in their final year on the ballot.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130111/SPORTS0104/301110436#ixzz2HhT7L6m7"

Why should a voter be more sympathetic towards a player in his last year? It's dumb.

Now, apparently, there are three classes of HOF worthy candidates: Some who are REALLY worthy and deserve a vote in their first year. Then the rest of who worthy for votes from 2nd-14th year on the list. And then you have the mostly worthy who don't deserve a vote until their 15th year.