Parts I & II

Scott:

Have been on the road and haven't checked my home email over the past couple of days. My Hall of Fame thoughts are as following.

While I'm completely on board with the Blyleven campaign, I believe Alan Trammell is an equally deserving candidate. At arguably the most important position on the field, Trammell is one of the Top 10 shortstops of all-time. He is downgraded because he was the 5th best at his position during the time he played. (Ripken, Yount, Ozzie, Larkin) This logic fails from my view. Was Roberto Clemente an unworthy Hall of Famer because his stats weren't quite on the same level as Mays, Aaron, Mantle, and Robinson? To be honest there is not much difference overall between O. Smith, Larkin, and Trammell.

Trammell was the MVP of the 1984 World Series and in my mind should have been the AL MVP of the 1987 season, but finished a close second to George Bell. Another bias against him is the notion that was Trammell even the best part of the Tigers double play duo. Lou Whitaker is one of the Top 16 second baseman of all-time, but I would rate him just below Trammell. Add to this that Trammell was a leader for the Tigers, while Whitaker was a me-first guy and it puts him a clear step below. There are a number of players in the HOF that Whitaker scores ahead of but Trammell, Blyleven, Gossage, and Sutter should be inducted before his status should be argued.

I would take Gossage over Sutter, but I think both belong in the Hall. Just because I think Goose's resume is superior, if I was the HOF czar, I would put him in a year ahead of Sutter, but I have no problem with either one. in Cooperstown.

While Jim Rice was my favorite player in the Majors during the time he played, I think he falls just short of induction. Same goes for Andre Dawson.

Cliff:

I completely agree that Trammell should be in, but I have a couple quibbles with what Scott wrote.

To begin with, although I know Scott is simply passing on the argument others have made, if you're ranking '80s shortstops, I don't think you can place Trammell fifth so easily. He and Larkin are more or less a dead heat, with Larkin's advantage due largely to his being six years younger and thus playing some of his peak seasons during the post-strike offensive boom (including his MVP 1995 season).

Yount meanwhile, was inferior defensively and switched to center after 1984, where he remained a subpar fielder. To my mind, Trammell was a greater *shortstop* than Yount and Yount's advantage as a hitter is slight, the result of a bit more pop and longevity.

All of that said, I'm curious to see what happens when Larkin becomes eligible. I'm thinking he'll be hurt by having been a contemporary of Rodriguez, Jeter, Garciaparra, and Tejada for the better part of a decade. That can't be said of Trammell, whose final season was 1996.

Oh, my other quibble was that I've never ever heard anyone suggest that Trammell was not the superior half of the Tigers DP combo. Their career stats are alarmingly similar, with Whitaker having a slight advantage in OBP and SLG, but Trammell was the better fielder, the better base stealer, and the better teammate. Of course, those hitting stats alone should put Whitaker in the Hall alongside Trammell.

For the record, Trammell got a mere 16.9 percent last year (though that was his best total since first appearing on the ballot in 2002, for what that's worth) and Whitaker fell off the ballot after getting just 15 votes (2.19 percent) in his first year of eligibility in 2001.

Mike:

Re. the shortstop debate, here are the top 25 SS by career Win Shares. This includes anyone whose primary position was shortstop. Therefore, you will see Robin Yount, who did play a great deal of center, and John Montgomery Ward, who started his career as a pitcher (but blew his arm out) and ended his career as a second baseman.

I have indicated which ones are already in the Hall:

Also, here are the other shortstops in the Hall who don't make the top 25 in WS:

Mike:

As for the Whitaker-Trammell debate, here are the same tables for second basemen:

And:

Cliff:

So Ernie Banks counts as a first baseman? [Mike: Yep, he played a hundred odd games more at first.]

That list of career win shares just doesn't tell the whole story as far as I'm concerned.

Soon after the Yankees traded for Alex Rodriguez, I did a piece on the effect moving to third would have on his status among the greatest shortstops of all time (found here). In that post I made a top five that looked like this:

Honus Wagner

Arky Vaghan

Alex Rodriguez

Derek Jeter

Ernie Banks

Though I'll admit my list was based primarily on offense.

Scott:

I agree with what you said about Larkin, well actually I wrote that in my first offering:To be honest there is not much difference overall between O. Smith, Larkin, and Trammell.

My point with including Yount and Larkin in the debate is that they are seen as contemporaries, even if they don't exactly mirror a large time frame. I would disagree with you about Yount only being a slightly better hitter. Longevity counts for a lot and Yount reached some magical milestones which put him higher on the list. Trammell's defense is somewhat forgotten about, as he won 4 gold gloves, before the Ozzie Smith of the AL, Tony Fernandez took over.

Thanks Mike for listing statistically what I was getting at about Whitaker. Maybe I need to do a Lederer campaign extolling the virtues of the Tigers double play combo. It's truly amazing to me on how asleep a majority of the voters could be on these two players, considering their all-time ranking.

Since our conversation's stalled, can I solicit opinions on Albert Belle? Jay Jaffe makes a convincing argument for him in his recent JAWS series on Baseball Prospectus (here). Of course, between his bad 'tude, corked bat, unfavorable offensive context, and injury-shortened career, he may not have a prayer, but do any of we Toasters think he should?

Derek:

The argument you'll hear from folks inclined to see Belle get in will be that the only issue keeping him out (beyond his seeming to be an extremely unpleasant man) is his longevity, and that with the lack thereof being tossed out in the case of Kirby Puckett, it should darn well be done in Belle's case because by any objective measure, he was a monster when he was out there, and better than Puckett during that peak by a not insubstantial margin.

There's truth there, but just because the voters made what I think was a mistaken exception in Puckett's case doesn't necessarily mean they should make a similar one for Belle. Still, I'm on the fence here. That peak is awfully compelling. Consider this: I think a lot of folks look at Sammy Sosa as a very likely HOFer, in great part due to his home run hitting prowess during his best years. When measured by WARP3, Sosa had one season worth more than 10 wins, and four seasons worth more than 8. Belle had six seasons with at least 10 wins, three of which were worth no less than 11.2 wins. That, my friends, is performing at a high level. I don't know if it's high enough to passionately argue for his inclusion, but it's high enough to make the discussion worth having.

Mike:

Re. Belle: I think he's another borderline candidate. If he played another five marginal seasons and pushed his home run total over 500, he would be a lock. Was he among the best in the game when he played? Yes. Does he fit the de facto standards? Yes. Will the writers give him the short shrift? Yes. I expect him to either very quickly fall off the ballot or remain in limbo a la Jim Kaat, Dave Parker, and Dale Murphy until his 15 years expire.

As for comparing him to Puckett, I think James showed in his multi-titled Hall of Fame book who that sort of logic collapses in on itself like a house of Cards or maybe Cubbies.

I have no problem with his going in nor I am a big advocate. The Hall will remain largely unchanged either way.