Today will almost certainly be Barry Larkin's Day, as he is elected to the Baseball HOF -- announcement at about 2 et today. He will become the third at least member of the Baseball HOF with ties to UM. (George Sisler and the legendary Branch Rickey are the others that I'm aware of.) Congratulations, Barry!!!
But bummed that Trammell, who's every bit as deserving, won't even get a sniff.
It's a shame Trammell doesn't get nearly the recognition he should, just doesn't seem in the cards for him to make the HOF.
Lou Whitaker (career Fangraphs WAR of 74.3) not even getting 5% his first year on the ballot is, probably without exaggeration, the biggest screwup Hall-of-Fame voters have made in the last 20 years.
and has been written about extensively in the sabrmetric world. The problem for Trammel (and Whittaker) that they did their jobs without making huge splashes. Then, particularly for Trammel, right after retirement, shortstops suddenly became big boppers; e.g., ARod, and suddenly the standards seemed to change. I expect Trammel will get in via the Veterans' Committee in a decade or so. I just hope it happens at a time he can enjoy it.
I just don't get how Ryne Sanberg gets in and Trammell gets left out? Sanberg had more power, but that's really the only difference in their numbers. And it's not like Sanberg belted 500 homers. He doesn't even have 300 IIRC
Raines, Trammel, and Bagwell day. Though they'll all fall short.
Charlie Gehringer spent one year at Michigan (1923) before making his Major League debut in 1924 (source).
Also, this brief biography has some further details on his multi-sport year at U-M:
He attended the University of Michigan, playing football, basketball and baseball. Oddly enough, he lettered in basketball, but not baseball.
if Gehringer ever played baseball at Michigan. Hence, the omission above.
Numerous sources say that Gehringer played baseball at Michigan under Ray Fisher. He attended U-M during the 1922-23 academic year, majoring in physical education (which is why he went out for the football team, as all PE majors were expected to do at that time). This is all detailed in John C. Skipper's 2008 biography of Gehringer.
Don't have a good feeling about him jumping up 12-13% for some reason but hope I'm wrong. I'm obviously a big UM fan and am also a big Reds fan so if he gets in I'm going to Cooperstown this summer for induction ceremony.
Guys with his vote total in their first year basically always get in their second year.
He'll be the only guy that gets in, but Bagwell will probably have a pretty healthy jump up, since there isn't a single legitimate argument against him.
The guy had 1 hand fergodsakes!
I really would like to see him in there - the numbers definitely support it (http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/1768/barry-larkin), and I don't think anyone would argue from a character standpoint either.
As a few have also said, of course, the Tiger fan in me would like to see my other favorite shortstop - Alan Trammell - in the HOF as well. His numbers are worthy too, I believe, and I really haven't heard a legitimate argument to not have him there.
When you consider that guys like Willie Mays were not unanimous selections—which means there were actually sportwriters who thought he didn't merit induction—it's not surprising that Trammell and Whitaker will probably never get in.
A big part of that is where they played; if Trammell and Whitaker had spent their careers for the Yankees or Red Sox or Dodgers, they would be sure-fire inductees.
A pasttime of mine is to read HOF arguments and read who the writers are voting for when they actually make their ballot public. I think Larkin will sail through just fine based on how many people seem to be voting for him.
I would love to see Tim Raines get in and I think he's going to get a huge boost this year, but will fall short. Trammell is stuck in limbo and his best shot would be to ride the coattails of Larkin once people realize that he was just as deserving. But starting next year there is wave of great candidates coming (depending on the steroids arguments) and Trammell will be likely left to the veterans committee.
As for Bagwell, I think he's going to miss out this year due to steroids suspicions. Most writers I have found are keeping him out because they THINK he used them. There's never even been a wiff of evidence (Mitchel report, testing, congress, etc.) to suggest that he did - only that he played a power position during the steroid era. But I think most writers are going to hold that against him.
Personally I take Buster Olney's approach - it was a level playing field during the era, put them in based on merit. McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, etc. Put a note on their plaques saying that the era they played in was known for PED's if you want, but let them in.
winningest pitcher in the 80s is not a for sure? He deserves it as does Tram and Lou
Jack Morris is not a Hall-of-Famer. He's not even particularly close. His numbers just aren't that good. Less than 6 strikeouts per 9 innings, career ERA of 3.9, never posted an ERA under 3, career FIP of 3.94, career fWAR of 57, career ERA+ of 105 (which ties him with Denny Naegle, Javier Vasquez, and Tim Wakefield).
The only thing he has going for him is wins, and pitcher wins are just a really, really flawed stat. Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammel are two of the best middle infielders to ever play the game. Jack Morris was a good pitcher who played on a lot of really good teams.
I love Jack Morris and he was a really good pitcher, but I have a hard time thinking he deserves to be in the HOF. Read this and see what you think:
Aside from his monster playoff game, how was he much different than a half-dozen other solid pitchers from his era? And the "most wins of the 80s" is an awful stat to hang your hat on.
As for Trammell, and Whitaker for that matter, do a search on MLB.com's historical stats and compare those two guys to Sandberg. Why that guy sailed in to the HOF while the former Tigers can barely stay on the ballot is beyond me.
I'm not saying agree with Stark's take, but here's what he posted today on the HOF ballot in general and specifically his reasons for not voting for Trammel:
could be voted on as a package, they'd be in.
Their careers are almost identical. I'm happy for Larkin -- he deserves to get in -- but it's just painful when another '80s infielder gets in while the most deserving player on the ballot is ignored for sheer obstinancy. The SBNation Reds blogger has been Larkin's biggest HoF backer, but his own metrics put Larkin and Trammel together as a virtual dead heat.
Both are more deserving than Sandberg and Ozzie Smith.
SHORTSTOP: Alan TrammellStill on the ballot but gains no momentum despite a terrific career as both a hitter and a fielder. I've written this before -- Trammell at his best was about as good as Cal Ripken at his best. Ripken, of course, was sturdier -- good for 10 to 20 more games a year -- and that pushes things to Ripken. But as far as quality on the field, I'd put Trammell's 1987 season -- .343/.402/.551 with 109 runs, 105 RBIs, 28 homers, 21 stolen bases in 23 attempts -- up against Ripken's brilliant 1991 season. And Trammell had four or five other seasons that were almost as good.
There is some saber evidence that the Tigers seem to be a perennial blind spot for Hall voters. Lolich is the kind of guy who would be on the edge and so is Jack Morris -- they are both, compared to other HoF pitchers, reviews that are too close to call. But then Tram and Lou both have a foot firmly inbounds.
Why the bias? It's complicated but it comes down to who was watching baseball in the '80s -- the sport was at a low point and there was very little national coverage until 1990 or so. Players of the era who weren't from a spotlight team in the '90s and '00s had to be re-remembered. Ripken did this by breaking the Iron Man record, putting himself back in the national consciousness. Yount did it because every other quote from Selig is about Yount. But without a hard look at the stats the voters go with who they knew. Lou Whitaker to them was just the guy starting in the All Star game ahead of Willie Randolph before fans could vote for that. The Tigers however were in a 15-year franchise slump. By the time Tram's candidacy should have been peaking -- about 2003 -- the Tigers were a forgotten franchise on its way to breaking futility records. That shouldn't matter more thant he player's career but it does.
The Baseball Hall of Fame is the least legitimate of all sports in recognizing a standard level of play in its memberships -- this is due to a lot of reasons having to do with being the first sport to do something like this combined with being home to the biggest old boy's network of sportswriters.
As the steroids era players continue to pop up in the coming years it's only going to get way worse. But among the 50 players I think who should be kicked out and the 50 players who deserve to be recognized, no case is stronger than Tram's. Perhaps when the ignant generation of writers moves on and the saber-happy bloggers take over they'll reconsider this one, and Whitaker with him. Until then the Hall of Fame just pisses me off. I believe any writer who doesn't vote for Tram has his head so far up his ass all he's seeing are the '43 Browns. I can't even appreciate the guys who get in now, even when it's players like Barry Larkin who I wanted to see get in. I just watch their speeches and hope each time that one of them will say "I appreciate this guys but I'm not taking a step through that door until Trammell does."