Morris & Trammell Elected to HOF

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Lou Whitaker was better.

This is also true. Sad, but true.

[Chris Counts]

As hitters, the stats show Trammell and Whitaker aren't very different at all. But Trammell played shortstop, which is more important defensively, and a much harder position to fill with a good offensive bat than second base.

You simply can't effectively compare players without considering their defensive limitations — that only works in fantasy baseball. Steve Garvey could only play first base, a position filled with guys who hit as well or better than him. There are very few shortstops in the history of baseball who hit was well as Trammell.

[ejharrington]

Looking at their stats and careers, it is amazing how similar Trammell and Whitaker were as players. I would have like to see them go in together.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

As hitters, the stats show Trammell and Whitaker aren't very different at all. But Trammell played shortstop, which is more important defensively, and a much harder position to fill with a good offensive bat than second base.

You simply can't effectively compare players without considering their defensive limitations — that only works in fantasy baseball. Steve Garvey could only play first base, a position filled with guys who hit as well or better than him. There are very few shortstops in the history of baseball who hit was well as Trammell.

Whitaker was a better, more consistent hitter. He was the equal of Trammel with the glove, though as you said, Trammel played the more demanding position, although it's not like comparing a shortstop and a first baseman.

Whitaker is at least the equal of Trammel overall. Trammel ranks 11th all time in JAWS at shortstop. Whitaker 13th at second base. Both deserve to be there (though I would put Bobby Grich in ahead of Whitaker).

[packs]

I think Robinson Cano is a far superior player to Whitaker and he also plays second base. I think Cano will have a tough time getting in.

[Gnep31]

I'm biased as a lifelong Tiger fan, but their peers believe they should be in. I value their opinions much more than people who have never played and have to look at metrics to try and figure out what makes a good ballplayer.

They were each the best player at their respective position for most, if not all, the decade of the 80's.

If I were putting together an all time great roster of winners these two would make the squad.

[packs]

Please explain how Morris was the best pitcher of his time but only finished as high as 3rd in any one year's Cy Young voting.

[Gnep31]

Originally Posted by packs

Please explain how Morris was the best pitcher of his time but only finished as high as 3rd in any one year's Cy Young voting.

More wins than any other pitcher. I would rather have consistency over one good yr.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by packs

I think Robinson Cano is a far superior player to Whitaker and he also plays second base. I think Cano will have a tough time getting in.

Robinson Cano will end up being one of the best 2nd in the game when he retires. He'll probably be a first ballot HOF.

[packs]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Robinson Cano will end up being one of the best 2nd in the game when he retires. He'll probably be a first ballot HOF.

He should be but I think he'll have the same trouble Vlad is. People will see him a tweener because he won't have any one benchmark.

[howard38]

.

[hammer]

Pete Rose or Denny McClain I guess it pays to be a prim and proper citizen.

[z28jd]

One of the most confusing arguments with the Hall of Fame is the watered down argument. Look at the class of 1946, just ten years into the Hall's existence. There are names that many people believe don't belong in there, which is essentially saying that the guys who started the Hall of Fame process got it wrong. In essence, you're telling them that they made mistakes and we want to make sure it never happens again.

Maybe they didn't make mistakes. Maybe those were the standards they thought were good enough. After all, those are the first standards of the Hall of Fame.

Why does no one ever say, well if it's the benchmark they set, then that's the level we go for in the future? In fact, since those were the early elections, it's even more likely that those standards are higher than the minimum. After all, the point back then wasn't to get the worst players in first and work your way up.

We assume they made mistakes instead because we want the standards to be higher, but that's quite ridiculous when you think about it. Part of the problem was the writers making it harder and harder to get in, there by raising the bar just because that's what they wanted to do.

There's no good reasoning behind that thought process. It would be like Net54 saying only people with nice collections could join the board, then eventually saying only million dollar collectors should be included and those early members shouldn't be in there. Leon made a mistake allowing some people in.

My personal belief for a long time is that the Hall of Fame should be split up into two groups, one for the elite members like Ruth, Aaron, Mays and one for players who deserve to be recognized for their careers like Al Oliver. Players like Oliver don't even come around every season, yet he has no shot at the Hall of Fame, which seems crazy. They would all be Hall of Famers, yet there is an elite group as well. If someone was as good as Oliver over 18 years, he shouldn't be forgotten to time.

[Marchillo]

Maybe color the plaques different based on 3 standards. Make them subtle but distinguish between first ballot, voted in through the normal process, voted in through a committee. That way visitors with less baseball knowledge could easily identify first ballot guys etc. I guess the tricky part is the early guys who got in during the 2nd, 3rd, 4th classes etc.