View Poll Results: Trammell vs Larkin..who was better

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Trammell

    8 23.53%
  • Larkin

    26 76.47%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 78

Thread: Barry Larkin Vs Alan Trammell

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    428

    Barry Larkin Vs Alan Trammell

    Larkin seems to have the HOF votes over Trammell but the stats are similar.....

    Trammell

    1984 World Series MVP
    6-time All-Star (1980, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990)
    4-time Gold Glove (1980, 1981, 1983, 1984)
    3-time Top 10 MVP (1984, 1987, 1988)
    Collected both 200th hit of season and 1,500th career in same at bat (October 1, 1987)
    Had a 21 game hit streak during the 1987 season.
    Had a 20 game hit streak during the 1984 season.
    Comeback Player of the Year (1983)
    Sporting News AL Silver Slugger Team (1987, 1988, 1990)

    Career statistics
    Batting average .285
    Home runs 185
    Hits 2,365
    Runs batted in 1,003
    OPS+ 110
    WAR 66.9


    Larkin

    12 All-Star (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2004)
    World Series champion (1990)
    3 Gold Glove Award winner (1994, 1995, 1996)
    9 Silver Slugger Award winner (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999)
    1995 NL MVP
    1993 Roberto Clemente Award
    1994 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award

    Batting average .295
    Home runs 198
    Hits 2,340
    Runs batted in 960
    Stolen bases 379

    OPS+ 116
    WAR 68.9
    You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the $%#%! plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    5,353
    I picked Larkin but I'm surprised how close the stats are. The stolen bases and less games played was my deciding factor.
    "(Shoeless Joe Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning." -- Connie Mack

    "I have the ultimate respect for Whitesox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Redsox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country."--Jim Caple, ESPN (Jan. 12, 2011)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Balmer, Merlin
    Posts
    7,575
    Since they are so similar, and Larkin is just a tick better nearly across the board, I would expect this poll to heavily favor Larkin. But I wouldn't want it to take away from Trammell who should be a HOFer as well.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    7,962
    The Sabermetrc stats and the traditional stats show them almost neck-and-neck, but reading the resumes, I would give the edge to Larkin. Nine Silver Sluggers, an MVP and a Clemente award are tough to beat. Plus a two-to-one edge in All-Star selections.
    "Tactics were resorted to, unworthy of fair, manly players" - Brooklyn Eagle, June 12,1890

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    3,116
    The elo rater has Alan Trammell rated at number 78. I have looked at his record, and I watched him play. He did not strike me as a HOFer when he was active and I just don't see more than four HOF-type seasons when looking back at his numbers (83-84-86-87-90). He got a lot of MVP votes in a sixth year (1988) but his numbers were otherwise outside the realm of a typical HOF shortstop.

    He continues to be the darling of the board, but I just don't see it. I can't for the life of me believe he was one of the top 100 position players of all time...
    Your Second Base Coach
    If Rfield was a better stat, and actually measured fielding ability, we would not need Rpos.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    4,874
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Base Coach View Post
    The elo rater has Alan Trammell rated at number 78. I have looked at his record, and I watched him play. He did not strike me as a HOFer when he was active and I just don't see more than four HOF-type seasons when looking back at his numbers (83-84-86-87-90). He got a lot of MVP votes in a sixth year (1988) but his numbers were otherwise outside the realm of a typical HOF shortstop.

    He continues to be the darling of the board, but I just don't see it. I can't for the life of me believe he was one of the top 100 position players of all time...
    I agree with you. Trammell had four or five star-type seasons, and this is low for a hall of famer at any position. If this is the case, then those seasons had better be superstar quality in order for the guy to be a HOFer. The only year I see at that level is 1987. With 4 or 5 1987 type seasons, Trammell has a case. I suppose that would make him like Nomar, but with a few more mediocre seasons added.
    Last edited by willshad; 01-03-2012 at 10:35 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,097
    Blog Entries
    4
    I think the steroid shortstops (Arod, Nomar, Tejada head the list) have grossly distorted the expectations of what a SS did offensively. If you are expecting numbers typically associated with a 1B then there would be about 5 SSs in the HOF period.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Rochester, N.Y.
    Posts
    1,983
    I'll take the guy who played on a real baseball field over the guy on a pool table any day of the week. Too many of those hits for Larkin are cheap grounders skipping through the infield. When he wasn't sitting a/c injuries, that is. The grass at Tiger Stadium is very thick and kept Trammell's average down. If Alan played on all those artificial surfaces Larkin did those hit totals wouldn't even be close. I'm sure the consensus is Larkin by a wide margin but when the two played, Trammell was held in higher regard against his peers than the oft injured Larkin was against his. In Trammell's case he was the no brainer runner up to Ripken at short. Neither one, by the way, is worthy of Hall of Fame consideration. Well, I shouldn't say "consideration". Everyone can be considered. Just not inducted.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    9,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankwood View Post
    I'll take the guy who played on a real baseball field over the guy on a pool table any day of the week. Too many of those hits for Larkin are cheap grounders skipping through the infield. When he wasn't sitting a/c injuries, that is. The grass at Tiger Stadium is very thick and kept Trammell's average down. If Alan played on all those artificial surfaces Larkin did those hit totals wouldn't even be close.
    But he didn't, so they aren't.

    Besides, Trammell had a significant home road split in batting average over his career, hitting MUCH better in Tiger Stadium:

    Alan at Home - .292/.362/.423 in 4686 PAs
    Alan on the Road - .279/.341/.408 in in 4689 PAs

    Larkin has no such problem, hitting for nearly the same average on the road than at home:

    Larkin at Home - .297/.383/.456 in 4630 PAs
    Larkin on the Road - .293/.358/.433 in 4427 PAs

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Rochester, N.Y.
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by SamtheBravesFan View Post
    But he didn't, so they aren't.

    Besides, Trammell had a significant home road split in batting average over his career, hitting MUCH better in Tiger Stadium:

    Alan at Home - .292/.362/.423 in 4686 PAs
    Alan on the Road - .279/.341/.408 in in 4689 PAs

    Larkin has no such problem, hitting for nearly the same average on the road than at home:

    Larkin at Home - .297/.383/.456 in 4630 PAs
    Larkin on the Road - .293/.358/.433 in 4427 PAs
    Most players hit better at home. His road stadiums mostly had grass also. NL parks were overwhelmingly turf. And as far as your statement of "he didn't, so they aren't" this goes against the grain of the argument against Jim Rice. It's OK to say Jim Rice had hitting advantages but not OK for Larkin. More number twisting by the "flavor of the month club"

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankwood View Post
    Neither one, by the way, is worthy of Hall of Fame consideration. Well, I shouldn't say "consideration". Everyone can be considered. Just not inducted.
    Why do you believe neither one is worthy of HOF induction?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,006
    Where's the "Both" button?
    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

    Im honored to go into the Baseball Hall of Fame with such a great group of men. - Tom Glavine.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    9,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankwood View Post
    Most players hit better at home. His road stadiums mostly had grass also. NL parks were overwhelmingly turf. And as far as your statement of "he didn't, so they aren't" this goes against the grain of the argument against Jim Rice. It's OK to say Jim Rice had hitting advantages but not OK for Larkin. More number twisting by the "flavor of the month club"
    All sophistry aside, you say Trammell is better because he played on less turf. That's the crux of your argument.

    So this means that we need to compare the two to their own leagues, not against each other.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    6 km from Comerica Park
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by SamtheBravesFan View Post
    But he didn't, so they aren't.

    Besides, Trammell had a significant home road split in batting average over his career, hitting MUCH better in Tiger Stadium:

    Alan at Home - .292/.362/.423 in 4686 PAs
    Alan on the Road - .279/.341/.408 in in 4689 PAs

    Larkin has no such problem, hitting for nearly the same average on the road than at home:

    Larkin at Home - .297/.383/.456 in 4630 PAs
    Larkin on the Road - .293/.358/.433 in 4427 PAs
    Let me get this right... Larkin's OPS is 48 points higher at home, while Trammel's is 36 points higher at home, and that makes Trammel have a bigger home-field advantage?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    9,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Gee Walker View Post
    Let me get this right... Larkin's OPS is 48 points higher at home, while Trammel's is 36 points higher at home, and that makes Trammel have a bigger home-field advantage?
    I was talking about batting average, because Yankwood mentioned how he thinks Larkin's stats are better because he played on more Astroturf. Out of pure habit, I put in the OBP and SLG stats. I like to have all three together.

  16. #16
    My take: they're very close. Larkin had a tiny bit more pop in his bat. Larkin's slightly higher BA and slightly higher walk rate gave him a modest but real OBP advantage. Larkin had a speed edge, but both ran well. I saw Larkin a lot, Trammell not so much. Larkin was a very good defender- Trammell appears to have been about as good. Trammell got an earlier start, but didn't age real well. Trammell was a bit more durable.

    On raw talent/performance I'd give Larkin a small but real edge. this is partially offset by his injury problems and significant number of missed games.

    Overall I give the edge to Larkin, but not by a wide margin. Not counting active guys (Jeter, ARod?) I see Larkin as a definite top 10 alltime ML shortstop, and Trammell very near the top 10- perhaps in it. By merit, both are clearly worthy Hall of Famers, the protestations of Yankwood notwithstanding.

  17. #17
    Larkin gets the edge, but both Alan Trammell and his 15 season neighbor over at second base, Lou Whitaker belong in the HOF.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    799
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    The Sabermetrc stats and the traditional stats show them almost neck-and-neck, but reading the resumes, I would give the edge to Larkin. Nine Silver Sluggers, an MVP and a Clemente award are tough to beat. Plus a two-to-one edge in All-Star selections.
    I didn't know that anyone looked at the Clemente Award at all.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,006
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    Larkin gets the edge, but both Alan Trammell and his 15 season neighbor over at second base, Lou Whitaker belong in the HOF.
    That covers it quite nicely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Groat's syndrome View Post
    I didn't know that anyone looked at the Clemente Award at all.
    They should. I hope that Cooperstown never gets "reformed" so that the way is cleared for obvious criminals who happened to be excellent players, like some other place I could mention.
    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

    Im honored to go into the Baseball Hall of Fame with such a great group of men. - Tom Glavine.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    7,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Groat's syndrome View Post
    I didn't know that anyone looked at the Clemente Award at all.
    The HOF voters probably don't. But although this is the HOF forum, the title at the top of the page above the poll is "Trammel vs Larkin.. Who Was Better", not who should be in the HOF. I personally wouldn't put either of them in, but if I had to choose one, it would be Larkin, and I do look at the Clemente Award.
    "Tactics were resorted to, unworthy of fair, manly players" - Brooklyn Eagle, June 12,1890

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    I personally wouldn't put either of them in, but if I had to choose one, it would be Larkin, and I do look at the Clemente Award.
    I asked Yankwood (no response) and I'll ask you the same thing- why wouldn't you put either one in the HOF? And, what shortstops DO merit inclusion, in your opinion?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    10,144
    I would go with Larkin, but I have no problem with both being in the HoF.
    Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    7,962
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRon View Post
    I asked Yankwood (no response) and I'll ask you the same thing- why wouldn't you put either one in the HOF? And, what shortstops DO merit inclusion, in your opinion?
    The Hall of Fame consists of just over 1% of the 17,000 players who have played in MLB. I think that's about as it should be. I
    don't think Trammel is in the top 1% of shortstops. Larkin is borderline for me, I won't be upset if he gets in, but I won't mind if he doesn't.

    I think Wagner, Vaughn, Appling, Banks, Ripken, and Jeter are definitely worthy. Maranville, Reese, Rizzuto, and Ozzie Smith not so much.
    "Tactics were resorted to, unworthy of fair, manly players" - Brooklyn Eagle, June 12,1890

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --How many SS would be in that 1%?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --I see Larkin and Trammel as both beinging in the 15 SS of all time. Even if you only averaged one SS per decade in the Hall that would put both of them right on the edge of a relatively small Hall. It also means they are better than not just the worst SS selections, but a significant number of SS already in Cooperstown. There is not a reasonable argument for Trammel and Larkin NOT being in a Hall that includes Wallace, Tinker, Bancroft, Maranville, Jackson, Rizzuto and Aparicio - and very arguably several more.
    --On the other hand there is no such list of players not in the Hall as good or better than Larkin and Trammell. The only non-Hall of Fame SS arguably in their class is Bill Dahlen, who did his best work in the 19th century. The arguement that Larkin and Trammell don't belong is really an arguement that the Hall should be MUCH smaller than its actual size. It puts the bar for modern players substanially higher than it has historically been. Personally I think that sort of imbalance between long ago players and more recent ones is an injustice to both the Hall and the players.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •