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

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

    8 22.86%
  • Larkin

    27 77.14%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 78

Thread: Barry Larkin Vs Alan Trammell

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    10,169
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRon View Post
    You can argue with anyone. I gave you results from four polls, of which James' was only one. you can choose to argue with, or ignore, any or all. That's your right. I'm merely pointing out that various groups have all ranked Ripken very highly. If you can find such polls which vary greatly from these evaluations (besides your own), I'd be interested in seeing them. My point is that there appears to be a pretty strong consensus that Ripken is considered to be a top 30 or 40 alltime position player. If you can provide information to the contrary, please do so.
    Honestly Ron, I wasn't aware that was the consensus. I'm not really convinced, but I'm not sufficiently interested in Ripken to
    try to disprove it. It seems to me there must be 50 players among the 17,000 who have appeared in an MLB game who were better than Ripken, but I don't have the time or the inclination to research and rank them, so I'll concede the point.
    Shalom, y'all!
    What's the rumpus?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    6,510
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    Honestly Ron, I wasn't aware that was the consensus. I'm not really convinced, but I'm not sufficiently interested in Ripken to
    try to disprove it. It seems to me there must be 50 players among the 17,000 who have appeared in an MLB game who were better than Ripken, but I don't have the time or the inclination to research and rank them, so I'll concede the point.
    It depends how you define 'better'. Usually when doing rankings, people look at how much value the player accumulated during his career, and sometimes how good he was at his peak...not the player's average, typical performance level.

    Ripken played a LONG time, and obviously never got hurt, so he managed to accumulate stats which make him look like an all time great. he also has a few great seasons spread around his career, so his peak level is high. His 'typical' performance level was not so high, however, and this is probably how you remember him. In most seasons, he was just a good fielding shortstop with some pop to his bat. He really wasn't any better than Trammell and Larkin when going by 'typical' performance level.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    799
    Quote Originally Posted by AstrosFan View Post
    For those who don't support Larkin and/or Trammell, I'd like to see your shortstop rankings. I'm just curious whether it's the result of a small(ish) personal Hall, or low rankings for either or both players.
    I think aches and pains has an extraordinarily small personal Hall. On the 2012 BBWAA Hall of Fame Poll he voted for nobody, not even Bagwell.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    10,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Groat's syndrome View Post
    I think aches and pains has an extraordinarily small personal Hall. On the 2012 BBWAA Hall of Fame Poll he voted for nobody, not even Bagwell.
    The actual HOF consists of just over 1% of all the players who ever played. They're not necessarily the right 1%, but I think the number is about right. It's a very exclusive club. Shortstops are pretty well represented in the HOF, I don't see the need to add Trammel to the Hall. I can live with Larkin, but I don't really support his election.

    As for Bagwell, his numbers are worthy of induction, but I just have this nagging suspicion that he's a juicer. I guess I should practice what I preach and give him the benefit of the doubt, but for some reason, I hold back on supporting him.
    Last edited by ol' aches and pains; 01-08-2012 at 10:21 AM.
    Shalom, y'all!
    What's the rumpus?

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    The actual HOF consists of just over 1% of all the players who ever played. They're not necessarily the right 1%, but I think the number is about right. It's a very exclusive club. Shortstops are pretty well represented in the HOF, I don't see the need to add Trammel to the Hall. I can live with Larkin, but I don't really support his election.

    As for Bagwell, his numbers are worthy of induction, but I just have this nagging suspicion that he's a juicer. I guess I should practice what I preach and give him the benefit of the doubt, but for some reason, I hold back on supporting him.
    Aches, I'm curious. did you read my post #27? Larkin and Trammell are really being compared to at most 500 other shortstops, who had what can be called real careers. The 1% thing is a misperception.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,796
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRon View Post
    Aches, I'm curious. did you read my post #27? Larkin and Trammell are really being compared to at most 500 other shortstops, who had what can be called real careers. The 1% thing is a misperception.
    In one sense, that's true. In the sense he used it, he's right. And, if you want to look at it another way, it's less than 1%, as lots of guys who played professionally didn't make it to the majors. You're arguing over how to define something. IMHO, the better way of looking at it is that if the candidate is in the top 20 at his position, that's a good argument for his induction. If he's in the top 15, he almost certainly belongs, and if he's not in the top 25, he almost certainly doesn't belong.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    799
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    In one sense, that's true. In the sense he used it, he's right. And, if you want to look at it another way, it's less than 1%, as lots of guys who played professionally didn't make it to the majors. You're arguing over how to define something. IMHO, the better way of looking at it is that if the candidate is in the top 20 at his position, that's a good argument for his induction. If he's in the top 15, he almost certainly belongs, and if he's not in the top 25, he almost certainly doesn't belong.
    So, I guess the question for aches and pains is, does Larkin not make the top 15 or 20 at shortstop for you? And/or do you only induct up to number 5? 10? x?

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    10,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    IMHO, the better way of looking at it is that if the candidate is in the top 20 at his position, that's a good argument for his induction. If he's in the top 15, he almost certainly belongs, and if he's not in the top 25, he almost certainly doesn't belong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Groat's syndrome View Post
    So, I guess the question for aches and pains is, does Larkin not make the top 15 or 20 at shortstop for you? And/or do you only induct up to number 5? 10? x?
    You have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Larkin may be in the top 20, but there are already 23 shortstops in the HOF, and they're not kicking out Rabbit Maranville to make room for Larkin. There may not be 20 shortstops deserving of the Hall of Fame. There are only 16 catchers, and 15 third basemen. Still, if Larkin gets in, it won't be a travesty, but nobody's going to convince me that Trammel (or his teammate Jack Morris) is a Hall-of-Famer.
    Shalom, y'all!
    What's the rumpus?

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Base Coach View Post
    If you took the ten best seasons from both players and added them together into a 20 year career, you might get ONE HOFer.

    What they needed was some consistency at first base and a poem written about them.
    If you really believe that, name 20 SS and 20 2B who are more deserving i.e. better. You should have no problem doing so.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    You have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Larkin may be in the top 20, but there are already 23 shortstops in the HOF, and they're not kicking out Rabbit Maranville to make room for Larkin. There may not be 20 shortstops deserving of the Hall of Fame. There are only 16 catchers, and 15 third basemen. Still, if Larkin gets in, it won't be a travesty, but nobody's going to convince me that Trammel (or his teammate Jack Morris) is a Hall-of-Famer.
    See, I don't think mistakes of the past should hold back deserving players today. Of course Rabbit Maranville was a mistake, and so were a dozen or so other guys. That doesn't mean there isn't room for Larkin. On the flip side, I don't believe those mistakes should be used to lower the bar for the HOF. Can't we just ignore those obvious mistakes like Maranville and move on? The voters have not always been particularly savvy when judging talent from the past, and at times the voters (and I'm speaking specifically about the VC here) were downright corrupt.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    10,169
    Quote Originally Posted by davewashere View Post
    See, I don't think mistakes of the past should hold back deserving players today.
    I don't either. I was just using that as an example to show you can't use an arbitrary number like 20 or 25 to determine who is or isn't a Hall-of-Famer.

    Of course Rabbit Maranville was a mistake, and so were a dozen or so other guys. That doesn't mean there isn't room for Larkin. On the flip side, I don't believe those mistakes should be used to lower the bar for the HOF. Can't we just ignore those obvious mistakes like Maranville and move on?
    Yes. We are moving on, as of today.

    The voters have not always been particularly savvy when judging talent from the past, and at times the voters (and I'm speaking specifically about the VC here) were downright corrupt.
    When I evaluate players, I don't use WAR, because I don't believe in comparing players to imaginary replacement players. Besides, trying to figure out how it's calculated makes my head hurt.

    I have my own system. I compare them to a real flesh-and-blood player. I use Frenchy Bordagaray of the old Brooklyn Dodgers, because his stats are fairly typical, and I like his nickname. Frenchy was a free spirit. He was the only player in the 1930's with a mustache. You could say he was 40 years ahead of his time. He once spat on an umpire, a la Roberto Alomar, but instead of issuing some wishy-washy apology, Frenchy took his punishment like a man, although he did say "The fine was more than I expectorated."

    I call my system Wins Topping Frenchy (WTF). If your stats aren't better than Frenchy's I disregard you, unless of course you've got a really interesting story to tell.
    Shalom, y'all!
    What's the rumpus?

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    6,069
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    I don't either. I was just using that as an example to show you can't use an arbitrary number like 20 or 25 to determine who is or isn't a Hall-of-Famer.



    Yes. We are moving on, as of today.



    When I evaluate players, I don't use WAR, because I don't believe in comparing players to imaginary replacement players. Besides, trying to figure out how it's calculated makes my head hurt.

    I have my own system. I compare them to a real flesh-and-blood player. I use Frenchy Bordagaray of the old Brooklyn Dodgers, because his stats are fairly typical, and I like his nickname. Frenchy was a free spirit. He was the only player in the 1930's with a mustache. You could say he was 40 years ahead of his time. He once spat on an umpire, a la Roberto Alomar, but instead of issuing some wishy-washy apology, Frenchy took his punishment like a man, although he did say "The fine was more than I expectorated."

    I call my system Wins Topping Frenchy (WTF). If your stats aren't better than Frenchy's I disregard you, unless of course you've got a really interesting story to tell.
    Thats somewhat interesting about his mustache. I just read his wikipedia after you posted this and this cant be true but it said the 72 A's were the first team since Bordagaray to wear mustache's. There had to of been at least one guy who had a mustache between 1945 and 1972. Also i think it said Wally Schang was the last guy to have one before Bordagaray in 1914. So from 1915 to 1972 bordagaray was the only playe4r to have a mustache from what wikipedia says.

    hour and a half until the voting im kinda excited to watch it on the mlb channel.
    Last edited by chicagowhitesox1173; 01-09-2012 at 09:33 AM.
    "(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)

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,800
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post

    I call my system Wins Topping Frenchy (WTF). If your stats aren't better than Frenchy's I disregard you, unless of course you've got a really interesting story to tell.
    How about Moe Berg. He's interesting because:

    1) He had a unibrow
    2) Was a catcher
    3) Worked for the OSS and spied on Japan
    4) Began his baseball career at age 7 playing for the Methodist Episcopal Church baseball team
    5) Could speak Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Sanskrit.
    6) Had a career -6.0 WAR.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    10,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    How about Moe Berg. He's interesting because:

    1) He had a unibrow
    2) Was a catcher
    3) Worked for the OSS and spied on Japan
    4) Began his baseball career at age 7 playing for the Methodist Episcopal Church baseball team
    5) Could speak Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Sanskrit.
    6) Had a career -6.0 WAR.
    Love Moe Berg. He spoke seven languages, and couldn't hit in any of them.
    Shalom, y'all!
    What's the rumpus?

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    6,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    How about Moe Berg. He's interesting because:

    1) He had a unibrow
    2) Was a catcher
    3) Worked for the OSS and spied on Japan
    4) Began his baseball career at age 7 playing for the Methodist Episcopal Church baseball team
    5) Could speak Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Sanskrit.
    6) Had a career -6.0 WAR.
    yeah he deff was to. I remember reading a story how he played in some kind of allstar game in Japan and took a day off to take pictures on some highrise of Tokyo and the military actually used those photos to help em in WW2. This was in the 30's so we must have had our eye on Japan for awhile before WW2.
    "(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)

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    6,303
    Blog Entries
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    Love Moe Berg. He spoke seven languages, and couldn't hit in any of them.
    Eight...he spoke English too!

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    6,303
    Blog Entries
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by chicagowhitesox1173 View Post
    yeah he deff was to. I remember reading a story how he played in some kind of allstar game in Japan and took a day off to take pictures on some highrise of Tokyo and the military actually used those photos to help em in WW2.
    There was a really good biography of Moe Berg out not so long ago. He was a genuine International Man of Mystery. At one point during the war he went to a conference in occupied Denmark to see how close the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr was to splitting the atom and thereby give Nazi Germany the A-bomb. If Bohr were too close, Berg had orders to murder him. Fortunately for Bohr (and humanity), he wasn't.

    EDIT: Incidentally, in order for Berg to judge Bohr's progress, he had to be well-versed in the state-of-the-art nuclear physics and propulsion science of the day, which, well, pretty much was rocket science. Moe Berg was genuinely brilliant -- he didn't just have a gift for languages -- he had a gift for everything!
    Last edited by Cougar; 01-09-2012 at 09:47 AM.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    799
    Quote Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    I don't either. I was just using that as an example to show you can't use an arbitrary number like 20 or 25 to determine who is or isn't a Hall-of-Famer.
    Yet you use the equally arbitrary 1%, and you seem to arbitrarily distinguish between players. Alan Trammell and Barry Larkin are basically the same player no matter how you slice it.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,009
    Blog Entries
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    How about Moe Berg. He's interesting because:

    1) He had a unibrow
    2) Was a catcher
    3) Worked for the OSS and spied on Japan
    4) Began his baseball career at age 7 playing for the Methodist Episcopal Church baseball team
    5) Could speak Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Sanskrit.
    6) Had a career -6.0 WAR.
    Yes, Meritorious Contributions are legitimate. I would have no problem with the selection of Moe Berg on that basis. On a different note I think that "Tommy John surgery" would be significant for inclusion of Tommy John as a Meritorious Contributor.

    Dale Murphy's significance as the 1st. sports star of the cable era, not Michael Jordan or Hulk Hogan, bolsters Murphy's already deserving cause
    Last edited by Steven Gallanter; 01-09-2012 at 07:29 PM.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    6,303
    Blog Entries
    8
    Trammell made a big jump this year, and will make an even bigger jump next year, even in the face of the crowded ballot, because of the similarity between him and Larkin and the realization that if Larkin is a HOFer, Trammell must be too.

    Trammell will get in very fast via the VC, I predict...probably in tandem with Lou Whitaker.
    Last edited by Cougar; 01-10-2012 at 12:10 PM. Reason: fixed typo.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •