Barry Larkin Vs Alan Trammell

[ol' aches and pains]

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.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

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.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

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.

[ol' aches and pains]

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.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

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.

[Cougar]

Love Moe Berg. He spoke seven languages, and couldn't hit in any of them.

Eight...he spoke English too!

[Cougar]

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!

[Dick Groat's syndrome]

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.

[Steven Gallanter]

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

[Cougar]

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.

[Cougar]

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

I second this, on both counts. Moe Berg needs an exhibit at Cooperstown -- and I suspect he has one, at least in rotation.

Tommy John has a good enough case as a player that the might find the MC designation to be a little deflating. However, that surgery is certainly his biggest legacy, so perhaps it's appropriate.

[Steven Gallanter]

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.

Trammell was moved from SS briefly for Travis Fryman and then moved back when Fryman couldn't handle SS. This is a red flag that Trammell had some flaws defensively. One thing I recall about Trammell is that he was like Derek Jeter in that he played close in on the dirt. I have always regarded this as a sign of a less than strong throwing arm.

stevegallanter.wordpress.com

[jalbright]

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.

Agreed--to a point. Given the size of the Hall, the 15-20 marks are great reference points on where the lines should be drawn, as are the top 230-240 overall, the top 70 pitchers and the top 170-180 position players. There's going to be gray areas among those reference points, but it's better than going without those reference points. I'm not wild about replacement level, as it's hard to define. Moreover, I can't see how the space between replacement and average has very much to do with HOF qualifications, as the HOF is supposed to be about greatness. I like starting with average as the zero point for greatness, and the further above that you are, the better the evidence you've provided of greatness.

[Cougar]

Trammell was moved from SS briefly for Travis Fryman and then moved back when Fryman couldn't handle SS. This is a red flag that Trammell had some flaws defensively. One thing I recall about Trammell is that he was like Derek Jeter in that he played close in on the dirt. I have always regarded this as a sign of a less than strong throwing arm.

The Fryman interlude happened when Trammell was in his mid-30's, way, way, way, waywayway past his prime.

Pee Wee, Maranville, and Vizquel all played some 3b or 2b in their declining years....this is just the natural course of things for shortstops...they downshift on the defensive spectrum as they age.

Besides, even if you want to criticize Trammell on this...then don't you simultaneously have to credit him for winning his job back from Fryman?!

[Matthew C.]

Agreed--to a point. Given the size of the Hall, the 15-20 marks are great reference points on where the lines should be drawn, as are the top 230-240 overall, the top 70 pitchers and the top 170-180 position players. There's going to be gray areas among those reference points, but it's better than going without those reference points. I'm not wild about replacement level, as it's hard to define. Moreover, I can't see how the space between replacement and average has very much to do with HOF qualifications, as the HOF is supposed to be about greatness. I like starting with average as the zero point for greatness, and the further above that you are, the better the evidence you've provided of greatness.

The problem with completely ignoring value over replacement, is that being better than a replacement level player is not a neutral thing and shouldn't be treated as such. It is in fact a good thing that provides real value to a team. And this will remain the case as long as there is a limited supply of resources and talent in MLB. I won't pretend that a #4 pitcher who goes 170 IP with a slightly-below average ERA (keeping AAA pitcher in the minors) deserves the same credit as some guy sitting on his DL'd rear-end watching the game from the dugout. This is why replacement value cannot be completely ignored, IMO. Can we argue that true replacement level is higher than what Fangraphs or Sean Smith says? Sure, I have questions about that too.

Now, I agree that the HOF should emphasize greatness. This is why I support weighted-WARs, which give more weight to dominance and strong peak - without stripping away replacement value all-together. There are some very interesting wWARs out there that square (or multiply by the 1.5 power) each season's WAR and then add them. This will reward the Koufax and Walsh's peaks and dominance accordingly, without pretending that the Sutton's and Wynn's didn't have any value whatsoever for being good for a very long time. There are some very interesting wWARs out there that square each season's WAR and then add them. They really pass the sniff-test pretty well.

[willshad]

The problem with completely ignoring value over replacement, is that being better than a replacement level player is not a neutral thing and shouldn't be treated as such. It is in fact a good thing that provides real value to a team. And this will remain the case as long as there is a limited supply of resources and talent in MLB. I won't pretend that a #4 pitcher who goes 170 IP with a slightly-below average ERA (keeping AAA pitcher in the minors) deserves the same credit as some guy sitting on his DL'd rear-end watching the game from the dugout. This is why replacement value cannot be completely ignored, IMO. Can we argue that true replacement level is higher than what Fangraphs or Sean Smith says? Sure, I have questions about that too.

Now, I agree that the HOF should emphasize greatness. This is why I support weighted-WARs, which give more weight to dominance and strong peak - without stripping away replacement value all-together. There are some very interesting wWARs out there that square (or multiply by the 1.5 power) each season's WAR and then add them. This will reward the Koufax and Walsh's peaks and dominance accordingly, without pretending that the Sutton's and Wynn's didn't have any value whatsoever for being good for a very long time. There are some very interesting wWARs out there that square each season's WAR and then add them. They really pass the sniff-test pretty well.

Sounds interesting, I would like to see some results that were acquired using these weighted WARs. I don't think that it is such a good idea, because it seems to me that, past a certain point, WAR seasonal totals are kind of wacky. For instance, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between a 5 WAR season and a 10 WAR season, or even an 11 or 12 WAR season, in many cases. I think that a WAR weighted in ther manner you say would overrate the 10 WAR season even moreso. For instance, Robin Yount in 1982 had 11.5 (!!!!!) WAR, in a season which was really not any better than some of Nomar's seasons , during which he only had 6 or so WAR. I think that past the 5 or 6 mark, it all becomes kind of random. If you square Yount's season, it becomes well over 100, and if you square Nomar's season, it is only 40 or so. I think an MVP type season is an MVP type season, and there shouldn't be such a vast difference in their value.

[ol' aches and pains]

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.

Except Larkin is regarded as a superior defender, compaerd to Trammel. I know Trammel has 4 Gold Gloves to Larkin's 3, but in Larkin's early years, he had to compete with Ozzie Smith for that award.

Also, Larkin was a 12-time All-Star selection, twice as many as Trammel. Trammel was very good, but not the "same player" as Larkin.

[jalbright]

The problem with completely ignoring value over replacement, is that being better than a replacement level player is not a neutral thing and shouldn't be treated as such. It is in fact a good thing that provides real value to a team. And this will remain the case as long as there is a limited supply of resources and talent in MLB. I won't pretend that a #4 pitcher who goes 170 IP with a slightly-below average ERA (keeping AAA pitcher in the minors) deserves the same credit as some guy sitting on his DL'd rear-end watching the game from the dugout. This is why replacement value cannot be completely ignored, IMO. Can we argue that true replacement level is higher than what Fangraphs or Sean Smith says? Sure, I have questions about that too.

Now, I agree that the HOF should emphasize greatness. This is why I support weighted-WARs, which give more weight to dominance and strong peak - without stripping away replacement value all-together. There are some very interesting wWARs out there that square (or multiply by the 1.5 power) each season's WAR and then add them. This will reward the Koufax and Walsh's peaks and dominance accordingly, without pretending that the Sutton's and Wynn's didn't have any value whatsoever for being good for a very long time. There are some very interesting wWARs out there that square each season's WAR and then add them. They really pass the sniff-test pretty well.

I don't completely ignore that value, as I do give a bonus to guys with at least 50 WAR. I also use the top three seasons and the best five consecutive seasons. Wynn, Sutton and Brock were good players, no matter how you slice it, but IMHO in each case, there are strong reasons to question whether they were great. WAR is certainly valuable in terms of talking about day to day issues, like trades. But I think that gap between replacement and average is of little moment in determining greatness. Also, there are two advantages to going with average over replacement in the HOF discussion: 1) it helps deal with the 19th century hitters at least (pitchers are still a pain, because of the extreme IP totals), and, more importantly, 2) it at least goes a long way toward negating the compiler argument (that Sutton, et al run into).

[leecemark]

Except Larkin is regarded as a superior defender, compaerd to Trammel. I know Trammel has 4 Gold Gloves to Larkin's 3, but in Larkin's early years, he had to compete with Ozzie Smith for that award.

Also, Larkin was a 12-time All-Star selection, twice as many as Trammel. Trammel was very good, but not the "same player" as Larkin.

--Trammell was a 4 time All Star because Cal Ripken had the starting SS job on the AL team almost every year of Trammell's career. Robin Yount was also a contemporary of Trammell's fighting for All Star SS honors. He made the Hall with fewer All Star selections than Trammell. There was great depth at AL SS in the 80s with Tony Fernandez and Julio Franco having some terrific years and others having the occasional All Star quality season. Larkin didn't really have much competition at SS in the 90s NL.

[Joe Barrie]

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!

It wasn't Niels Bohr, it was Werner Heisenberg, of "Uncertainty Principle" fame.

[Cougar]

It wasn't Niels Bohr, it was Werner Heisenberg, of "Uncertainty Principle" fame.

I was going by memory...thank you for the correction.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Barry Larkin and the "Gut Factor". Did Trammell have a high "Gut Factor"?

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2012/01/0...tor/#more-8770

[Matthew C.]

. For instance, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between a 5 WAR season and a 10 WAR season, or even an 11 or 12 WAR season, in many cases.

I am not sure what you mean.

[Matthew C.]

I don't completely ignore that value, as I do give a bonus to guys with at least 50 WAR. I also use the top three seasons and the best five consecutive seasons. Wynn, Sutton and Brock were good players, no matter how you slice it, but IMHO in each case, there are strong reasons to question whether they were great. WAR is certainly valuable in terms of talking about day to day issues, like trades. But I think that gap between replacement and average is of little moment in determining greatness. Also, there are two advantages to going with average over replacement in the HOF discussion: 1) it helps deal with the 19th century hitters at least (pitchers are still a pain, because of the extreme IP totals), and, more importantly, 2) it at least goes a long way toward negating the compiler argument (that Sutton, et al run into).

Fair enough.

[scribe114]

Trammell was moved from SS briefly for Travis Fryman and then moved back when Fryman couldn't handle SS. This is a red flag that Trammell had some flaws defensively. One thing I recall about Trammell is that he was like Derek Jeter in that he played close in on the dirt. I have always regarded this as a sign of a less than strong throwing arm.

stevegallanter.wordpress.com

Saw Trammell his entire career, and this is what went down in Detroit.

1991: Trammell was the starting SS and broke his ankle in a game in July of that year (I was at that game, and Trammell jacked up his ankle when he came down hard on the bag at 1st after beating out his second infield single.) Fryman was the regular 3B at that point and moved to short for the remainder of the season.

1992: Trammell hit the ground running as the starting SS for the Tigers, and re-injured the ankle early in the season and was done for the year. Fryman who started the season at 3B takes over at SS for the rest of the season.

1993: Sparky brings Trammell into spring training and turns him into a "Super Sub" playing him at 3B, LF and CF in Spring Training. Trammell opens the season platooning with Scott Lusader at 3B only playing against LH pitchers. Trammell is moved back to SS full time in August of that season because Fryman is an "error machine" and he remains a Third Baseman for the rest of his career. Lusader, who was playing well blasted Sparky in the press and he was run out of Detroit soon afterward. Trammell takes the reigns at short for the rest of the season and plays a solid SS, setting himself up for the '94 season as the starter with Chris Gomez coming up from the minors.

1994: Trammell is healthy and hitting and fielding well when Sparky gets his latest hunch and tells Trammell to step aside so they can find out if Chris Gomez is the Tigers SS of the future. Gomez shifts to 2B against LH (Whitaker at this point was a platoon player) and Trammell plays SS. The strike ended that season as we all know.

1995: Gomez turns out to be very shaky with the glove, ends up in Sparky's doghouse and Trammell is reinstated at SS to finish out the season.

1996: Trammell plays one more season after Whitaker hangs em up as a part time player. Gomez is traded to the Padres, and Trammell retires at the end of the season.

A lot of people have a tendency to comment on the amount of games Trammell was playing per season. One of the reasons was in Detroit Sparky always found playing time/At Bats for his bench, so most of his starters were rarely hitting 150+ games played in a season. He was always able to find AB's and PT for guys like Tom Brookens, Doug Baker, Mark Wagner, Scotty Earl Mark DeJohn, Stan Papi.....you get the picture. The only player that never really came out of the lineup for Sparky was Travis Fryman who was a machine and Tony Phillips.

The emergence of ARod, Jeter, and Nomar: Ushered in the era of the offensive SS these guys came out of the gates so fast and were so closely associated with each other and were still producing when Trammell came up on the ballot for the first time that his career paled in comparison to the SS that were currently playing and Ripkens career had yet to go cold.

Yount and Ripken and Ozzie: The first two gentlemen were contemporaries of Trammell and put up better power numbers/counting stats at the same time Trammell was in the AL and they won when they put those numbers up early so picking up ground on them was a little tough. Ozzie....well he was just Ozzie.

Some of the things that I recall about Trammell, is that he had a very broad set of skills offensively, the biggest being the ability to put the bat on the ball. He never had huge walk totals, but never struck out more than 73 times in a season. After the 1982 season he closed his stance and started to turn on the ball with more authority and he pretty much owned the inside of the plate, and became a very good hitting SS.

Defensively he patterned his play after Mark Belanger and Eddie Brinkman. Always an overhand thrower, he won Gold Gloves with some of the best instincts and fundamental play of his era, not with a lot of flash and acrobatics. By the end of his career he had the range of a lawn chair, but positioned himself very well and did not make mistakes when the ball was hit to him. Never saw him dive for balls, as he was always in position.

Sad to say, but in the eyes of HOF voters fundamentally sound players are BORING because they make it look easy.

There was no SS in Baseball at the time better at CORRECTLY fielding a ground ball during his time and he turned the 4-6-3 DP the way it was diagramed on the chalkboard. Scouts were VERY impressed with Trammell's defense and said his arm was "as accurate as an atomic clock". He was also rated by coaches and managers as the league smartest player (Baseball sense) at least three times.