Barry Larkin Vs Alan Trammell

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Cougar
    Registered User
    • Jan 2003
    • 9058

    #31
    Originally posted by leecemark View Post
    --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.
    I'm getting a man-crush on Leecemark, because he's got this so right.

    Whether one prefers Larkin or Trammell, the difference is so slight that the real message to take from the question is that it's preposterous that Larkin's about to make the Hall on his 2nd or 3rd ballot while Trammell languishes in the teens.

    We're about to reach another Hunter-Tiant, Herman-Myer, Rizzuto-Stephens, Doerr-Gordon sort of dilemma. Of these, only Doerr-Gordon was resolved, and that took a generation.
    Last edited by Cougar; 01-06-2012, 03:47 PM. Reason: Added quote

    Comment

    • willshad
      Registered User
      • Jan 2000
      • 12919

      #32
      Originally posted by Cougar View Post
      I'm getting a man-crush on Leecemark, because he's got this so right.

      Whether one prefers Larkin or Trammell, the difference is so slight that the real message to take from the question is that it's preposterous that Larkin's about to make the Hall on his 2nd or 3rd ballot while Trammell languishes in the teens.

      We're about to reach another Hunter-Tiant, Herman-Myer, Rizzuto-Stephens, Doerr-Gordon sort of dilemma. Of these, only Doerr-Gordon was resolved, and that took a generation.
      I see no particular reason why we should feel the NEED to elect a certain number of players from a particular position, or from a certain time period. If there were no truly great players, then there were no truly great players. For the first 100 or so years of MLB baseball, there was arguably only one hall of fame third baseman...Home Run Baker. Then, we had a bunch of them all play during the same time period. The same may apply to shortstops. There weren't many truly great ones for a time, until Jeter and A-rod came along. What about Nomar? How are Trammell and Larkin any more qualified than him?

      I'm not saying that Trammell and Larkin definitely are not deserving. I just feel, in making their case, you should try to show how they were truly great, rather than compare them with the past standards of HOF selections.
      Last edited by willshad; 01-06-2012, 04:55 PM.

      Comment

      • Second Base Coach
        Tabletop Baseball Fan
        • May 2006
        • 4552

        #33
        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.
        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.
        Your Second Base Coach
        Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

        Comment

        • BigRon
          Registered User
          • Jan 2009
          • 9509

          #34
          Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
          Cal Ripken is considered to be one of the top 50 position players of all time? Really? Then he's even more overrated than I thought he was.
          FYI:

          Bill James rated Ripken number 48 alltime among ALL players- number 37 among position players.
          Bill Burgess' Greatest Players BBF poll ranks Ripken number 36 among position players.
          DoubleX' Rating the HOF Players BBF poll ranks Ripken number 35 among ALL players, number 27 among position players.
          Baseball-Reference' Fan EloRater ranks Ripken number 23 among position players.

          Say what you will about the various polls, but they all rate Ripken among the top 40 position players in baseball history.

          Comment

          • Dick Groat's syndrome
            formerly Mr. Red
            • Mar 2006
            • 791

            #35
            Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
            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.
            Now I'm even more confused. While I don't care at all about the Clemente Award, I could see why you feel it holds weight in a Hall of Fame discussion. However, it appears that you are saying that the Clemente Award contributes to the argument that Larkin was a better player than Trammell. Is this correct?

            Comment

            • Dick Groat's syndrome
              formerly Mr. Red
              • Mar 2006
              • 791

              #36
              Speaking of the Clemente Award, it's amazing how many scuzzy individuals have won an award based on sportsmanship and being an all-around good person. There's Pete Rose, Steve Garvey, Harold Reynolds, Kirby Puckett, and Curt Schilling (pretty prickly, though not a known philanderer or criminal like the others). The award winners make it look like its even more of a popularity contest than some of the other awards. Almost every winner has been a player that has been a media favorite.

              Comment

              • chicagowhitesox1173
                2005 World Series Champs
                • Jun 2010
                • 5798

                #37
                Originally posted by Dick Groat's syndrome View Post
                Speaking of the Clemente Award, it's amazing how many scuzzy individuals have won an award based on sportsmanship and being an all-around good person. There's Pete Rose, Steve Garvey, Harold Reynolds, Kirby Puckett, and Curt Schilling (pretty prickly, though not a known philanderer or criminal like the others). The award winners make it look like its even more of a popularity contest than some of the other awards. Almost every winner has been a player that has been a media favorite.
                I think your right, it's almost like at any regular job the suckups get the rewards over the harder workers. I always thought a guy like Albert Belle who was considered one of the biggest jerks of all time sometimes got a raw deal. Most teammates didnt have a problem with him except the media friendly teammates. No doubt he wasnt the best guy to be around but least he wasnt a phony and i always respected him for that;

                Samy Sosa who was loved by the media in the 90's was the biggest phony I've ever seen. I doubt he had more than 3 friends in the Cubs clubhouse while he was playing. Albert Belle was probaly disliked too some degree but he was respected.

                Using Belle and Sosa as examples deff is somewhat goofy but my point is fans hated Belle and loved Sosa only because he was media friendly at the time. Again not right to use belle and Sosa as a comparison but they both were in Chicago in the 90's and Sosa was a god compared to Belle and I have no doubt Belle cared more for wiining than Sosa ever did.
                Last edited by chicagowhitesox1173; 01-08-2012, 01:53 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)

                Comment

                • ol' aches and pains
                  A Gametime Decision
                  • Apr 2008
                  • 12229

                  #38
                  Originally posted by Dick Groat's syndrome View Post
                  Now I'm even more confused. While I don't care at all about the Clemente Award, I could see why you feel it holds weight in a Hall of Fame discussion. However, it appears that you are saying that the Clemente Award contributes to the argument that Larkin was a better player than Trammell. Is this correct?
                  Actually, the poll is kind of open to interptretation. It asks Trammel vs Larkin...who was better? I was thinking of the Clemente award in terms of of HOF worthiness (goes to the character clause). Obviously, winning the Clemente award doesn't make you a better player. And if Pete Rose, Steve Garvey, Harold Reynolds, Kirby Puckett, and Curt Schilling have all won the Clemente, which I wasn't aware of, then it's no guarantee of good character, either.
                  They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

                  Comment

                  • ol' aches and pains
                    A Gametime Decision
                    • Apr 2008
                    • 12229

                    #39
                    Originally posted by BigRon View Post
                    FYI:

                    Bill James rated Ripken number 48 alltime among ALL players- number 37 among position players.
                    Bill Burgess' Greatest Players BBF poll ranks Ripken number 36 among position players.
                    DoubleX' Rating the HOF Players BBF poll ranks Ripken number 35 among ALL players, number 27 among position players.
                    Baseball-Reference' Fan EloRater ranks Ripken number 23 among position players.

                    Say what you will about the various polls, but they all rate Ripken among the top 40 position players in baseball history.
                    OK, if Bill James says so, who am I to argue?
                    They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

                    Comment

                    • BigRon
                      Registered User
                      • Jan 2009
                      • 9509

                      #40
                      Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
                      OK, if Bill James says so, who am I to argue?
                      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.

                      Comment

                      • ol' aches and pains
                        A Gametime Decision
                        • Apr 2008
                        • 12229

                        #41
                        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.
                        They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

                        Comment

                        • willshad
                          Registered User
                          • Jan 2000
                          • 12919

                          #42
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • Dick Groat's syndrome
                            formerly Mr. Red
                            • Mar 2006
                            • 791

                            #43
                            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.

                            Comment

                            • ol' aches and pains
                              A Gametime Decision
                              • Apr 2008
                              • 12229

                              #44
                              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, 10:21 AM.
                              They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

                              Comment

                              • BigRon
                                Registered User
                                • Jan 2009
                                • 9509

                                #45
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X