Lou Whitaker

[Cowtipper]

I was surprised to see that there wasn't a Lou Whitaker thread. If there is one already, please forgive me.

Many people think Whitaker should be in the Hall of Fame. A second baseman, he played his whole 19-year career with the Detroit Tigers. In that time, he collected 2369 hits, 244 home runs and he hit .276 overall. He had a good eye at the plate, walking 1197 times and striking out only 1099 times.

A five time All-Star, Whitaker won the 1978 Rookie of the Year Award, plus three Gold Gloves and four Silver Sluggers.

Ranked the 11th best second baseman of all time by The Baseball Page, Whitaker received 15 votes in his only year on the Hall of Fame ballot. He is statistically similar to three Hall of Famers: Ryne Sandberg, Joe Morgan and Carlton Fisk.

So, should Lou Whitaker be in the Hall of Fame?

[wardawg]

The baseball page also ranks Eddie Collins as a better second baseman than Roger Hornsby, so I don't take this as a source that is truly reliable.

[Colorado Express]

Lou is right on the fringe for me.

[jjpm74]

Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell are both HOFers to me and it's amazing that they played alongside each other for as long as they did.

[Los Bravos]

Yes. Lou and Trammell.

[RuthMayBond]

I was surprised to see that there wasn't a Lou Whitaker thread.

I was surprised to see that you did a thread on a player that was actually . . .
. . . I'll stop before jalbright cuts me off

[Chadwick]

The baseball page also ranks Eddie Collins as a better second baseman than Roger Hornsby, so I don't take this as a source that is truly reliable.

That's certainly no indication of the site's "reliability" and Hornsby over Collins isn't necessarily a no-brainer.

[BenHertz]

The things keeping him out (in my opinion):

1. More games (2,390) than hits (2,369). It would be acceptable if he had over 400 HR, although 244 HR for a second baseman is pretty darn good.
2. Only 2 100-run seasons.
3. Only 2 seasons batting over .300.

Having more BB (1,197) and runs (1,386) than strikeouts (1,099) is a positive.

I voted "no", but a "maybe" probably would've been a better choice.

[hairmetalfreek]

I wouldn't throw a fit if he got in, but it would have to be a pretty weak ballot for me to vote for him. I think Trammell is 11th on my list of eligibles for 2009, Lou might be 13th or 14th.

[willshad]

The baseball page also ranks Eddie Collins as a better second baseman than Roger Hornsby, so I don't take this as a source that is truly reliable.

Its funny...if you look at their first basemen rankings, they have a little paragraph saying how Steve garvey is overrated, yet in their rankings right next to it, he is ranked ahead of guys like Mcgwire, Clark, Mcgriff, Delgado, Pujols, and terry :-o

Oh and they also have Gil Hodges ahead of jeff Bagwell. And dont have Tom Glavine in their top 59 starters. wow. I think 'unreliable' is an understatement.

[Paul Wendt]

But your example demonstrating unreliability is a poor one. Clay Davenport (career WARP1 now at baseballprospectus.com) and Bill James (career Win Shares 2002 in print) both rate Eddie Collins above Rogers Hornsby. Collins like Hornsby is one of the players sometimes placed in the top ten overall.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Lou Whitaker was the best second baseman in the AL for an extended period of time. His offensive stats are not out of line for a HOF second baseman, and he won three (3) Gold Gloves.

Trammell and Whitaker should both be in, IMO. I guess I'm not unique in thinking this. :applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud:

[TigerFan84]

Well I wish they both were in, Allen Trammell was one of my favorite Tigers. But I think Trammell falls just short, after around 1990 (excluding 93) he wasn't that good. And with Witaker he's close but honestly i don't know enough to say, I voted maybe.

[KCGHOST]

I think both guys have a case. They are not top tier guys, but they would sit comfortably at the top of the bottom third.

[Paul Wendt]

standings

Lou Whitaker is struggling at the polls. With 14 yes and 6 no, he has 70% of those who have decided. That is only one vote short of 70% but as jim albright would say he needs four more voters to cast yes votes in order to make it up and reach 75% (18:6).

There are 13 undecided. If they all vote yes or no, he needs at least 11 yes, no more than 2 no (25:8 overall). If they vote with 50% chance of going either way, probability he will get 11 of 13 votes is only about 1% but if the undecided are split in the same proportion as the decided --70% chance of yes, 30% chance of no-- than probability he will get at least 11 of their 13 votes is about 33%.