Trammell shouldn't have had broad-based skills and should have excelled at one like Ozzie instead. Maybe he would be in the HOF.

Before I get beat up over my post, I know the Wizard was a fine base stealer and wasn't a bad hitter during the late Eighties. He wasn't one-dimensional.

I have a very long (and quite positive) post lined up ready to go as soon as John posts an Ozzie thread - but there's no point in me arguing with John here. Of course, Trammell is a "front-logger" and should be quickly elected to the HoM. Of course, Trammell should have been the 1987 MVP.

He's not in the top ten, might not be in the top 15, but among SS, I think he's over the in/out line. Even my system, which is sensitive to issues of positional dominance (so which would probably tend to push Trammell downward a bit due to Cal and Yount), sees him as over the line. I think comparing him to Smith is fair and to my mind, they are nearly equal candidates, each with advantages. But they aren't so far apart that the comparisons will reveal any chasm between them, and I don't think a comparison of them will enable someone to reasonably argue for one guy and thereby against the other.

But that's just my opinion.

Strong enough bat to hit third for a 97 win team, gold glove defense, World Series MVP, peak OPS higher than Cal Ripken.

Among the most underappreciated and undervoted HOF candidates in baseball history.

I have him between Yount and Whitaker, all behind Banks and ahead of Sewell. Clearly in, will get an elect-me vote.

peak OPS higher than Cal Ripken.

Good discussion starter. Adjusting for context, Cal does inch back ahead though:

CR-162-145-144-139-128-124-122
AT-155-138-138-138-136-130-120

My favorite non-Royal of All-time. He played my favorite position for my dad's favorite team, and he was their best player. 1988 was really the first year at team ever broke my heart. The Royals were out of it, but the Tigers were in first place at the All-Star break while the Red Sox were in fourth dawdling around .500 and firing their manager. Then the Red Sox just went on fire going 21-9 in July, and catching the Tigers by September. The Tigers got hot at the end while the Red Sox slumped, but it wasn't enough and the Red Sox won the title.

For a ten year old that didn't even live in Detroit, I was pretty devastated.

What was his D like? I always had the impression he was solid if unspectacular.

What was his D like? I always had the impression he was solid if unspectacular

Three Gold Gloves, I believe. Strong, quick arm, great hands. Soft, dependable hands.

Good discussion starter. Adjusting for context, Cal does inch back ahead though:

CR-162-145-144-139-128-124-122
AT-155-138-138-138-136-130-120

Ripken was better. The gap between the two was nowhere near as great as the discrepancy in the HOF vote.

Ozzie being a near-unanimous vote and Tram hanging around 15-20% should be an embarrassment to the BBWAA. Neither Sparky Anderson, nor I, nor any Tiger fan would have traded Tram straight up for Ozzie at any time from 1980-1990.

Toolsy,

That's my impression too.

FRAA shows double digit run savings vs. average in six seasons, running btewen age 23 and 31. Had one really bad year in 1979 at age 21, then no negative years until he was 35. En toto 69 runs above average, which is solid but only 1/4 of Ozzie's total. For comparison's sake, I turned on the SBE and sorted the top 100 SS by games played at SS. Here's the FRAA1 for each guy above 1800 games at SS only:



Here's this table resorted by the FRAA per G at SS (note these are not adjusted defensive games, I don't have all day):



Trammell is 19th out of this group of 29. Smith, of course, is first. 5.0 FRAA/162 seems to generally be about the level where long-career SS start queing up, so Trammell is much closer to the minimum competence level than he is to Ozzie. But he still provides better than average defense over a long period of time, and so I don't present the chart to argue that his defense isn't good but rather that even though he wasn't a defensive standout, he was competent enough to handle the position well for a long time, and to get his bat into the lineup at a position where good hitting was somewhat to very scarce.

Trammell was a defensive standout.

What does FRAA measure?

After the 1984 World Series, Sparky Anderson told Bob Costas in the trophy presentation that "I've been saying it all year (Ed: maybe longer, memory isn't perfect) [Trammell] is the best player in baseball." With a Gold Glove year defensively, an OPS+ of 136, 19 SB, and clutch postseason play to rest his case on, Sparky wasn't far from being right if he wasn't right.

God, Honus Wagner was good. True, it was a different era, with defense more important, but my goodness. Ozzie Smith-level defense with a 150 career OPS+.

Michael Humphreys' Defensive Regression Analysis says that Wagner's defense is very overrated.

Trammell wasn't quite as good as Ripken offensively, defensively, or durability-wise (obviously), but a clear HOFer in my book. Post 11 is right -- there's a clear gap between the two, but nowhere near large enough to justify the absurd discrepancy in HOF voting results.

16. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 09, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2434942)
Michael Humphreys' Defensive Regression Analysis says that Wagner's defense is very overrated.

What does he say about Leach and Clarke?
Three all-time greater fielders, by some sabrmetrics, on the left side together for ten years. --Clarke left, Wagner short, Leach third or center.
And Ritchey at second for much of that time. Maybe Sam Leever and Deacon Philllipe deserve credit for pitching it there.

Ask him! I only have his data for shortstops, and that's career, not season-by-season.

Wagner being 'overrated' is quite vague considering he's ranked as "second best ever" in the list above.

Is he:

-- Still great, just not obscenely amazing like the stat above suggests?
-- A very good fielder, gold glover for a couple years at his best?
-- Above average fielder, though never the best in the league?
-- Average fielder?
-- Mediocre fielder, made up for it with his bat?
-- Stone gloved, his bat made up for it, but should have played a different position?

Its a similar issue with Lajoie and Pete Palmer's Fielding Runs. Lajoie wasn't *that* good, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have still been a great fielder.

You'd have to ask Michael Humphreys, but my guess is #2: A very good fielder, gold glover for a couple years at his best (although Tinker might have had something to say about that).

Even if Honus' defense is overrated, we oughta remember he didn't even play the position fulltime until age 29. How many guys (among those who could hit) were above average shortstops in their 30s, and played there until past 40?