BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Posnanski: HOF Story 3: The Yea Votes

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Posnanski: HOF Story 3: The Yea Votes

If every BBWAA member spent this much time on their HOF ballot…few would get handed in on time.

Bagwell
Larkin
Trammell
Raines
Edgar
L. Walker
McGwire
D. Murphy

All of which, finally, leads to a theory: I think players who excel in one phase of the game tend to FEEL like Hall of Famers more than players who do a lot of things well but perhaps don’t do anything transcendently well. Lou Whitaker … Dwight Evans … Willie Randolph … Reggie Smith … Bobby Grich … these are some of the non-Hall of Famers on top of the WAR chain. All of them were good in numerous ways. They all were good fielders, all good hitters, all good base runners (well, Dewey was pretty slow). WAR adds these things together and comes up with players who were more valuable over a career than, say, Jim Rice or Ralph Kiner. But, it seems to me, our minds tend to word differently: We latch on to singular seasons, spectacular feats, outsized achievements. The mind latches to RBIs. The mind latches to diving plays.

Repoz Posted: December 27, 2011 at 07:59 PM | 83 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: hall of fame, history, sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: December 27, 2011 at 08:41 PM (#4023970)

I have to call Poz out on this one:

Take two shortstops. They play almost exactly the same length of time — one had almost 9,400 plate appearances, the other almost 9,100.

This is a comparison of Barry Larkin and Alan Trammel. Barry Larkin never had consecutive 150 games seasons. He had 2 consecutive 140+ game seasons. In his prime ('88-'00), Larkin averaged 126 games. In Trammell's '78-'90 prime, he averaged 140 GP. Trammell was very durable, and Larkin just wasn't.

I think Larkin is, on balance, a deserving Hall of Famer. He was excellent when he was on the field. But Larkin's PA's were much more dispersed than Trammell's, and in terms of yearly roster construction, it's much easier to pencil in an Alan Trammell. One will actually take the field regularly. I think Poz missed that one, and Larkin deserves to get dinged for it.

2. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: December 27, 2011 at 08:50 PM (#4023978)

All of which, finally, leads to a theory: I think players who excel in one phase of the game tend to FEEL like Hall of Famers more than players who do a lot of things well but perhaps don’t do anything transcendently well. Lou Whitaker … Dwight Evans … Willie Randolph … Reggie Smith … Bobby Grich … these are some of the non-Hall of Famers on top of the WAR chain. All of them were good in numerous ways. They all were good fielders, all good hitters, all good base runners (well, Dewey was pretty slow). WAR adds these things together and comes up with players who were more valuable over a career than, say, Jim Rice or Ralph Kiner. But, it seems to me, our minds tend to work differently: We latch on to singular seasons, spectacular feats, outsized achievements. The mind latches to RBIs. The mind latches to diving plays.

That probably explains most of the "mistakes" we like to complain about, both omission and commission.

Jeff Bagwell has said that he never used steroids. Could he be lying? Of course. But as far as I know, nobody has publicly offered any evidence at all that he is lying. It’s true that presumption of innocence is not a requirement in the court of public opinion — you have every right in your day-to-day life to presume whatever you want. But, seems to me, presumption of innocence is pretty good policy. It is prominent (though not explicitly stated) in both the Fifth and Sixth amendments of the Constitution. It is at the core of the most just decisions, going back hundreds of years. It is the end result of the best in human thought about justice.

If someone provides a failed drug test for Bagwell, or someone publicly testifies that he used PEDs, well, then it will be a good time to reevaluate. But as far as I’m concerned, Jeff Bagwell absolutely did not use steroids. He is innocent. As far as I know, nobody has even tried to prove him guilty.

I only wish that all writers used this standard of evidence.

3. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: December 27, 2011 at 08:59 PM (#4023984)

Barry Larkin never had consecutive 150 games seasons.

4. Bob Tufts Posted: December 27, 2011 at 09:40 PM (#4024001)

To all the lawyers out there - does Bagwell have a credible legal case against the passive/aggressive writers that deny him entry to the HOF due to self-started rumors?

Entry to the HOF has financial rewards (as does being considered "clean" post-career), so can he claim damages against the scribes? Probably not, but I'd like to think that somehow/someway Bagwell could intimidate the SOB's that are screwing around with his ballot.

5. Mike Emeigh

Posted: December 27, 2011 at 10:04 PM (#4024016)

does Bagwell have a credible legal case against the passive/aggressive writers that deny him entry to the HOF due to self-started rumors?

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine a circumstance under which he would. The voting criteria allow a voter to consider "integrity", "sportsmanship", and "character", and I don't see how one would be able to sustain a legal challenge against a voter (or group of voters) who justify excluding Bagwell because of concerns about one of those aspects of his candidacy.

-- MWE

6. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: December 27, 2011 at 11:01 PM (#4024038)

True, but he played 110 of 114 games in 1994, 131 of 144 in 1995, and 152 games in 1996. 27 missed games in 3 years. That's better than Trammell's best of 35 missed games from 1985-1987. Like many players of his era (like Raines), the strikes make him look more fragile than he really was.

This is... a very good point. Looking at it through that perspective, Larkin was more durable than he appears at first. Suddenly, Larkin only misses out on the '89, '93, '97 and to a lesser extent, '91. Larkin still isn't durable, but it definitely looks a lot better.

7. SoSH U at work Posted: December 27, 2011 at 11:13 PM (#4024045)

True, but he played 110 of 114 games in 1994, 131 of 144 in 1995, and 152 games in 1996. 27 missed games in 3 years. That's better than Trammell's best of 35 missed games from 1985-1987. Like many players of his era (like Raines), the strikes make him look more fragile than he really was.

Not so fast. Larkin does in fact look better when viewed this way. But what's good for the Lark is good for the Trammel. Alan played all but 25 games from 1980-82, as his seemingly paltry 105 games played in 1981 was all but four of the Tigers' 109 contests in that strike-shortened year.

8. Guapo Posted: December 27, 2011 at 11:25 PM (#4024053)

Trammell played more than 130 games in a season only once in the nine seasons he played after reaching age 30. I've always thought of his lack of in-season durability as one of his bigger weaknesses.

9. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: December 27, 2011 at 11:29 PM (#4024056)

Not so fast. Larkin does in fact look better when viewed this way. But what's good for the Lark is good for the Trammel. Alan played all but 25 games from 1980-82, as his seemingly paltry 105 games played in 1981 was all but four of the Tigers' 109 contests in that strike-shortened year.

Oh, there's no doubt Trammel was more durable. Yeah, I messed up on the 1981 strike, but my main point wasn't that Larkin was as durable as Trammell, but that he looks worse then he really is due to the missed games in 1994-95.

Those 2 years really mess with people's perceptions: Larkin never had back to back 150 game seasons, Raines stopped being a full time player in 1992, Maddux won 20 games only twice...

10. SoSH U at work Posted: December 27, 2011 at 11:35 PM (#4024062)

Oh, there's no doubt Trammel was more durable. Yeah, I messed up on the 1981 strike, but my main point wasn't that Larkin was as durable as Trammell, but that he looks worse then he really is due to the missed games in 1994-95.

Those 2 years really mess with people's perceptions: Larkin never had back to back 150 game seasons, Raines stopped being a full time player in 1992, Maddux won 20 games only twice...

Oh I wasn't disputing your larger point. I just thought it funny that Larkin moved past Tram with strike credit, but then Tram moved back in front when his own strike-shortened season was taken into account.

And no player's career narrative has suffered more than Rock from labor-management shenanignas. He lost time during his fantastic 81, his lost games in 94-95 make him look more part-timey at the end than he was and he lost a month's worth of games during a potential MVP season in 1987.

11. Don Malcolm

Posted: December 27, 2011 at 11:43 PM (#4024067)

If the question is "why isn't Trammell getting as much BBWAA support as Larkin," the answer is probably not related to questions of durability. It's more likely located in the fact that Larkin aged better than Trammell, as evidenced in the five-year OPS+ averages:

Age, Trammell, Larkin
27-31, 118, 128
28-32, 127, 131
29-33, 123, 132
30-34, 113, 133
31-35, 112, 131
32-36, 114, 128
33-37, 103, 118

Of course, it's doubtful that the BBWAA is looking at it in just this way, but there seems to be a perception that Larkin was a much better offensive player than Trammell, a perception that is more than a bit exaggerated.

In the Hall of Merit elections, Larkin received 94% of the possible vote; Trammell received 86%. That's enough of a difference to note, but not enough to put one in the HoF and not the other. One senses there's a weird carryover here from the still-unfathomable dismissal of Whitaker that has poisoned the minds of many BBWAA'ers WRT Trammell. James's scenario in PoG was they'd be elected together--and they would probably have done a lot better if they could've been a package deal. They really should have arranged to retire in the same year...

12. jingoist Posted: December 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM (#4024074)

Clearly there is a bias against Tiger players afoot here.
First its Whitaker, then its Trammel and poor old Morris is not getting much love either.
God knows, Lolich was blown off early as well.
Its a conspiracy I say.

13. smileyy Posted: December 28, 2011 at 01:12 AM (#4024098)

I struggle to understand the Trammell oversight by voters. Is it some sort of bizarre era thing. Was it because Detroit fell off the map at the end of his career? I grew up in Cincinnati, so I was always aware of Larkin as the Reds best player of that era. I never heard much about Trammell, but I never heard much about the AL due to that era being a sad backwards world where the best a kid could hope for was a line score in the paper.

14. Walt Davis Posted: December 28, 2011 at 01:22 AM (#4024100)

Those 2 years really mess with people's perceptions: Larkin never had back to back 150 game seasons, Raines stopped being a full time player in 1992, Maddux won 20 games only twice...

Sosa never hit more than 40 HRs in a season before 1998 ...

Larkin vs. Trammell ... I can certainly see the anti-argument in the case of Larkin and Walker but really I judge career durability by number of games/PAs. Trammell was more durable early in his career, Larkin was more durable late in his career. If I take anything from that, I take that Larkin was probably more talented but got hurt early.

Looking at their primes -- I used 25-35 for Trammell, 24-34 for Larkin -- there's not a dime's difference:

AT: 5859 PA, 123 OPS+, 53 WAR, no strike years, one major injury (29 games played)
BL: 5863 PA, 128 OPS+, 56.5 WAR, 94 strike, 2 major injuries (97 and 73 games)

Sorry, don't see a durability edge for Trammell there anyway.

As to the BBWAA, I think there are three main differences. First and probably most important is that Larkin has an MVP. Sure, Trammell deserves one but there you have it. Second, Trammell was comped during his career to Ripken while there wasn't anybody like Larkin in the NL. Third is 12 AS games for Larkin vs. 6 for Trammell (related to point 2).

But they really are very similar -- heck, they're only separated by 2 career WAR with similar profiles (above average at everything). And "logically" I don't see how you can vote for one and not the other.

Hmmm... Trammell stole a lot more bases than I remembered.

Whoa! Omar Vizquel is 8 PA away from being the all-time leader in PA after 30 among SS, passing Wagner. (I was curious and Larkin is 12th and Trammell 33rd with a 1400 PA difference post-30, 70% games at SS).

15. Walt Davis Posted: December 28, 2011 at 01:42 AM (#4024106)

On Poz's article -- he lists Ozzie not as someone in the HoF for his fielding but as someone "helped significantly" by his baserunning. I don't think so. Ozzie would have been in almost regardless of his offense -- he was Brooks at SS. The same might have been true of Aparicio as well but there's no doubt Aparicio was also famous for his base-stealing at the time (led the league 9 straight years) so you can't really separate his candidacy from the steals (but it did take him a long time).

The voting history of Ozzie vs. Aparicio is interesting. Ozzie had 13 GG but Aparicio had 9. Ozzie leads in AS too but only 15 to 13. Rightly or wrongly, Aparicio was considered something of an offensive force due to his SB prowess while Ozzie was never viewed that way (and never led the league in steals). But Aparicio was going nowhere in HoF voting (well, steadily progressing but from 28% start) until year 5 when he jumped 26 percent followed by another 17% and he was in. Ozzie sailed in with 92% on the first ballot.

Had to be more than the backflips right?

The saber case for Ozzie over Aparicio is reasonably easy to make but the "traditional standards" case is not.

16. smileyy Posted: December 28, 2011 at 01:48 AM (#4024109)

I wouldn't underestimate the power of the backflips, especially in those media-starved eras.

17. DanG Posted: December 28, 2011 at 01:49 AM (#4024110)

All players in MLB history with 1500+ G at SS, 175+ HR and 175+ SB

Rk         Player WAR/pos  HR  SB    PA From   To
1   Alan Trammell    66.9 185 236  9375 1977 1996
2    Barry Larkin    68.9 198 379  9057 1986 2004
3     Derek Jeter    70.8 240 339 11155 1995 2011 

18. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: December 28, 2011 at 01:53 AM (#4024112)

The voting history of Ozzie vs. Aparicio is interesting. Ozzie had 13 GG but Aparicio had 9. Ozzie leads in AS too but only 15 to 13. Rightly or wrongly, Aparicio was considered something of an offensive force due to his SB prowess while Ozzie was never viewed that way (and never led the league in steals). But Aparicio was going nowhere in HoF voting (well, steadily progressing but from 28% start) until year 5 when he jumped 26 percent followed by another 17% and he was in. Ozzie sailed in with 92% on the first ballot.

It appears the HOF has fixed their clerical error WRT Aparicio's vote totals. I seem to recall his published vote % for 1981 used to be something like 12%, making his 1980-1982 totals read 32%, 12%, 42%, which was strange indeed. It is now 36.9%.

Or am I thinking of someone else?

19. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: December 28, 2011 at 02:02 AM (#4024117)

Had to be more than the backflips right?

Era adjustment. Even in the late 70's/early 80's, there seemed to be a bias against voting someone in quickly unless they were overwhelmingly qualified. Duke Snider had to wait 11 ballots, Kirby Puckett took one. Eddie Mathews took 5 ballots. And of course, in 1980, Ron Santo got fewer votes than Don Larsen, and fell off the ballot.

20. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 28, 2011 at 02:48 AM (#4024136)

Trammell isn't in because he didn't hit a ton of home runs, wasn't Ozzie Smith, neverlayed for the Yankees, and was never a colorful characters. All shortstops in the Hall fit one of those criteria.

21. smileyy Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:00 AM (#4024137)

Which of those categories does Larkin fall into? His election seems to be on track for this year.

22. michaelplank Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:04 AM (#4024140)

Trammell isn't in because he didn't hit a ton of home runs, wasn't Ozzie Smith, neverlayed for the Yankees, and was never a colorful characters. All shortstops in the Hall fit one of those criteria.

Those great Tiger clubs of the 1980s were, and are, perceived as teams, without a single bright star leading them to glory (at least among position players). Sparky's platooning fed into this image. Whitaker and Trammell are suffering for it now, maybe Lance Parrish too.

23. smileyy Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:43 AM (#4024149)

...whereas after Eric Davis and Paul O'Neill left, the Cincinnati Reds were Barry Larkin and a rotating set of pieces. I can see it.

24. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:14 AM (#4024186)

Ah, for cripe's sake. Larkin was a lot better player than Trammell. Scored more runs; hit more doubles, triples, and homers; stole more bases; got caught stealing less; walked more; struck out less; had a higher AVG, OBP, and SLG. Trammell did have five more hits, but it took him over 300 more AB to do it - another edge for Larkin. As noted by others, made TWICE as many AS teams.

The only advantage I'd give Trammell is durability. Trammell is a Hall of Very Gooder; the mainstream media is right about that. WAY overrated here, mainly due to the silly WAR worship.

25. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:27 AM (#4024194)

He was a consensus Hall of Famer years before the WAR framework was popularized. Feel free to try again.

26. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:29 AM (#4024195)

Trammell isn't in because he didn't hit a ton of home runs, wasn't Ozzie Smith, never played for the Yankees, and was never a colorful character. All shortstops in the Hall fit one of those criteria.

Even by the unkillable faith-based standards of "booga booga, Yankee voting bias," that's a goofy throw-in. There are 21 shortstops in Cooperstown. The ones who wore a Yankee cap are Phil Rizzuto, and 3/14ths of Joe Sewell. Both were Veterans Committee picks.

27. Sam Hutcheson is the Rickey Henderson of... Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:33 AM (#4024198)

...whereas after Eric Davis and Paul O'Neill left, the Cincinnati Reds were Barry Larkin and a rotating set of pieces.

Man, Reggie Sanders just gets no love at all.

28. Don Malcolm

Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:46 AM (#4024200)

Has anyone else beside Reggie played for seven different teams in seven years? Without playing for more than one team per season?? (Knocks out Dick Littlefield...)

29. cardsfanboy

Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:51 AM (#4024201)

Even by the unkillable faith-based standards of "booga booga, Yankee voting bias," that's a goofy throw-in. There are 21 shortstops in Cooperstown. The ones who wore a Yankee cap are Phil Rizzuto, and 3/14ths of Joe Sewell. Both were Veterans Committee picks.

Glad I read all the way down to here, I saw that comment and scratched my head thinking "what shortstop besides Rizzuto had Yankee uniform on?"

Heck looking at the list of 21 hof shortstops, it seems if you ever played a city starting with the letter C you had a decent chance(9 out of 21 players can make that claim, Tinker can claim to have played for three teams under that criteria..)(of course 9 of the 21 also played for a New York team at some point in time)

Not really sure there is any real trends in shortstops

30. mex4173 Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:57 AM (#4024203)

Even by the unkillable faith-based standards of "booga booga, Yankee voting bias," that's a goofy throw-in. There are 21 shortstops in Cooperstown. The ones who wore a Yankee cap are Phil Rizzuto, and 3/14ths of Joe Sewell. Both were Veterans Committee picks.

If you extend it to New York, you pick up Travis Jackson, George Davis, Pee Wee Reese, Monte Ward, Arky Vaughan and slivers of Maranville and Jennings, which is actually fewer players than I was expecting.

31. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: December 28, 2011 at 06:02 AM (#4024205)

All players in MLB history with 1500+ G at SS, 175+ HR and 175+ SB

Rk         Player WAR/pos  HR  SB    PA From   To
1   Alan Trammell    66.9 185 236  9375 1977 1996
2    Barry Larkin    68.9 198 379  9057 1986 2004
3     Derek Jeter    70.8 240 339 11155 1995 2011

Before he went to the Yankees, Alex Rodriguez had 1275 games (don't know exactly how many at short), 345 HR, and 177 steals. Not to refute your point--just thought I'd look him up.

32. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: December 28, 2011 at 06:18 AM (#4024210)

All players in MLB history with 1500+ G at SS, 175+ HR and 175+ SB

Rk Player WAR/pos HR SB PA From To
1 Alan Trammell 66.9 185 236 9375 1977 1996
2 Barry Larkin 68.9 198 379 9057 1986 2004
3 Derek Jeter 70.8 240 339 11155 1995 2011

Robin Yount missed by 21 SS games, and Jimmy Rollins will join with 5 more HR.

33. alilisd Posted: December 28, 2011 at 07:16 AM (#4024220)

Trammell isn't in because he didn't hit a ton of home runs, wasn't Ozzie Smith, neverlayed for the Yankees, and was never a colorful characters. All shortstops in the Hall fit one of those criteria.

Apparently Honus Wagner was quite a colorful character. I never knew.

34. DanG Posted: December 28, 2011 at 07:21 AM (#4024222)

Yount missed by 21 SS games, and Jimmy Rollins will join with 5 more HR

I wondered if anyone would pick that nit.

You get the same list if you move the qualifier to 2000+ G at SS. That pushes Yount (and ARod) a ways off the list.
Add a fourth qualifier, say a .280 BA. Or 60 WAR. Either of those drops Rollins from future association with this group.

35. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: December 28, 2011 at 07:56 AM (#4024223)

I like the 150 HR, 150 SB, 50% of games played at SS list. A-Rod is on it now, but he's about a season away from losing the 50%. Besides him, there's Larkin, Trammell, Jeter, Yount, Rollins, and, you guessed it, Shawon Dunston.

36. Ray (RDP)

Posted: December 28, 2011 at 08:28 AM (#4024226)

does Bagwell have a credible legal case against the passive/aggressive writers that deny him entry to the HOF due to self-started rumors?

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine a circumstance under which he would. The voting criteria allow a voter to consider "integrity", "sportsmanship", and "character", and I don't see how one would be able to sustain a legal challenge against a voter (or group of voters) who justify excluding Bagwell because of concerns about one of those aspects of his candidacy.

Mike is right here, and also any such lawsuit would fail for more basic reasons. I can't imagine what cause of action Bagwell could successfully sue under.

37. smileyy Posted: December 28, 2011 at 08:31 AM (#4024227)

So...uh...why did people think Shawon Dunston was an All-Star?

38. Matt Welch Posted: December 28, 2011 at 09:29 AM (#4024231)

Those great Tiger clubs of the 1980s were, and are, perceived as teams, without a single bright star leading them to glory (at least among position players).

I've always found them very similar to the '70s Dodgers in that regard, though Garvey (wrongly) was considered the breakout star in a way that I don't think Gibson or Tram-Whit ever were.

39. Matt Welch Posted: December 28, 2011 at 09:32 AM (#4024232)

True, but he played 110 of 114 games in 1994, 131 of 144 in 1995, and 152 games in 1996. 27 missed games in 3 years. That's better than Trammell's best of 35 missed games from 1985-1987. Like many players of his era (like Raines), the strikes make him look more fragile than he really was.

Which is why I always adjust WAR for 162-game (team) seasons. I'm sure someone somewhere has done a calculation of most WAR lost due to strikes....

40. toratoratora Posted: December 28, 2011 at 01:12 PM (#4024235)

Ah, for cripe's sake. Larkin was a lot better player than Trammell. Scored more runs; hit more doubles, triples, and homers; stole more bases; got caught stealing less; walked more; struck out less; had a higher AVG, OBP, and SLG. Trammell did have five more hits, but it took him over 300 more AB to do it - another edge for Larkin. As noted by others, made TWICE as many AS teams.

The only advantage I'd give Trammell is durability. Trammell is a Hall of Very Gooder; the mainstream media is right about that. WAY overrated here, mainly due to the silly WAR worship.

Yeah, but Larkin played in a high offense era whereas Trammel did his work in a time when runs and scoring were low, thus mitigating much if not all of the difference.

41. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 28, 2011 at 01:44 PM (#4024238)

Larkin was better than Trammell, but only by a little bit. OPS+ is a reasonably good tool for comparing two players with similar skill sets across eras, and Larkin's OPS+ was 6 points higher than Trammell's. Larkin is a no-doubter Hall of Famer, easily in the top ten among all-time shortstops. Trammell, being only a little worse than Larkin, is clearly a HoFer too.

42. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: December 28, 2011 at 02:03 PM (#4024242)

What happened to the bookmarks?

Also, Trammell and Larkin are both HOFers.

43. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: December 28, 2011 at 02:24 PM (#4024244)

Attacking Barry Larkin to make the case for Trammell is beneath BBTF

Shame

44. Teufel's Graveyard Posted: December 28, 2011 at 02:38 PM (#4024246)

What happened to the bookmarks?

Must be part of the temporary site maintenance - there had been requests for more bookmarks visible at one time.

45. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: December 28, 2011 at 02:39 PM (#4024247)

Which is why I always adjust WAR for 162-game (team) seasons. I'm sure someone somewhere has done a calculation of most WAR lost due to strikes....

Raines or Baines lost the most down the drains.

46. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:00 PM (#4024252)

Actually, it's probably Rickey or Maddux. On a simple prorating basis, I get Rickey losing 5.3, Maddux 4.7. I'll go with Rickey, not only because his total is higher, but because it's unlikely Maddux would have kept up his unreal rates in 1994 for an entire season.

47. Chris Fluit Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:00 PM (#4024253)

As to the BBWAA, I think there are three main differences. First and probably most important is that Larkin has an MVP. Sure, Trammell deserves one but there you have it. Second, Trammell was comped during his career to Ripken while there wasn't anybody like Larkin in the NL. Third is 12 AS games for Larkin vs. 6 for Trammell (related to point 2).

But they really are very similar -- heck, they're only separated by 2 career WAR with similar profiles (above average at everything). And "logically" I don't see how you can vote for one and not the other.

Exactly. For a lot of writers, the difference is: Larkin- 1 MVP, Trammell- 0; Larkin- best NL shortstop of '90s, Trammell- 3rd best AL shortstop of '80s (you mentioned Ripken, but left off Yount). It's overly simplistic but it's consistent with public statements and voting patterns. Even in Poz's comments sections, one person mentions that they would refuse to vote for more than 3 players per position per decade- immediately ruling out Trammell (who also falls behind the NL's Smith by this reckoning).

It's too bad that no one wrote a Trammell to Whitaker to Chance poem. Otherwise, we might have see both of the Tigers infielders in the Hall of Fame.

48. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:05 PM (#4024256)

49. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:22 PM (#4024263)

It's too bad that no one wrote a Trammell to Whitaker to Chance poem. Otherwise, we might have see both of the Tigers infielders in the Hall of Fame.

Trammell to Whitaker, to Garbey just doesn't sing.

50. Sweatpants Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:22 PM (#4024264)

I'll go with Rickey, not only because his total is higher, but because it's unlikely Maddux would have kept up his unreal rates in 1994 for an entire season.

I don't disagree, but, to be fair, Maddux did keep those rates up for the next 200 or so innings that he pitched.

But, yeah, I'm not wholly comfortable simply extrapolating that a guy would have kept playing the same way for the rest of the season. Paul O'Neill was not really a .350 hitter.

51. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:25 PM (#4024266)

Didn't Bill James make exactly this argument in one of the mid-80s abstracts when discussing Darrell Evans? Or maybe it was the Historical Abstract.

Pretty sure it's the New Historical Abstract, and you're right about it being the Evans comment.

52. Mike Emeigh

Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:38 PM (#4024275)

Apparently Honus Wagner was quite a colorful character.

As a Pirates' coach in the 30s and 40s, he was. Not exactly Yogi Berra, but quite the story teller.

-- MWE

53. alilisd Posted: December 28, 2011 at 03:50 PM (#4024282)

As a Pirates' coach in the 30s and 40s, he was. Not exactly Yogi Berra, but quite the story teller.

-- MWE

Interesting. A bit unusual for a non-drinker, iirc, but his advocacy of exercise/strength training probably also made him a bit of a "character" for the time. Colorful nickname, too.

54. AROM Posted: December 28, 2011 at 04:06 PM (#4024290)

To all the lawyers out there - does Bagwell have a credible legal case against the passive/aggressive writers that deny him entry to the HOF due to self-started rumors?

For not voting him on their HOF ballot? Not a chance in hell. Best you could come up with is a defamation suit for making the steroid accusations themselves. But to the best of my knowledge, Bagwell would have to prove that the writer had knowledge that the accusations were false. Like what Clemens tried to do with his trainer. Sounds like a pretty tough task, and a risky one as well. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet.

55. ray james Posted: December 28, 2011 at 04:26 PM (#4024300)

I'm trying to imagine what Bagwell would say to the judge:

"But... your honor, they just won't admit how great I am! Surely this is worth, at a minimum, 1.2M in compensatory damages and 2.7M in punitive damages!"

56. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 28, 2011 at 04:28 PM (#4024301)

It's too bad that no one wrote a Trammell to Whitaker to Chance poem. Otherwise, we might have see both of the Tigers infielders in the Hall of Fame.

Not enough rhymes for "Wockenfuss."

57. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: December 28, 2011 at 04:41 PM (#4024306)

Not enough rhymes for "Wockenfuss."

"Blunderbuss" is both an old-school musket and a doofus.

58. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: December 28, 2011 at 04:53 PM (#4024310)

If a poet had been paying attention when Darrell Evans was playing first, there would be three more Tigers in the Hall.

59. LargeBill Posted: December 28, 2011 at 04:55 PM (#4024313)

I think Trammel is hurt by insufficient statistical information. If only the official scorer would record a winning shortstop after each game then we could determine which one best hit and fielded to the score.

60. Chris Fluit Posted: December 28, 2011 at 04:57 PM (#4024316)

These are the saddest of possible cries:
"Trammell to Whitaker to Anyone."
Two tiger cubs and some other guys:
"Trammell to Whitaker to Anyone."
Whether with Thompsons or Bergmans or Fielders
They roamed the infield for fourteen odd years
Words that are heavy with nothing but our fears:
"Trammell to Whitaker to Anyone."

61. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Molina Posted: December 28, 2011 at 04:58 PM (#4024318)

Trammell to Whitaker to Cabell seems like it would work into something.

62. DanG Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:07 PM (#4024320)

63. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:10 PM (#4024322)

I think Trammel is hurt by insufficient statistical information. If only the official scorer would record a winning shortstop after each game then we could determine which one best hit and fielded to the score.

The Tigers were 1131-1048-1 in Trammell's starts, and the Reds were 1075-982-2 in Larkin's. They're both flaming bags of Wockenfuss compared to Mark Belanger, who went 997-694, plus 206 saves.

Oriole fans deserved to see Belanger hit the 1000 mark, but Baltimore got rid of him and gave his job to an employee's son.

64. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Molina Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:16 PM (#4024326)

This is the weakest of possible wit:
Trammell to Whitaker to Cabell
Trio of tigers, and two that could hit,
Trammell to Whitaker to Cabell
The first sacker's bat and fate was between us
Killing another Detroit rally is heinous–
They might have succeeded if it wasn't for Enos,
"Trammell to Whitaker to Cabell"

65. Brian

Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#4024329)

Trammell- 3rd best AL shortstop of '80s (you mentioned Ripken, but left off Yount)

Yount stopped playing shortstop after 1984, moving Trammell back to 2nd best to Cal.

66. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: December 28, 2011 at 05:52 PM (#4024358)

Killing another Detroit rally is heinous–

heneous?

67. Slivers of Maranville (SdeB) Posted: December 28, 2011 at 06:05 PM (#4024372)

slivers of Maranville

I've been waiting for many years to come upon a better handle than A Surfeit of Peaches Graham, and I may have found it.

68. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 28, 2011 at 06:22 PM (#4024391)

Actually, it's probably Rickey or Maddux. On a simple prorating basis, I get Rickey losing 5.3, Maddux 4.7. I'll go with Rickey, not only because his total is higher, but because it's unlikely Maddux would have kept up his unreal rates in 1994 for an entire season.

I don't know how much WAR he lost, but David Cone had a very good shot at winning 20 games in both 1994 and 1995 if the seasons had been 162 games. That might have been enough to make him a HOFer.

69. Don Malcolm

Posted: December 28, 2011 at 07:06 PM (#4024420)

Cone needed six wins to reach 200, and if he could have kept his WPCT above .600 in doing so (something he gave ground on with astonishing rapidity after his perfect game...) he would have been part of a group of pitchers who (with one exception--not counting 19th century pitchers, mind you) always get enshrined. Though I'm not sure if he'd have made it in through the front door.

But he certainly had a tremendous shot to win 20 in 1994, and a very good one in '95. That would have required exactly six more wins.

70. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: December 28, 2011 at 07:09 PM (#4024426)

I don't know how much WAR he lost, but David Cone had a very good shot at winning 20 games in both 1994 and 1995 if the seasons had been 162 games. That might have been enough to make him a HOFer.

Well, if you're talking lost HOF hopes, the line starts at McGriff. easily over 500 HR with no strikes. Raines, Cone, and Baines all lost big too. Baines lost about 100 hits, which doesn't quite put him over 3,000, but gets him damned close.

71. Walt Davis Posted: December 28, 2011 at 09:40 PM (#4024559)

As is oft-noted around here, Raines got the triple whammy -- 81 strike, 94 strike (and 95 late start) and losing a month to collusion* (was that 87 or 88?). Adds up to nearly a full season, half in in his prime. In WAR terms, it probably cost him about 3.5-4 WAR (2 in the 81 strike, 1 in the month layoff, .5-1 in 94-95 when he was pretty meh). But it wasn't going to get him to any milestones so it's not clear it would have really made any difference in his HoF case.

* This is starting to be ancient history so for any who don't know ... once upon a time, MLB FA rules said that if you didn't re-sign with your old team by date X, then if you later re-signed with them, you couldn't start until May 1 (I think it was). This was combined with the clever ploy of collusion where teams did as much as they thought they could get away with to avoid signing other teams' FAs. Nobody offered Raines a contract, he eventually had to re-sign with the Expos and sit out the first month.

72. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 28, 2011 at 09:56 PM (#4024568)

once upon a time, MLB FA rules said that if you didn't re-sign with your old team by date X, then if you later re-signed with them, you couldn't start until May 1 (I think it was).

I'm pretty sure this was just in place for the 1987 season. Bob Boone and Rich Gedman were two other players I remember being affected by it, although there were others as well.

73. michaelplank Posted: December 29, 2011 at 12:32 AM (#4024708)

whereas after Eric Davis and Paul O'Neill left, the Cincinnati Reds were Barry Larkin and a rotating set of pieces.

O'Neill wasn't even that big of a star with the Reds. When he was traded to the Yankees for Roberto Kelly, the perception at the time was that the Reds had won the deal. The Reds had to throw in a scrub to even out the trade.

74. Santanaland Diaries Posted: December 29, 2011 at 12:39 AM (#4024713)

I'm pretty sure this was just in place for the 1987 season. Bob Boone and Rich Gedman were two other players I remember being affected by it, although there were others as well.

I think it lasted longer than that. I seem to remember news stories noting that the window for Gary Gaetti to come back to the Twins had passed, which would imply it lasted at least until 1991. The difference is that you only had collusion in 1987, so in other years if the deadline passed the player wouldn't come back at all.

75. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: December 29, 2011 at 01:28 AM (#4024746)

I think it lasted longer than that. I seem to remember news stories noting that the window for Gary Gaetti to come back to the Twins had passed, which would imply it lasted at least until 1991. The difference is that you only had collusion in 1987, so in other years if the deadline passed the player wouldn't come back at all.

The Biz of Baseball has some of the old Basic Agreements. The 1990-1993 agreement still had the May 1 rule. On page 51 (page 57 of the pdf) it says that if a team doesn't offer arbitration by December 7, or if they do offer arbitration and the player declines and doesn't sign by January 8, they can't negotiate until May 1.

EDIT: It was in the 1997-2000 and 2003-2006 agreements too.

76. smileyy Posted: December 29, 2011 at 01:42 AM (#4024753)

O'Neill wasn't even that big of a star with the Reds. When he was traded to the Yankees for Roberto Kelly, the perception at the time was that the Reds had won the deal. The Reds had to throw in a scrub to even out the trade.

He wasn't a star like he was in NY, but he was one of the "faces" of the Reds at that point.

And yeah, I remember continuously waiting for Roberto Kelly to be good.

77. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: December 29, 2011 at 02:02 AM (#4024767)

Roberto Kelly's baseball-reference page led me to Joe Mays's page. I probably look at it a couple of times a year, but I always say "What?!?!?" audibly when I see his cousin is Carl Mays.

78. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 29, 2011 at 02:11 AM (#4024769)

I stand corrected. Did anyone ever sit out till May 1 in any season other than 1987?

79. Something Other Posted: December 29, 2011 at 01:08 PM (#4024957)

whereas after Eric Davis and Paul O'Neill left, the Cincinnati Reds were Barry Larkin and a rotating set of pieces.

O'Neill wasn't even that big of a star with the Reds. When he was traded to the Yankees for Roberto Kelly, the perception at the time was that the Reds had won the deal. The Reds had to throw in a scrub to even out the trade.

I remember that one. Bill James all but sneered at the trade, calling it a typical Steinbrenner move, getting an older, more expensive, more established player for a better, younger, cheaper player in Kelly.

80. michaelplank Posted: December 30, 2011 at 12:12 AM (#4025454)

I remember that one. Bill James all but sneered at the trade, calling it a typical Steinbrenner move, getting an older, more expensive, more established player for a better, younger, cheaper player in Kelly.

I had forgotten about that specific example, but you are right on. Here are the money quotes from the 1993 edition of the Bill James Player Ratings Book:

It is my opinion that Kelly will be a better player than O'Neill, and that the Reds will win the trade by a substantial margin if they can keep Kelly.

The trade is a classic Yankee blunder -- failing to realize that 1) O'Neill is 30, and won't be the player in his thirties that he was in his twenties, and 2) almost two-thirds of O'Neill's career home runs were hit in Cincinnati, and he won't hit with the same power in New York.

81. Banta Posted: December 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM (#4025463)

O'Neill is 30, and won't be the player in his thirties that he was in his twenties

Well, he was absolutely right on that.

82. Ray (RDP)

Posted: December 30, 2011 at 12:47 AM (#4025480)

Cone needed six wins to reach 200, and if he could have kept his WPCT above .600 in doing so (something he gave ground on with astonishing rapidity after his perfect game...) he would have been part of a group of pitchers who (with one exception--not counting 19th century pitchers, mind you) always get enshrined. Though I'm not sure if he'd have made it in through the front door.

But he certainly had a tremendous shot to win 20 in 1994, and a very good one in '95. That would have required exactly six more wins.

Mussina won 16 games in 1994, and 19 games in 1995. Without the strike he'd most likely have won 20 games at least once if not twice, and we could have saved ourselves a dozen years of "he can't win 20" silliness from the writers.

(The alternate path to this was 1996, when on his last start of the season Mussina, with 19 wins, turned a 2-1 lead over to Benitez in the 9th, who, instead of preserving Mussina's 20th win, proceeded to blow the lead. So I guess "can't win 20" includes "the bullpen blowing your 20th.")

God, sportswriters are such idiots sometimes.

83. Something Other Posted: December 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM (#4025482)

I'd forgotten about your latter example. An impressive example of crushing the facts to fit a preconceived story. Clearly, if Mussina had been a winner, he would have demanded someone else close out the game.

I wonder how many ballots it'll take Mussina to get into the Hall--10?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Posnanski: HOF Story 3: The Yea Votes

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics