Trammell and the HOF
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Trammell
By Bill James
A discussion of Alan Trammell’s qualifications for the Hall of Fame.
I am a Detroit Tigers fan who is very disappointed in the lack of Hall of Fame support given to Alan Trammell. This is especially considering a contemporary, Ozzie Smith, who was very close with Trammell in Win Shares, went in on the first ballot. Omar Vizquel, who I feel was significantly inferior as a player to Trammell, projects in the Gold Mine at 80% likelihood. Two questions: 1) Do you think his support will improve over time? 2)If he had won the MVP he deserved in 1987, would that have significantly changed the perception of him?
Brian Kennedy
Let’s do an inventory of the issues involved there:
1) Was Alan Trammell as good (or substantially as good) as Ozzie Smith?
2) If so, why did Ozzie do better in Hall of Fame voting?
3) Was Alan Trammell, in fact, substantially better than Omar Vizquel?
4) If so, why I am saying that Vizquel is a likely Hall of Famer?
5) Did Alan Trammell actually deserve the MVP Award in 1987?
6) If he had won the Award, would that have made a big difference in MVP voting?
7) Will Trammell’s support improve over time? and
8) (The big one) is Trammell in fact a player of Hall of Fame stature?
This is why I can’t listen to talk radio, by the way. People say things, and, in seemingly simple and straightforward assertions, there are a dozen issues that could be analyzed. The host will focus on one of those assertions to debate, making 25 more debatable statements in the process, and the next caller will focus on one of those, making sixteen more and throwing in some ridiculous crap about Prince Fielder having the greatest hot streak in National League history. You can go from Alan Trammell to Jackie Robinson’s college football career to blood doping in greyhound races in three phone calls. I am always trying to outline the debate in my mind and focus on the issues capable of resolution, and I just can’t keep up. I feel like Stan Laurel with Ollie pulling up the carpet on him. I get head over heels confused, and I get frustrated because I can’t keep up, so I just turn it off. I write because it gives me an opportunity to organize the debate in my head.
Anyway, I have been meaning to introduce into this site Win Shares and Loss Shares, so let’s take the opportunity to do that. Win Shares and Loss Shares, which are the successor to Win Shares, are a way of attempting to state each player’s contribution to his team as a won-lost record. Let’s take on the issues above one by one:
1) Was Alan Trammell substantially as good as Ozzie Smith?
According to the Win Shares/Loss Shares method, he was. We credit Ozzie with a career record of 325-231 (325 Wins, 231 Losses), a .585 percentage. We have Trammell at 282-176, a .616 percentage. By any kind of Value over Replacement Level analysis, those are comparable career records.
I have Ozzie as a .486 player offensively, but .880 defensively, compared to Trammell below:
Batting Fielding Total
Ozzie 203-218 .486 123-17 .880 325-231 .585
Trammell 214-142 .601 68-34 .667 282-176 .616
2) If so, why did Ozzie do better in Hall of Fame voting?
I’ll offer two explanations. One is that extreme excellence in one area is easy to explain to people. Ozzie, beyond question, was a brilliant defensive shortstop—perhaps the best ever. People get that. Trammell was a less brilliant defender but a better hitter, roughly the same overall, but that’s harder to explain to people.
The other answer is that either
1) many people overvalue defense, or
2) the Win Shares system undervalues defense.
Many people think playing defense is a shortstop’s job, period. I think they’re exaggerating the value of shortstop defense, but it’s difficult to prove the issue one way or the other.
3) Was Alan Trammell, in fact, substantially better than Omar Vizquel?
According to Win Shares he was, yes. Let’s add Vizquel to the Ozzie/Trammell comparison above:
Batting Fielding Total
Ozzie 203-218 .486 123-17 .880 325-231 .585
Trammell 214-142 .601 68-34 .667 282-176 .616
Vizquel 180-241 .427 77-33 .704 257-273 .485
Our system sees Vizquel as
1. A good defensive shortstop—a little better than Trammell, but
2. Not in Ozzie’s class as a defensive player, and
3. Weaker than Ozzie with the bat.
If we assume that Value Over Replacement Level begins at .400, we would have Ozzie at +103, Trammell at +99, Vizquel at +45. If we assume that the replacement level is .333, we would have Ozzie at +140, Trammell at +129, Vizquel at +80. Trammell is close to Ozzie and far better than Vizquel.
Looking at both players in their peak seasons, Vizquel’s peak was from 1995-1999, when we credit him with a won-lost contribution of 83-70. Trammell’s peak was from 1983-1987, when we credit him with a won-lost contribution of 112-40.
4) If so, why I am saying that Vizquel is a likely Hall of Famer?
It’s a perception of a perception. It is my belief that Vizquel is widely perceived as a defensive genius on a par with Ozzie, and as a player who has had a career much like Ozzie’s. I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but it is my belief that Omar is married in Ozzie in the minds of many sportswriters, and that this is likely to work in his favor when he becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame.
5) Did Alan Trammell actually deserve the MVP Award in 1987?
I think so. I thought that he did at the time, and, twenty years later with better methods of analysis and more data available, this is still what I think. This is a Win Shares comparison of Trammell and George Bell, 1987:
Batting Fielding Total
Bell 20- 5 .787 4- 3 .604 24- 8 .749
Trammell 23- 0 .985 4- 2 .654 27- 2 .915
6) If he had won the Award, would that have made a big difference in MVP voting?
Perhaps it would have, but there are a bunch of shortstops with MVP Awards and marginal Hall of Fame credentials who didn’t exactly catch fire in Hall of Fame voting. Dick Groat, NL MVP in 1960 (and runner-up in 1963) had a long career with many accomplishments, but never got above 2% (7 votes) in Hall of Fame balloting. Maury Wills won the MVP Award in ’62 and was constantly referred to by the late, great Jim Murray as an obvious Hall of Famer, but never got above 41% in the voting. Roger Peckinpaugh had a good career with an MVP Award in 1924, but never got above 1%. Phil Rizzuto had a good career with an MVP Award in 1950, but never got above 38% in the actual voting, although he was elected by the Council of Elders in 1994.
One can make an argument that it was the MVP Award that legitimized the push for Rizzuto in the early 1990s, and ultimately got him enshrined. That could be. One can certainly argue that Lou Boudreau’s MVP season in 1948 made him a Hall of Famer. But there are any number of similar players in the Hall without MVP Awards—Luis Aparicio, Pee Wee Reese and Travis Jackson—and there are any number of other players who got the benefit of organized bandwagons like Rizzuto—Enos Slaughter, Bill Mazeroski and Richie Ashburn—although they never won the MVP.
I think the evidence is that the MVP Award is a factor in how players are perceived post-career, but it’s a very small factor, rather than a very large one. Probably the best test case for this will be Barry Larkin. Larkin’s career is a good deal like Trammell’s, but, for whatever reason, he did win the Award one year. He’ll be on the ballot in two years, and we’ll see what kind of a difference that makes. Although I think, in all candor, that Larkin’s credentials are a little better than Trammell’s.
7) Will Trammell’s support improve over time?
History would suggest that it may, but honestly, I am skeptical about the relevance of this history. I kind of think that, with the ballot as crowded as it is likely to be over the next twenty years, there will be little room for players to gather strength in the voting as many players historically have done. SOME players will do this, certainly, but I think that, because of the larger number of players with longer careers, more players will be crowded out and blocked off. I honestly don’t know the answer to your question, but I wouldn’t be optimistic.
8) (The $64,000 question) is Trammell in fact a player of Hall of Fame stature?
The standard I am developing. . .not entirely sure whether I am going to stick with this. . .but the standard that seems to be evolving for me is that a Hall of Fame player should meet, at a minimum, one of these two standards: 300 Win Shares, or 100 more Win Shares than Loss Shares. Trammell misses 300 Win Shares but is +106 in Wins over Losses, thus he is, in my view, at least minimally qualified for the Hall of Fame. On the other hand, this standard isn’t meaningful at this point to anybody except me, and even when I’m talking to myself. . ..Buddy Bell is both over 300 and +100, and yet no one seems to think of him as a Hall of Fame player.
Trammell was certainly a better player than some shortstops now in the Hall of Fame, including Rizzuto, Sewell, Tinker and Travis Jackson. If you want to argue for him, I’m certainly not arguing against him, but on the other hand, I don’t know that we want to carry forward that “Dave Bancroft Line”, as Stan Grosshandler used to call it, where the Hall of Fame ceases to be golden and becomes a little more brass. I’ll stay out of it. I’ll argue for Santo, Minnie Minoso and now Bert Blyleven, but otherwise I’m going to stay out of it.
Career Win Shares and Loss Shares for some of the players relevant to this discussion are given below.
Bill James
Brookline, Mass
March 25, 2008
By Bill James
A discussion of Alan Trammell’s qualifications for the Hall of Fame.
I am a Detroit Tigers fan who is very disappointed in the lack of Hall of Fame support given to Alan Trammell. This is especially considering a contemporary, Ozzie Smith, who was very close with Trammell in Win Shares, went in on the first ballot. Omar Vizquel, who I feel was significantly inferior as a player to Trammell, projects in the Gold Mine at 80% likelihood. Two questions: 1) Do you think his support will improve over time? 2)If he had won the MVP he deserved in 1987, would that have significantly changed the perception of him?
Brian Kennedy
Let’s do an inventory of the issues involved there:
1) Was Alan Trammell as good (or substantially as good) as Ozzie Smith?
2) If so, why did Ozzie do better in Hall of Fame voting?
3) Was Alan Trammell, in fact, substantially better than Omar Vizquel?
4) If so, why I am saying that Vizquel is a likely Hall of Famer?
5) Did Alan Trammell actually deserve the MVP Award in 1987?
6) If he had won the Award, would that have made a big difference in MVP voting?
7) Will Trammell’s support improve over time? and
8) (The big one) is Trammell in fact a player of Hall of Fame stature?
This is why I can’t listen to talk radio, by the way. People say things, and, in seemingly simple and straightforward assertions, there are a dozen issues that could be analyzed. The host will focus on one of those assertions to debate, making 25 more debatable statements in the process, and the next caller will focus on one of those, making sixteen more and throwing in some ridiculous crap about Prince Fielder having the greatest hot streak in National League history. You can go from Alan Trammell to Jackie Robinson’s college football career to blood doping in greyhound races in three phone calls. I am always trying to outline the debate in my mind and focus on the issues capable of resolution, and I just can’t keep up. I feel like Stan Laurel with Ollie pulling up the carpet on him. I get head over heels confused, and I get frustrated because I can’t keep up, so I just turn it off. I write because it gives me an opportunity to organize the debate in my head.
Anyway, I have been meaning to introduce into this site Win Shares and Loss Shares, so let’s take the opportunity to do that. Win Shares and Loss Shares, which are the successor to Win Shares, are a way of attempting to state each player’s contribution to his team as a won-lost record. Let’s take on the issues above one by one:
1) Was Alan Trammell substantially as good as Ozzie Smith?
According to the Win Shares/Loss Shares method, he was. We credit Ozzie with a career record of 325-231 (325 Wins, 231 Losses), a .585 percentage. We have Trammell at 282-176, a .616 percentage. By any kind of Value over Replacement Level analysis, those are comparable career records.
I have Ozzie as a .486 player offensively, but .880 defensively, compared to Trammell below:
Batting Fielding Total
Ozzie 203-218 .486 123-17 .880 325-231 .585
Trammell 214-142 .601 68-34 .667 282-176 .616
2) If so, why did Ozzie do better in Hall of Fame voting?
I’ll offer two explanations. One is that extreme excellence in one area is easy to explain to people. Ozzie, beyond question, was a brilliant defensive shortstop—perhaps the best ever. People get that. Trammell was a less brilliant defender but a better hitter, roughly the same overall, but that’s harder to explain to people.
The other answer is that either
1) many people overvalue defense, or
2) the Win Shares system undervalues defense.
Many people think playing defense is a shortstop’s job, period. I think they’re exaggerating the value of shortstop defense, but it’s difficult to prove the issue one way or the other.
3) Was Alan Trammell, in fact, substantially better than Omar Vizquel?
According to Win Shares he was, yes. Let’s add Vizquel to the Ozzie/Trammell comparison above:
Batting Fielding Total
Ozzie 203-218 .486 123-17 .880 325-231 .585
Trammell 214-142 .601 68-34 .667 282-176 .616
Vizquel 180-241 .427 77-33 .704 257-273 .485
Our system sees Vizquel as
1. A good defensive shortstop—a little better than Trammell, but
2. Not in Ozzie’s class as a defensive player, and
3. Weaker than Ozzie with the bat.
If we assume that Value Over Replacement Level begins at .400, we would have Ozzie at +103, Trammell at +99, Vizquel at +45. If we assume that the replacement level is .333, we would have Ozzie at +140, Trammell at +129, Vizquel at +80. Trammell is close to Ozzie and far better than Vizquel.
Looking at both players in their peak seasons, Vizquel’s peak was from 1995-1999, when we credit him with a won-lost contribution of 83-70. Trammell’s peak was from 1983-1987, when we credit him with a won-lost contribution of 112-40.
4) If so, why I am saying that Vizquel is a likely Hall of Famer?
It’s a perception of a perception. It is my belief that Vizquel is widely perceived as a defensive genius on a par with Ozzie, and as a player who has had a career much like Ozzie’s. I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but it is my belief that Omar is married in Ozzie in the minds of many sportswriters, and that this is likely to work in his favor when he becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame.
5) Did Alan Trammell actually deserve the MVP Award in 1987?
I think so. I thought that he did at the time, and, twenty years later with better methods of analysis and more data available, this is still what I think. This is a Win Shares comparison of Trammell and George Bell, 1987:
Batting Fielding Total
Bell 20- 5 .787 4- 3 .604 24- 8 .749
Trammell 23- 0 .985 4- 2 .654 27- 2 .915
6) If he had won the Award, would that have made a big difference in MVP voting?
Perhaps it would have, but there are a bunch of shortstops with MVP Awards and marginal Hall of Fame credentials who didn’t exactly catch fire in Hall of Fame voting. Dick Groat, NL MVP in 1960 (and runner-up in 1963) had a long career with many accomplishments, but never got above 2% (7 votes) in Hall of Fame balloting. Maury Wills won the MVP Award in ’62 and was constantly referred to by the late, great Jim Murray as an obvious Hall of Famer, but never got above 41% in the voting. Roger Peckinpaugh had a good career with an MVP Award in 1924, but never got above 1%. Phil Rizzuto had a good career with an MVP Award in 1950, but never got above 38% in the actual voting, although he was elected by the Council of Elders in 1994.
One can make an argument that it was the MVP Award that legitimized the push for Rizzuto in the early 1990s, and ultimately got him enshrined. That could be. One can certainly argue that Lou Boudreau’s MVP season in 1948 made him a Hall of Famer. But there are any number of similar players in the Hall without MVP Awards—Luis Aparicio, Pee Wee Reese and Travis Jackson—and there are any number of other players who got the benefit of organized bandwagons like Rizzuto—Enos Slaughter, Bill Mazeroski and Richie Ashburn—although they never won the MVP.
I think the evidence is that the MVP Award is a factor in how players are perceived post-career, but it’s a very small factor, rather than a very large one. Probably the best test case for this will be Barry Larkin. Larkin’s career is a good deal like Trammell’s, but, for whatever reason, he did win the Award one year. He’ll be on the ballot in two years, and we’ll see what kind of a difference that makes. Although I think, in all candor, that Larkin’s credentials are a little better than Trammell’s.
7) Will Trammell’s support improve over time?
History would suggest that it may, but honestly, I am skeptical about the relevance of this history. I kind of think that, with the ballot as crowded as it is likely to be over the next twenty years, there will be little room for players to gather strength in the voting as many players historically have done. SOME players will do this, certainly, but I think that, because of the larger number of players with longer careers, more players will be crowded out and blocked off. I honestly don’t know the answer to your question, but I wouldn’t be optimistic.
8) (The $64,000 question) is Trammell in fact a player of Hall of Fame stature?
The standard I am developing. . .not entirely sure whether I am going to stick with this. . .but the standard that seems to be evolving for me is that a Hall of Fame player should meet, at a minimum, one of these two standards: 300 Win Shares, or 100 more Win Shares than Loss Shares. Trammell misses 300 Win Shares but is +106 in Wins over Losses, thus he is, in my view, at least minimally qualified for the Hall of Fame. On the other hand, this standard isn’t meaningful at this point to anybody except me, and even when I’m talking to myself. . ..Buddy Bell is both over 300 and +100, and yet no one seems to think of him as a Hall of Fame player.
Trammell was certainly a better player than some shortstops now in the Hall of Fame, including Rizzuto, Sewell, Tinker and Travis Jackson. If you want to argue for him, I’m certainly not arguing against him, but on the other hand, I don’t know that we want to carry forward that “Dave Bancroft Line”, as Stan Grosshandler used to call it, where the Hall of Fame ceases to be golden and becomes a little more brass. I’ll stay out of it. I’ll argue for Santo, Minnie Minoso and now Bert Blyleven, but otherwise I’m going to stay out of it.
Career Win Shares and Loss Shares for some of the players relevant to this discussion are given below.
Bill James
Brookline, Mass
March 25, 2008
0
Comments
Omar Vizquel is better than Trammel defensively, weaker offensively. Still amazes me what he can do at age 40. His gold gloves are well deserved.
<< <i><<FWIW I always thought of Trammell as a H.O.F.er; same with Whitaker & Jack Morris. And I should point out I am a guy who feels The Hall should probably be more exclusive than it is. >>
WOW! No offense, but that statement seems contradictory. There are quality players but I'm personally don't think they belong in this HoF, and certainly not one that were more "exclusive". >>
No offense taken, the way I look at it is like this: Who was a better 2nd baseman than Whitaker between 1978 & 1990 or so? Sandberg for sure, but who else? IMHO that's being dominate for a long period of time, which in my mond equals Hall induction. Morris has more wins than any other pitcher in the 1980's, and one of the greatest W.S. performances EVER> - He's in too.
I cant fault you for Whitaker, no no one in the A.L. was better, but is that a reflection of really poor 2nd baseman?
Lafayette Grading Set
<< <i>Happy birthday Alan. 56 years old.
Happy 1 year anniversary of this post. If my math is correct that would make Alan 57 years old today. Thank you to the public school system for my math skills.
<< <i>Breaks my heart as a Tiger fan that Tram, Sweet Lou or Morris will never get in... >>
And as a Cardinal fan, I'd love to see Ken Boyer, Ted Simmons and Nelson Briles get in, but fans aren't always reasonable. And I didn't pick those three randomly, I think they match up nicely with your three Tigers. There's a case for Boyer and Trammell, but it's not the strongest case, and I don't think any great injustice is done by keeping them out. Simmons and Whitaker, though, have much stronger cases, and I think they both ought to be in. Both were the best at their positions for a long period of time, and both stack up very well against those at their positions that are already in the HOF.
But Morris and Briles, while beloved by their own fans, and with some memorable WS victories under their belts, have absolutely no business anywhere near a HOF ballot. They were both average pitchers who had the good fortune to pitch for very good teams.