Hall of Fame 2006: Results Really In! Sutter Really Wins!

[Outta Leftfield]

Trammell got 17 votes--not too bad, but still significantly shy of election. Probably a lot of people feel a bit like abnerdoubleday about him (and some others), when he wrote:

[quote:ae8d26ec22] And although I did not put Belle, Gosssage, Mattingly, Parker, Rice or Trammell on my list - I certainly would not oppose their HOF entry. [/quote:ae8d26ec22] Here's my argument for why Trammell really belongs.

Assessing SS for the Hall is difficult, because you're weighing a balance of defense and offense at a defensively demanding position. But the gist of my argument is that Trammell was a significantly better player than [b:ae8d26ec22]more than half[/b:ae8d26ec22] of the shortstops in the Hall. He was on a par with the next five players (all widely acknowledged greats). And only four players presently in the Hall were demonstrably better than him. If you're as good or better than 16 of the 20 players currently in the Hall, and only four are clearly better than you, wouldn't that suggest that you deserve election?

Here's how I count it. Trammell was a significantly better player than these eleven: Hughie Jennings, Joe Tinker, Bobby Wallace, Rabbit Maranville, John Ward, Dave Bancroft, Joe Sewell, Travis Jackson, Luis Aparicio, Phil Rizzutto, and George Davis (this is in order of election.) I'm basing my opinion on the stats at Baseball-Reference.com, which lists Hall of Fame players by position. I'm weighing a balance of hitting, fielding and career length (and I'm not considering Hornsby, who was really a 2B).

Trammell was on a par with five players: Joe Cronin, Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, Pee Wee Reese and Ozzie Smith. You might list him a little ahead of some of these guys and litte behind some others, but they're basically on a par. Bill James concurs, by the way. When I checked his Historical Abstract I found that he'd placed Trammell well ahead of every one of the eleven in my bottom group and right in the midst of the peer group. Trammell is ranked a little ahead of three of them--Reese, Appling and Boudreau--and a little behind the other two--Ozzie and Cronin. I think you could debate James's order, but it's a very reasonable listing.

The only HOFers that rank significantly ahead of Trammell in my own (and James's) opinion are Honus Wagner, Arky Vaughan, Robin Yount, and Ernie Banks. Cal Ripken will be eligible next year and will promptly join that elite group.

Now, another factor is obviously also present. A-Rod, along with Cal, Jeter, and (coming on strong) Tejada and (falling away fast) Nomar, have sort of raised the bar for SS because of their great offense at what is traditionally a glove-man's position. I think that's working against Trammell right now. But Trammell was also an excellent hitter. And the rise of A-Rod still doesn't change the fact that Trammell meets and exceeds the historical standard: he's better than half the SS already in the Hall. He's as good as a peer group that includes Ozzie, Cronin, Reese, Appling and Boudreau--historically great players, all, and players whose HOF status nobody questions. Only a small handful of superstars are really better than him--but the Hall has never been just a place for the super-elite. He was an excellent hitter and outstanding fielder at baseball's most demanding position for a long time. And not many players can say that.

[ROBERTMAZZARELLA]

I CAST MY VOTES FOR MATTINGLY, GOSSAGE, SUTTER, LEE SMITH

BLYLEVEN, GARVEY

[Runnin Rebel]

Sutter definitnely fits my criteria for selection.

1) Did the player in some way or form transcend or change the game of baseball???

2) Was the player such a force in the game that his mere presence in the line-up alter the balance of power ???

3) Did this player dominate the structure of the game in their prime???


I think the 80's were blessed with a slough of great ballplayers but most were on the level of Orlando Cepada or Richie Ashburn, stellar players in their own right but nothing remarkable about their careers. Players of this caliber are passed along for consideration by the Veterans Committe for selection at a later date. We will see players like McGee,Clark and Parker fall into this category. Sure they had a few rock-solid years on winning teams, but their impressive career numbers can be attributed to longevity over extened excellence.

[Minoso Express]

A brief look at the respective careers of Fergie Jenkins and Bert Blyleven powerfully supports the HOF-voters bias for the multiple 20-game winner.

Jenkins, who undeniably deserves his place in the Hall, had a 19-year career during which time he was a 20-game-winner 7 times, 6 of those seasons occuring consecutively. A career ERA of 3.34, 3 times an all-star, 484 HRs served up and 3192 career strikeouts. He led in WHIP once, was second in shutouts twice and 5 times led in strikeout to walk ratio. He also nabbed one CYA.

Blyleven played for 22 seasons, only one of which was a 20-win season. He did, however, have 5 17-win seasons, one 19-win season, and overall 7 seasons when he lost more games than he won, playing for mostly awful teams-- remarkably like Jenkins, who also 7 times lost more games than he won with mediocre to bad teams.

In Blyleven's 20th season, his record was 17-5. His career ERA was 3.31, was twice an all-star, served up 430 HRs and had 3701 career strikeouts. He led once in WHIP, led his league 3 times in shutouts and led his leage three times in strikeout to walk ratio. He had no CYAs.

Jenkins had 6 consecutive spectacular seasons and arguably had his best season in 1974. Following that season, he played another 9 seasons which, apart from 1978, were nothing special. He also, like Blyleven, lost a great many games during that stretch of 20-game-winning seasons (i.e., 20-15 in 1968, 21-15 in 1969 and so on).

Blyleven spent more time injured than did Jenkins and, arguably, got better as he got older though the teams he played for got worse. He also had less run-support through his prime than did Jenkins, though both seemed to always have it a little rough.

Both should be HOFers, in my opinion. I hope Blyleven receives his just rewards someday.

A bit of a sidenote on the Sutter v. Gossage debate:

Some career numbers to ponder here.

Sutter played for 12 seasons. The Hall has always been willing to give pitchers more of a wide berth in time-span played than hitters (otherwise, Mattingly's inclusion would really be a no-brainer. He has just as much impact as Sutter had in the 80s). Sutter has 300 career saves, 861 career SOs, 2.83 career ERA, 1 CYA, was 6 times an all-star, 5 times led the league in saves, won 4 Rolaids awards and was once 2nd in saves.

Gossage, on the other hand, played for 22 rough years. He had 310 career saves (and would have had far more had his use strategy been different though his prime), 1510 strikeouts and a 3.01 career ERA. He was 9 times an all-star, thrice led the league in saves, was twice second in saves and once third in saves. He one 1 Rolaids award and no CYA.

Comparing these two are really like comparing apples and oranges in terms of their strengths, what the fashion in using closers was during their respective careers, and in their personal styles. For my money, if one goes into the Hall, the other goes, too. (Along with Lee Smith, that is.)

[Runnin Rebel]

Depending on how McGwire's image holds up to the glare of steroids, next year boast two, if not three first-ballot entries joining Ripken and Gwynn. Some players like Blyleven, Dawson and Gossage might get support during the lackluster 2008 and 2010 ballot. Rickey , as only he would want it, WILL stand alone a the entry of 2009.

[Outta Leftfield]

[quote:fef61eed5d="richmondhill"]I CAST MY VOTES FOR MATTINGLY, GOSSAGE, SUTTER, LEE SMITH, BLYLEVEN, GARVEY[/quote:fef61eed5d]

If we were to allow richmondhill's belated vote, it wouldn't change the ultimate outcome, but it would make it awfully close for Gossage who would then be 23 for 31, or 74.2 %. Anyway, I think we'd have to rule that the polls are closed. But other opinions are still welcome and the debate should continue....

Anyone for Rice, Mattingly, Lee Smith, Parker, et al?

BTW, I agree about Blyleven. If he'd just been on a few better teams he would have won 300 games, and even if he had a wait (like Sutton), he'd eventually get in.

I think Trammell and Blyeven are the kinds of guys who would have eventually gotten in via the old Veterans Committee even if bypassed by the writers. But the new-style Vets Committee (if that's what it's now called) has never elected anyone, or even come very close, so unless that's fixed, it's the BBWAA or nothing.

[abnerdoubleday]

SI.com is running a poll similar to this one. Thought some of you might want to participate.

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/baseball/mlb/12/11/decision.2006/index.html[/url]


Results so far are:

2006 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot
Created: Tuesday, December 13, 2005, at 19:52:50 EDT
Rick Aguilera
Now
3% 658 votes
Later
32% 6281 votes
Never
65% 12698 votes
Total: 19637 votes


Bert Blyleven
Now
42% 8459 votes
Later
26% 5295 votes
Never
31% 6270 votes
Total: 20024 votes

Albert Belle
Now
12% 2460 votes
Later
36% 7361 votes
Never
52% 10436 votes
Total: 20257 votes


Will Clark
Now
16% 3170 votes
Later
37% 7365 votes
Never
47% 9456 votes
Total: 19991 votes

Dave Concepcion
Now
33% 6551 votes
Later
24% 4714 votes
Never
43% 8569 votes
Total: 19834 votes


Andre Dawson
Now
67% 14054 votes
Later
23% 4798 votes
Never
10% 2047 votes
Total: 20899 votes

Gary DiSarcina
Now
0% 82 votes
Later
9% 1815 votes
Never
90% 17473 votes
Total: 19370 votes


Alex Fernandez
Now
0% 75 votes
Later
10% 1847 votes
Never
90% 17384 votes
Total: 19306 votes

Gary Gaetti
Now
5% 936 votes
Later
27% 5286 votes
Never
68% 13183 votes
Total: 19405 votes


Steve Garvey
Now
39% 7802 votes
Later
23% 4584 votes
Never
39% 7766 votes
Total: 20152 votes

Dwight Gooden
Now
13% 2716 votes
Later
27% 5443 votes
Never
60% 12049 votes
Total: 20208 votes


Rich Gossage
Now
61% 12285 votes
Later
25% 5017 votes
Never
15% 2963 votes
Total: 20265 votes

Ozzie Guillen
Now
6% 1177 votes
Later
26% 5177 votes
Never
68% 13237 votes
Total: 19591 votes


Orel Hershiser
Now
38% 7868 votes
Later
36% 7425 votes
Never
26% 5447 votes
Total: 20740 votes

Gregg Jefferies
Now
1% 157 votes
Later
12% 2299 votes
Never
87% 16740 votes
Total: 19196 votes


Tommy John
Now
37% 7346 votes
Later
27% 5332 votes
Never
36% 7109 votes
Total: 19787 votes

Doug Jones
Now
2% 353 votes
Later
22% 4124 votes
Never
76% 14461 votes
Total: 18938 votes


Don Mattingly
Now
49% 10271 votes
Later
26% 5358 votes
Never
25% 5259 votes
Total: 20888 votes

Willie McGee
Now
9% 1759 votes
Later
26% 5138 votes
Never
65% 12555 votes
Total: 19452 votes


Hal Morris
Now
1% 275 votes
Later
17% 3223 votes
Never
81% 15398 votes
Total: 18896 votes

Jack Morris
Now
40% 7789 votes
Later
35% 6813 votes
Never
25% 4899 votes
Total: 19501 votes


Dale Murphy
Now
36% 7145 votes
Later
32% 6387 votes
Never
31% 6140 votes
Total: 19672 votes

Dave Parker
Now
30% 5778 votes
Later
31% 6025 votes
Never
39% 7506 votes
Total: 19309 votes


Jim Rice
Now
63% 12892 votes
Later
21% 4360 votes
Never
15% 3091 votes
Total: 20343 votes

Lee Smith
Now
46% 9044 votes
Later
33% 6416 votes
Never
21% 4102 votes
Total: 19562 votes


Bruce Sutter
Now
48% 9392 votes
Later
29% 5636 votes
Never
23% 4398 votes
Total: 19426 votes

Alan Trammell
Now
17% 3249 votes
Later
36% 6878 votes
Never
48% 9168 votes
Total: 19295 votes


Walt Weiss
Now
1% 269 votes
Later
14% 2585 votes
Never
85% 16209 votes
Total: 19063 votes

John Wetteland
Now
5% 990 votes
Later
29% 5505 votes
Never
66% 12767 votes
Total: 19262 votes

[baracus68]

[quote:89b39f2f33]Anyone for Rice, Mattingly, Lee Smith, Parker, et al?[/quote:89b39f2f33]

Well, since you asked, Outta...

First of all, I think you make a great case for Alan Trammel, and if playing '80s strat has taught me anything, it's that a good hitting, great fielding shortstop is almost surely going to do more for your team than a (very) good hitting leftfielder.

But that said, I just want to make a case for Jim Rice. His numbers are very good, especially considering they came in an era when it meant a lot to put up a .300, 30-homer, 100-RBI season, which was his norm (or just below it, actually). Just about every year he played until his quick dropoff at the end he was in the running for the MVP. His defense was decent, if not spectacular. He was the captain of the Red Sox, a quiet, hard-working player who led by example. And not for nothing, his teams won.

But my main case is based on a gut feeling. Is there a place for that in these kind of debates? I don't know. Probably not. Bill James has done wonders by dismantling many of the "gut feelings" associated with the game, so I'm wary of putting my own biased view at the front of my argument. But what the heck: I think Jim Rice should be in the Hall because when he came to the plate during his long prime my gut told me, "here is a Hall of Famer." He had an aura that even some guys already in the hall, such as Dave Winfield, didn't have. He was feared.

[Outta Leftfield]

Thanks, abner, for posting the SI survey. It seems to me that our results are a lot better-informed that what I'm seeing on SI.

And, baracus68, I'm glad you like my case for Trammell. Logically, he should be in, but logic doesn't always rule in HOF--or is only part of the equation.

I think a lot of the guys we're talking about--e.g. Blyleven, Rice, Trammell, Mattingly--are suffering from some kind of minus that is keeping them from the Hall. With Trammell, it's the A-Rod/Jeter phenomenon. Blyleven had the long career but because he pitched for bad teams he never seemed as dominant as he really was (he frequently wins 20+ in the 80's with a good offense behind him). Mattingly had the back injury. He certainly had the HOF aura in the early years of his career. Rice did have the career dropoff at the end and also suffers from the fact that conditions for hitters got so much more favorable just after his career ended. But he was really dominant in his own time and I've had him a couple of times in his '78 year, when he was just a holy terror with a bat.

I was just re-studying Rice's records and really felt strongly for the first time that he belongs in the Hall. What struck me is that part of the problem in evaluating him is that he was both a power hitter AND a high average hitter. We tend to expect power hitters these days to hit 500 HR to get into the Hall. Or, if you're known for average like Carew or Tony Gwynn, then you'd better hit .320 or .330. But Rice hit homers AND had a career .298 average--with season averages over .300 six times when that really meant something-- leading to a (for then) excellent career RBI total of 1451. When you put the package together in the context of his time, that looks like HOF to me.

[Runnin Rebel]

with the announcement thirty minutes away


<B U M P>