Thanks everyone for your thoughts. Just a few comments and I'll get out of the way again.
* Black/gray ink - Most HOF middle infielders don't have much here because they usually aren't among the league leaders in hitting categories. So Whitaker's lack of same doesn't deter me.
* HOF size - I think a fair number is 2 players per year. So going back to 1876, that would mean about 250 players, which is about what we have now. I think Whitaker fits in well with the 2Bs who have already been honored (better than some, not as good as some others) and I'll leave it at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntndeacon
Trammell has much more of an arguement than Whitaker. No way he even sniffs Cooperstown less he is paying for his ticket like everyone else.
|
I've never understood this. Trammell and Whitaker have always had career batting stats that were close to each other and they played positions that are of nearly equal defensive value, and their overall defensive prowess at their respective positions was about the same (good, but not elite). So... why the difference. Trammell does have some advantages:
1) His career BA is higher
2) His "big" years were "bigger"
3) His big years aligned better with the Tigers' big years
4) He got more MVP votes (mainly because of 1-3 above)
5) His defensive value is higher
Against that, Whitaker...
1) Has a higher career OBP
2) Has a higher career SLG and ISO
3) Played more games
If there's a difference between their qualifications, then it's less than the difference between a Canadian buck and a US buck (at current exchange rates).