Another HOF debate

[Honolulu Blue]

Lou Whitaker is well known to most of you who are baseball fans. For those who care, but don't know, let me summarize his case:

* Former Rookie of the Year
* 5 All-Star teams
* 3 Gold Gloves at 2B
* Over 2300 career games and over 2300 career hits
* Career OPS+ of 116

I think he's among the top 200 players of all time, and I also think he's the best eligible 2nd baseman that's not in the Hall. Others disagree, obviously.

The Cars as a musical group started with a bang - a couple of other albums like their first, and they would certainly be in their Hall. Alas, their albums careened between "too light" and "too dark" the rest of their career, though (a) I enjoyed all their work, and (b) they had some hits & sold some records.

[chesapeake]

The Cars will make it first, in no small part because Ric Ocasek set the gold standard for hideously ugly guys marrying a woman that is at least six leagues above his.

[MikeVic]

Pic of wife?

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Pic of wife?

Put "Paulina Porizkova" in your favorite search engine and enjoy.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

The Cars will make it first, in no small part because Ric Ocasek set the gold standard for hideously ugly guys marrying a woman that is at least six leagues above his.

Same thing I was thinking.
Definitely HOF credentials.

[kcchief19]

The Cars are in. Personally, I think if Bill Mazeroski is in then Lou Whitaker and Frank White belong in the Hall of Fame too.

But I'd put the J. Geils Band in the HOF before all of them.

[st.cronin]

Lou Whitaker was a nice player, but I think the most basic qualification for a Hall of Famer is that you should play more than 130 games a year.

[lighthousekeeper]

oof:
Black Ink: Batting - 1 (731) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 31 (747) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)

[Captain2711]

In my opinion, if you ever have to explain to a knowledgable sports fan or if you have to think about someone for the Hall of Fame then he isn't worthy. It should be a quick answer that requires no research or cohersion.

[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.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The Cars are in. Personally, I think if Bill Mazeroski is in then Lou Whitaker and Frank White belong in the Hall of Fame too.

And that is why I have always argued for a Small Hall and not letting in borderline players. Once you let one in (for recent inductees, not counting the crap that went on in the 60s and 70s), you start making arguments for a horde of similar players.

I vote no because RoY is nothing special, All-Star appearances had and still are popularity contests and the other categories scream above-average.

[Honolulu Blue]

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.

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).

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't have much to add to either debate, but Paulia Porizkova was, and still is, delightful.

That, and, what's up, Good Twin?

[tarcone]

I loved Whittaker and Trammell

[Draft Dodger]

I don't think Whittaker would be considered at all if he and Trammell hadn't played so long together.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Lou Whitaker was a nice player, but I think the most basic qualification for a Hall of Famer is that you should play more than 130 games a year.

And Whitaker only did that 11 times.

I think Whitaker's a borderline HOF'er, but his numbers stack up nearly identically to Sandberg. One is in the Hall, and one has never gotten any serious consideration.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

I think Whitaker's a borderline HOF'er, but his numbers stack up nearly identically to Sandberg. One is in the Hall, and one has never gotten any serious consideration.

Sandberg
---
All star from 1984-1993 (10 straight)
Gold Glove from 1983-1991 (9 straight)
NL MVP in 1984

Whitaker
---
5-time All-Star (1983-87)
3-time Gold Glove Award (1983-85)
Rookie of the Year (1978)

Yeah, I'd say Sandberg has a little bit of an edge there.

[Ksyrup]

I think Whitaker has pulled down Trammell, to the extent everyone thinks of them both when thinking of one of them. Years ago I had an email exchange with Rob Neyer about that thought when discussing why Trammell hasn't gotten the support he should for the HoF. I think Trammell is a no-brainer and Whitaker is close but no cigar.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Sandberg
---
All star from 1984-1993 (10 straight)
Gold Glove from 1983-1991 (9 straight)
NL MVP in 1984

Whitaker
---
5-time All-Star (1983-87)
3-time Gold Glove Award (1983-85)
Rookie of the Year (1978)

Yeah, I'd say Sandberg has a little bit of an edge there.

Those are still pretty unconvincing to me. The All-Star game is a popularity contest, the Gold Glove is often given on reputation and hitting ability, and IMO Sandberg shouldn't have been in the top 5 in MVP voting in 1984.

If your point is that those awards are why Sandberg was voted in and Whitaker wasn't, then that's certainly valid. But if your point is that Sandberg is a better HoF candidate than Whitaker because of them, then I'm not buying.

[Honolulu Blue]

I'm bumping this because the Rock and Roll HOF has finally nominated The Cars. Yay! I don't think they'll get in next year, or any time soon, but I still think they're one of the best bands in the history of ever, and I would love to see them get more recognition - even if it's from such a dubious source.

Do me a favor and vote for them at Vote for the 2016 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees | Rolling Stone . Thank you very much.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Honolulu Blue]

I'm bumping this for two reasons. First the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has selected The Cars to be among their number. Yay! And second, Alan Trammell was selected for the Baseball HOF. Double yay! Obviously if Alan (and Jack Morris) are HOF worthy, then Lou's argument to be in is much better. I think they'll rectify this oversight eventually.

So yeah, this has been a pretty good month for me. OK, back to lurk mode...