Hall Of Fame Debate: Barry Larkin VS Alan Trammell
Some of my favorite baseball conversations focus around the ‘Pick The Best…’ kinds of conversations.
You know the conversations I am talking about – Pick the best Yankees of all-time by position, choose the best team of the 1980s, build a roster using players from just one decade…
In a recent conversation about the best players from the 1980′s, the position of shortstop was one of the easiest decisions to make - you have Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken leading the way. Those two guys were consensus selections. But after that, there is a significant drop-off as it relates to popularity and achievemengts earned among shortstops from that same time period.
Of the rest, we came to a consensus that Alan Trammell and Barry Larkin were the second best shortstops from their respective leagues during the 80′s. Sure, Larkin played just a few years in the decade, while Trammell played all ten seasons, but time spent in the 1980′s was not part of the selection criteria.
Well, that got me to thinking – What is the difference between Alan Trammell and Barry Larkin? Why is one in the Hall of Fame, and not the other? What makes Barry Larkin stand out with the BWAA voters that works against Alan Trammell?
My friends, it is time to dig deeper… Much deeper.
Both players are exactly the same height – 6 feet tall. Larkin was twenty pounds heavier than Trammell during his playing days, which should have resulted in more power, but he only has 13 more homers than Trammell. They both played for historic franchises and each helped lead their team to a memorable World Series title.
When you review their individual numbers on BaseballReference.com, Trammell ranks as the 62nd best offensive player of all-time, with Larkin landing in the 75th spot.
With what has been stated above, no one guy really outdistances the other in any aspect.
So, let’s look into their numbers now:
| Trammell | Larkin | |
| Seasons | 20 | 19 |
| Games Played | 2293 | 2180 |
| Hits | 2365 | 2340 |
| 150-Hit Seasons | 6 | 7 |
| Doubles | 412 | 441 |
| Home Runs | 185 | 198 |
| RBI | 1003 | 960 |
| 100-RBI Seasons | 1 | 0 |
| Runs Scored | 1231 | 1329 |
| Stolen Bases | 236 | 379 |
| All-Star | 6 | 12 |
| Gold Glove | 4 | 3 |
| Silver Slugger | 3 | 9 |
| MVP | 0 | 1 |
| Playoffs | 2 | 2 |
| World Series | 1 | 1 |
| WS MVP | 1 | 0 |
Ok, there are two things that really stand out to me: stolen bases and All-Star game selections. We all know that 140 more steals by Larkin is not what earned him entry into the Hall of Fame, though it is impressive for a guy that was never tagged as a ‘burner’. And it is hardly Trammell’s fault that he played at the same time as Mr. All-Star, Cal Ripken.
So, what is it? Am I missing something? Anything? Why so much love for Barry Larkin and yet such little respect for a player that is almost identical in Alan Trammell?
Let me say that I like Barry Larkin; hell, I cheered for him during a majority of his career. I do believe that he is worthy of his Hall of Fame enshrinement, but I just think that he should be resting at Cooperstown with Alan Trammell at his side.
What do you think? Does one player belong and not the other? Did the baseball writers get it right by electing Larking or wrong by omitting Trammell? Should they both be in, or should they both be out??
Let me hear your opinion!!
As for me, I am giving both of them the ‘nod’. Even if it is just in my Hall of Fame world…
I have no idea why Trammell isn’t in and Larkin is. Here are some reasons as to why maybe Larkin is in and Trammell isn’t. How much weight does an MVP have? As Larkin has one and Trammell does not. Larkin played in a lot of AS games for someone who played with Ozzie Smith for a good chunk of his career. Also Larkin won 6 more Silver Slugger awards than Trammell.
I always wanted to see Trammell and Whitaker go into the HOF together and maybe they’ll get to do that one day.
Matt- I would think that MVPs means a lot, but I am starting to believe that All-Star selections will start meaning less and less as we get into the guys that played in the 90s and beyond. How many players were on the 2012 final All-Star rosters? 80-90?? It means less and less with how players are chosen, and with how many substitutions are made…
You make a pretty good case, I would probably give Trammell the nod as well. I do think it is the hardwear in the eyes of the voters.
If Larkin wouldn’t have won the MVP Award would he be a HOFer? He was a very serviceable player but not sure he’s a HOFer. However I’ve always liked the guy and think it’s great he made it in. It’s a little questionable why Trammell hasn’t been voted in. Guess it’s because he lacks the MVP
McGeeFan-51, excellent questions! My guess is that if Larkin does not win the MVP, he is not a HOFer. He would get a lot of character votes, but not enough for entry. He’d probably be I the same boat with guys like Murphy, Morris, and Trammell.
My hypothesis is the voters saw Larkin as a table-setter type of hitter, mostly batting first or second, while Trammel as a two or three hole hitter. Larkin’s numbers look pretty good in that view, but Trammels is less impressive if you put him against three-hole hitter numbers.
Charley- that could very well be. Trammell cannot stack up to Boggs, Mattingly, etc…
I didn’t realize Larkin spent that much time so high in the batting order…
He moved around the line-up throughout his career, it depended on who else they had at the time. Eric Davis mostly batted behind him. It is definitely touchier to compare and judge batters whose role changed throughout his career than someone like Rickey Henderson.
Definitely for the first and middle parts of his career, I felt Larkin’s role was to get on base. I think Trammell’s downside was that the Tigers relied on him to drive in runs through his prime years and that wasn’t the type of hitter he was, except the year he had over 100 RBIs. Unfortunately for Trammell he usually had the likes of Mickey Tettleton behind him. Not sure if there was much overlap between Trammell and Cecil Fielder.
Charley- more excellent points. Thank you for the contributions!’