Why do people persist in thinking that Alan Trammell is only borderline? He was one of the top ten position players in the AL in six different seasons, and an above average defender. What has happened to Trammell is similar to the Darrell Evans problem from Bill James’ New Historical Baseball Abstract:

“Specialists and players who do two or three things well are overrated; players who do several things well are underrated.”

Trammell was kind of powerful (10+ HR 8 times, high of 28), kind of fast (10+ SB 13 times, high of 30), hit doubles and triples, walked a decent bit, and played above-average defense. Put it all together and he’s like a guy who hit 40 HR a season but was average at everything else. The only difference is that Trammell’s value comes from all over the place.

The definition you cited said “those who excelled at playing the sport.” To me that doesn’t just mean one very small facet, like pinch-hitting or getting left-handers out every few days; it means excelling *at the sport,* in other words, making a comprehensive impact. Edgar Martinez, who played every day and put up huge numbers, fits this definition. Lenny Harris does not.

My take on PEDs has long been that they should not disqualify you from Hall of Fame consideration automatically. We don’t know who did them and who didn’t. Even for those who did them, we don’t know when they started or stopped or what they took and how much of it. We don’t know whether the hitters or the pitchers were aided more by it. We can’t discount all numbers because of PEDs because I believe there are other factors in play — ballpark size, strike zone, etc. — that affect them.

So what do we do with guys like Palmiero? We do our best to determine whether — roughly speaking — we think the guy was a Hall of Famer even if he never used PEDs. Yes, I know that invites a bit of chaos, but I see it preferable to either assuming his entire record was fraudulent or assuming that he never took PEDs, because we know neither is the case.

I look at Palmeiro and I see a guy who was very good for a very long time in some very friendly hitters parks. I see a guy who, while crossing over the magic 500 home run and 3000 hit barrier, was never considered the absolute best hitter in the league. And then I have to take a couple of mental ticks off because of the PED association.

Putting those things together, I think he’s a close call. I may change my mind on him one day. But he’ll be eligible for a long time yet. In that time, we may come to learn more about his own history of PED use and the history of PED use in baseball in general. That information may make him rise in my estimation. It may make him sink. But I feel like I need to take that time in his case.

I don’t believe that McGwire is as close a call. I certainly don’t think that Bonds or Clemens will be. But Palmiero may be as close as we get. And maybe Kevin Brown is in that boat, actually as well.

as a hitter he isn’t a HOFer, he was very good but not even one of the greatest, as evidence by the at least 12-15 names before Martinez,

Name them. let’s see 15 hitters that were better than Martinez.

What definition are you going by? I go by “the honoring of persons who have excelled in playing, managing, and serving the sport.” Whether or not their role is small, relievers and PHs can excel at their role.

Can a decent starter be moved to a PH role and suddenly be one of the best PHs ever? If you’ve ever seen regular starters serve the role, you’ll know it isn’t nearly as easy as it sounds. There’s a certain mentality and a different kind of preparation for it.

You seem to think that the Hall of Fame is about providing a representative sample of how baseball is usually played. By definition, it is not.

The comparison to Jesse Orosco makes even less sense. Martinez played every day, for the whole game; he just wasn’t in the field. Orosco faced one or two batters every few games. There’s no comparison.

Who are the 10-15 hitters you would say were better than Martinez, in his time? And a follow-up question: you can find ten pitchers better than Nolan Ryan or Gaylord Perry in their time. Should they not be in the Hall?

I have the same problem with the Pro Football HOF. Kickers and punters are niche jobs, but a big part of the game and neither is represented in the HOF much at all. In fact, I don’t think any punter is in.

If you dominate in your role, you deserve to be in for your contributions.

If you support putting Martinez in as a DH then you’ve got to put Jesse Orosco in as a left-handed specialist. As a pitcher he wouldn’t be a HOFer but as a left-handed specialist he certainly would. Same with Martinez, as a hitter he isn’t a HOFer, he was very good but not even one of the greatest, as evidence by the at least 12-15 names before Martinez, of his era let alone of all-time. How can you be in the HOF without being one of the greatest of all-time? IMO you can’t, that’s the whole point of the HOF, the greatest players of all-time.

Also, using past mistakes of players who have been put into the HOF doesn’t justify making more. Certainly it’s easy to say “look at player A who is in the HOF and compare him to player B who I want to be in the HOF” but if you can’t justify player A being in the HOF, regardless of him actually being in as a mistake, then you can’t justify player B being in the HOF.

PED players = TBD. It’s too complicated and messy at this point. There needs to be a little distance from the emotion and ruination of the record books for me to look at those players objectively.

That being said, Ripken was the best shortstop of his era, in either league.

I think McGriff deserves to be in. The steroid era really hurts him, especially considering there’s never been even a whisper about him using PEDs. He had 7 consecutive seasons of 30+ HR, which was a big deal before the HR boom. He also had 16 consecutive seasons with 19+ HR. He also had 8 consecutive seasons with an OPS+ at or over 130.

Ignoring defensive contributions altogether (but acknowledging the generic position difference and eras), the shortstops are significantly ahead of McGriff (who’s a boderline candidate, IMO).

Larkin: 66 oWAR
Trammell: 59 oWAR
McGriff 53 oWAR

Add Larkin’s defensive value, and he’s a pretty clear “yes.” Trammell, IMO, was clearly the best AL SS of his era.