Ozzie Smith vs. Alan Trammell

In another thread, we have been debating the Hall of Fame merits of Bert Blyleven. Since that discussion has run out, let’s raise another.

Ozzie Smith was elected to the Hall of Fame this year. Alan Trammell may someday be. Should Smith have been elected? Should Trammell?

For the sake of starting the argument, I’ll work through a Keltner List for both players.

1. Was this player ever regarded, to some extent, as the best player in baseball?

I don’t think there was ever a time when either Smith or Trammell were commonly regarded as the best player in baseball. Trammell was probably the best player in baseball in the 1987 season but that’s not precisely what the question means.

2. Was this player ever the best player on his team?

I think it is reasonable to argue that both players were the best players on their teams in the mid-80s. The Cardinals had other guys who had huge seasons, like John Tudor and Jack Clark, but year to year Ozzie was the best. I’d say the same of Trammell; Kirk Gibson was pretty good too, but if I had to pick one I’d pick Trammell.

3. Was this player the best player in baseball, or in his league, at his position?

Ozzie Smith was clearly the best shortstop in the NL in the 1980s, until Barry Larkin got really good. Trammell has a harder case because he is a contemporary of Cal Ripken. Overall I would say Ripken was the better player, but that’s hardly a knock on Trammell.

4. Did this player have an impact on a number of pennant races or playoff series?

Both players had critical impacts on winning championships. Smith was a key player on Cardinal teams that just barely won their divisions in 1982 and 1985. Trammell was the best player in the league in 1987, when the Tigers just barely got by the Blue Jays. Both players also contributed to championship teams that won by larger margins.

5. Was this player good enough to play regularly after passing his prime?

Smith was a regular until he was 38, Trammell until 35, and both player a little after that.

6. Is this player the best player in baseball history who isn’t in the Hall of Fame, or the best at his position who isn’t in?

Ozzie Smith is in. If he WASN’T in, I would argue he would be the best shortstop ever who wasn’t in, although that remains to be proven by this thread. With Ozzie in, is Alan Trammell the best who isn’t? Not counting non-eligible players, he might be. But Dave Concepcion and Bert Campaneris were very good. I haven’t compared them to Trammell, but they might be just as good.

7. Are most comparable players in the Hall of Fame?

The only player who is really comparable to Ozzie Smith is Luis Aparicio, who like Smith played a long time, was just an OK hitter, ran the bases really well and won a lot of Gold Gloves. Aparicio is in the Hall of Fame. No other player is a really good match; some of the OK matches are Hall of Famers (Maranville, Nellie Fox) and some are not (Concepcion, Campaneris.)

Trammell’s closest comparisons, interestingly enough, are overwhelmingly present-day players, some of whom will probably go to the Hall of Fame (Roberto Alomar, Craig Biggio) and some of whom won’t (Tony Fernandez.) Of course, Alomar and Biggio are similar NOW; given more seasons to build their totals they won’t be when they retire. None of these players are exactly great matches for Trammell.

8. Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Defining “HOF Standards” isn’t easy. By the Bill James toy methods, Ozzie has 35 on the HOF Standard score (50 is roughlt average) and 142 on the HOF monitor (100 makes it likely you’ll get elected.) Trammell is at 41 and 104.

I hate these methods because I see the Comparative Players bit as being a little more instructive. Based on that, I’d say both players at least reach the minimum levels the HoF would ask for from a shortstop.

9. Is there evidence this player might be better or worse than suggested by his statistics?

Of course, Ozzie Smith’s defense was just extraordinary. All shortstops tend to have their defensive value overrated; as a Blue Jays fan I’d heard for years that Alex Gonzalez’s horrible bat was okay because he was a great fielder. Funny how it’s not helping the Cubs. But in Ozzie’s case, it’s merited; he was an amazing shortstop, maybe the best who ever lived. All the hyperbole you’ve heard is true; the man was just awesome with the glove.

HOW amazing is debatable. Defensive numbers are not easy to work with, and an estimate of Ozzie’s defensive value could range from anywhere from 10 to 50 runs a year saved. There were seasons when Smith was making two hundred plays a year more than the average shortstop. Some of that is attributable to Cardinal pitching staffs, but there’s no doubt Smith was robbing opposing hitters of many, many hits. Even if you say he was only averaging 30-40 hits stolen per year, that’s a massive impact that obviously means his just-OK hitting does not tell the full story. Imagine if he was an average defensive shortstop but with another 35 hits a year and calculate his batting average. Smith was also a tremendous baserunner.

Trammell was a better hitter but not as amazing a shortstop. However, as a shortstop, and a pretty good one, he was obviously a better player than an outfielder with the same batting numbers would be.

10. Did the player ever win any MVP Awards, or have MVP-type seasons?

Neither player won. Coincidentally, both players finished second in 1987, and both absolutely SHOULD have won the Award, but were robbed by RBI champions (Bell over Trammell, Dawson over Smith) who were clearly inferior players on teams that got beat. Those were two of the worst MVP votes ever. Neither player came close any other year, although Trammell finished seventh one year.

11. How many All-Star games was this player in? Do most players in this many All-Star games go to the Hall of Fame?

Ozzie was in the All-Star game every year, 16 times in all. Obviously, most 16-time All-Stars are in the Hall of Fame.

Trammell went to six All-Star games, which is low for a Hall of Famer, but not unprecedentedly low. His direct contemporary, Robin Yount, went to only three. Obviously, Trammell was being voted out every year by Cal Ripken, which is a tough peer group, and got bumped out by Yount a few times. Six isn’t bad in his situation; he ws probably robbed twice by the every-team-represented rule, too.

12. If this player were the best player on a team, could that team win the pennant?

Since this did in fact happen, you’d have to say Yes for both.

13. Did this player have a impact on baseball that goes beyond his on-field accomplishment?

Not really.

14. Did this player uphold the basic pronciples of honestly and sportsmanship required by the Hall of Fame?

Both players are fine gentlemen as far as I know.

Next message, I’ll tackle the stats in detail. Meanwhile, whaddya think, guys? Ozzie, Trammell, or both? How do they compare to Ripken?

Do you happen to have stats on the number of gold glove’s each player earned?

I grew up watching Alan Trammell, he was my favorite player. He and Lou Whitiker(sp?) were one of the best double play teams I’ve ever seen. He absolutely deserves to make it to Cooperstown.

Nice OP. I’ve got to go continue to help a friend move (we were at it from 9 pm to 4 am last night), but I’ll respond in greater depth when I get back. In the meantime, here’s a Baseball Primer article in which someone makes a lengthy argument that Trammell is at least Ozzie’s equal as an all-around player.

Ozzie has 13 gold gloves and Alan has 4.

To answer your question, 5-HT, Trammell won the Gold Glove four times (1980-1981 and 1983-1984.) Smith won it 13 times, although the last two or three were on reputation.

Trammell was a very good defensive shortstop; it’s no insult to say he wasn’t as good as Ozzie Smith.

As to the Baseball Primer article, I admit I don’t find it convincing. The long bit about their parks “playing” to Trammell’s disadvantages but Smith’s advantages strikes me as being A) an irrelevance and B) unsupported by any sort of objective evidence.

The argument for Trammell basically comes down to his superior offensive abilities, and I think the 17 wins estimated by Joe Dimino is pretty close to the truth. Actually, I think it’s higher, closer to 20-25. Against that, then, I’d have to argue Ozzie was 20 games better with the glove; Dimino essentially claims out of hand he wasn’t, using a somewhat irrelevant and misleading comparison to an imaginary pitcher who wins 140 games.

To be honest, I am inclined to believe Ozzie WAS 25 wins better with the glove than Trammell. IMHO, Win Shares underestimates his value; the number of plays he made was so extraordinarily high that it’s really difficult for me to believe he WASN’T robbing opponents of at least 35-40 baserunners a year, possibly a lot more at his peak. As another poster in that thread points out, 17 wins in a whole career is only ten runs a year; Smith’s defensive talents were quite extraordinary.

Over the course of his career. Smith made almost 2200 plays more than the AVERAGE shortstop. No shortstop in this century is even close to that. Even if you only credit him with a fraction of that - say a quarter - and claim 75% was due to his pitching staffs, or the park, or whatever, what’s 550 hits? Well, imagine he was average defensively and give him those 550 hits on the offensive side; that would give him 3010 career hits and a career batting average over .300. Would there really be any doubt?

Personally, I’m inclined to think Ozzie and Trammell should both be in. But I do think Ozzie was a bit better.

Well, in the other thread, I said I’d start off by asking questions. And these aren’t rhetorical; my understanding of the basic fielding stats is shaky. This didn’t matter when they were hard to find, but now that I can look at all the fielding stats I want, I need to know what they mean in a debate that probably hinges on them.

  1. Range factor = (PO+A)/G for everyday players, right?

  2. Man on first, ball hit to short. SS tosses it to the 2B for the out. An assist for the SS, a PO for the 2B, right?

  3. If the answer to (2) is “right”, then do we have any sort of handle on the ratio of assisted putouts to unassisted putouts, by position?

What I’m trying to get a handle on is, if Ozzie had a range factor of 5, and another SS had a range factor of 4, how many fewer hits does the difference of 1 represent?

I’m not claiming that Ozzie didn’t turn an awesomely greater number of hit balls into outs over his career than an average SS would have in the same number of games. He did. But I’m trying to figure out, exactly how awesomely great a difference?

Now, back to the questions:

  1. On average, what is the value of a single into CF/LF, in terms of runs? (I know this varies with the situation, but I’m asking about on average.)

The reason for all this is that it’s clear from the stats that while Alan Trammell made a lot more plays than an average SS, Ozzie left Trammell way behind. But Trammell had a pretty decent bat, while Ozzie’s was pretty mediocre. The Runs Created formula gives Trammell about 170 extra runs’ worth of offense.

So the question is, how does Trammell’s extra offense balance against Ozzie’s extra defense? I’m guessing that if everything’s quantifiable, Ozzie comes out ahead. But that’s just a guess at this point.

I don’t know enough about the comparative stats of these two players, and am going to leave this to others here. But I do wish to make one point to consider, which should stand on it’s own.

Which is that defensive plays for a shortstop take away singles. Few if any would-be extra-base hits are stopped by brilliant defensive plays be shortstops (this is not true of outfielders). So when adding the potential hits to Ozzie’s totals, you have to consider that they would all have been singles, and he was not much of a power hitter to begin with. By contrast, Trammel had some power.