Tiger337

I would guess it's because there are limited areas in the United States where it is played very much by kids growing up.

They could draft him and then trade him.

I wish they had one of these every year - not an expansion draft, but more like a high level rule 5 draft. There would probably be some legal or contractual reasons why it wouldn't be liked by certain parties, but it would make the off-season so much fun.

He would have wanted to. I just don't know if it would have been his call.

Apples and Oranges. When Dombrowski took over, they had no useful MLB ready players in the organization and very few future players. He had to build from scratch. I like Harris's long-term vision better than Dombrowski's short-term vision, but it's disingenuous to compare the two in terms of how quickly they had winning teams.

Yes, most will be gone. If they are not, then something has gone horribly wrong.

Most of the team is comprised of Avila "leftovers". He definitely cares about this team winning. It's just that I see a lack of urgency to take advantage of Skubal's final two years.

I am fully aware of the weakness of his rate numbers. I am just pointing out one area where he was superior to every pitcher in that period. I am not saying he belongs in the Hall of Fame. I have rallied against him for years. However, his numbers may not be as bad as many of us have been saying. I would bet that his rate numbers would have been significantly better had he not pitched so many complete games compared to his peers.

I can't imagine it would have been much. How many fans want to watch an old washed up player playing for a 100 loss team? Attendance was way down during his final years.

I have softened my stance on Morris's Hall of Fame credientials is recent years. I don't consider him a big-game pitcher (not after watching 1987), he didn't "pitch to the score" and I don't care about "most wins in the 80s", but he was the most durable pitcher of his era and was the last of the complete game pitchers. Looking at 1980 forward, he had 165 CG. The closest one to him is Roger Clemems with 118. Even if you go back to 1975, he is still #1. although not by as much: Morris 175 Blyleven 165 Ryan 137 Tanana 129 Niekro 127 Carlton 123. https://www.sports-reference.com/stathead/baseball/player-pitching-season-finder.cgi?request=1&match=player_season_combined&order_by=p_cg&year_min=1980

I think casual tuned out during most of that period. Losing 100 games a year will do that. If anything, they got pissed off about losing three stars that were actually still great - Verlander, Scherzer and Martinez - for practically nothing.

It would still be filthy

The Yankees were interested in Whitaker too. What a tragedy that would have been.

I think his fielding along with his facial hair, grit and ability to get stars to sign with the Tigers is enough to get him into the Hall of Fame.

Riley Greene may be down to one tool in a couple of years.

Do we know it's the same person?

His hitting peak was better. There is a a lot of uncertainty in fielding statistcs, but Whitaker ranks way ahead of Kent on every advanced metric I've seen, so I've got to believe he's got a big edge defensively. And Kent isn't that far ahead offensively overall (123 OPS+ vs 118). I do understand why Whitaker is not in. Leaving aside all the BS reasons, he never had an MVP type season which is pretty odd given how many really good sesons he had. You would think that he would have randomly had one elite season in all that.

21 runs saved.

I have been reading Michael Humphrey's book: Wizardry where he explains his Defensive Regression Analysis stat. According to this statistic, the second basemen we have been talking about had the following runs saved: Grich 133 Whitaker 101 Sandberg 79 Kent -11 Best second basemen ever: Frisch 224 Gordon 191 Mazeroski 149 Hubbard 137 Whitaker was 9th. Other Tigers Vina 51 Easley 38 Polanco 29 Gehringer 14 McAuliffe -4

If Whitaker dove more, he'd be in the Hall of Fame! There may actually be some truth to that

Whitaker was legitimate though. I don't care about gold gloves, but Whitaker was an excellent fielder by any metric.

Whitaker was better than Kent. Kent hit a liitle better, but Whitaker's superior fielding more than made up for it. Sandberg was better, but Whitaker lasted longer. Grich was slighly better for a short period, but Whitaker had more good years. Grich missed more time to injuries. Utley was better, but Whitaker had more good years. I'd put them all in expect maybe Kent. I've always had Kent on the bubble. You talk about the end of Whitaker's career like it was nothing. He hit a lot better than most platoon players and it wasn't a strict platoon. He accumulated enough plate appearances to get 4.7, 4.1, 2.5, 1.5 WAR from age 35 to 38. Lots of great hitters can't do what he did in the end. He also could still handle middle infield capably up until age 37 which is rare. His consistency and endurance was pretty special and I'm not just saying that as a fan boy.

Lou was a a compiler, but he was the best compiler in the history of the game! Seriously, 17 years with an OPS over 100 for a middle infielder without ever having without ever having an MVP type season. Nobody else has done that.

This is the reason Lou Whitaker gives for not being in the Hall of Fame and it may be one of the biggest. I would think the lifers on the Veterans Committee loves guys that stay in the game. When Whitaker said that, Denny McLain (one of the interviewers) asked him in a seemingly accusatory tone why he he didn't stay in the game. Whitaker said that he was dedicating his time to his religon and family. I don't think McLain understood that. 😀 That whole interview was probably the best Whitaker interview ever. He never sounded that good when he was playing. The Drunk Lou Whitaker interview where he ripped Jack Morris was a good one too!

Better than Matt Anderson.