The main reason Trammell has gotten more attention is because of Larkin. With Larkin getting in, anyone who studies stats will realize that their career stats were scary similar and both were similar figures in their playing days. Both played their careers with just one team and both are among the best SS in the history of the game. Lets get more into the numbers to see exactly how similar they are.
Trammell played 20 years for the Tigers (1977-1996) and Larkin 19 for the Reds. (1986-2004) Trammell played in slightly more games (2293-2180) and had more ABs. (8288-7937) Though Larkin had more runs scored, (1329-1231) Trammell had more hits. (2365-2340) Larkin had more 2Bs, (441-412) 3Bs (76-55) and HRs. (198-185) Trammell drove in more runs (1003-960) and to this point there has not been a definitive stat to prove one player was more successful than the other.
Larkin won an NL MVP with the Reds in 1996. Both players won a World Series title. (Trammell in 1984 and Larkin in 1990) Larkin was more of a base stealer (379-236) and had the first 30-30 season for a shortstop in the history of baseball. Larkin also had a better walk to strikeout ratio, drawing more walks (939-850) and striking out less. (874-817) Larkin hit for a higher average (.295-.285) and also had a higher OPS. (.815-.767)
In conclusion, neither player has been proven hands-down better than the other. I hope this makes a better case for Trammell to be in the Hall of Fame. I never realized how similar their stats were. Yes, Larkin was more of a base stealer and probably the best player on his team for a couple of years, but there is no question that their career stats mirror each other. I expect more baseball writers will catch the similarities and think, if they were so such about Larkin, its time to put Alan Trammell in the Hall of Fame.