Palmeiro is not a HOF, he is a product of the offensive explosion...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
There was a thread about guys with Hall of Fame merit, and I was on the fence with Palmeiro. He never did dominate his league like previous hall of famers from other eras, and after more examination I concluded that he is mostly a product of the super talent thinned, rapid expansion, juiced up era. Yes, palmeiro is a roids suspect, and Canseco has pinned him as a guy he taught and gave roids to. Although that is only part of the beefed up numbers, as rapid expansion, and the continuing thinning talent pool, have made it easier for players to post gaudy numbers AND to separate themselves from their peers, peers who would not be in a MLB uniform in other eras.
It is always good to wonder what a guy like Palmeiro would have done if he played in a different era.....wait, HE DID! Palmeiro played pre 1993, the beginning of all of it(1993), although the ease to hit and dominate didn't reach its heights until 1998-'04. 1993 is also around the time where Canseco said he introduced steroids to Palmeiro.
Palmeiro logged in 3,270 at bats pre 1993, which is a significant amount of at bats. He was 27 years old in 1992, the typical prime year. In Palmeiro's 3,270 pre '93 at bats he hit 95 homers and slugged .460ish. The homers equate to about 17 per year.
Compare that to 1998-2002, the pinnacle of the live ball, juiced up, thinned down talent pool era, where Palmeiro averaged 44 homers per year, and slugged ..560ish! Palmeiro was aged 33-37 those years.
Yes, players do improve as hitters, but remember Palmeiro was 27 in 1992, and he had 3,270 at bats to cement his ability. A few year improvement is possible on his 17 homers per year, and his .460ish slugging percentage. But age 33-37 should be a decline. Instead he reached heights he wasn't remotely close to during the normal times.
What accounted for Palmeiro's surge? It wasn't improved ability. Three things played big parts. 1. Performance enhancers 2. Rapid expansion of teams, allowing for players to face inferior talent that would not have been there in 1992. 3. Less overall players available to MLB, compared to 1987-1992. That is more in depth, so just take my word on it for now. Other things would include livelier baseball introduced to the games, smaller strike zones, body armor, no real inside pitching allowed. Those things all contributed as well.
Domination? Palmeiro had one top five OPS finsih after 1993, and a few top tens. He had one top five in 1991. His 44 homers per year('98-'02) may look sexy, but it only gave him one top five finsih in OPS, and that is NOT Hall of Fame material. Add the steroid factor, and it turns to a definite NO.
ASK YOURSELF THIS.....IF BACK IN 1982 YOU WERE ASKED IF A 1B WITH 17 HOME RUNS PER YEAR, AND A .460 LIFTIME SLUGGING PERCENTAGE THROUGH AGE 27 IS HALL OF FAME MATERIAL, WOULD YOU LAUGH, FAINT, SCOFF THE REMARK AS IDIOTIC, OR SAY YES HE IS A HALL OF FAMER? Nobody in their right mind would say yes to that, yet that was Palmeiro. It took roids, and all the other factors to give him sexy looking numbers.
It is always good to wonder what a guy like Palmeiro would have done if he played in a different era.....wait, HE DID! Palmeiro played pre 1993, the beginning of all of it(1993), although the ease to hit and dominate didn't reach its heights until 1998-'04. 1993 is also around the time where Canseco said he introduced steroids to Palmeiro.
Palmeiro logged in 3,270 at bats pre 1993, which is a significant amount of at bats. He was 27 years old in 1992, the typical prime year. In Palmeiro's 3,270 pre '93 at bats he hit 95 homers and slugged .460ish. The homers equate to about 17 per year.
Compare that to 1998-2002, the pinnacle of the live ball, juiced up, thinned down talent pool era, where Palmeiro averaged 44 homers per year, and slugged ..560ish! Palmeiro was aged 33-37 those years.
Yes, players do improve as hitters, but remember Palmeiro was 27 in 1992, and he had 3,270 at bats to cement his ability. A few year improvement is possible on his 17 homers per year, and his .460ish slugging percentage. But age 33-37 should be a decline. Instead he reached heights he wasn't remotely close to during the normal times.
What accounted for Palmeiro's surge? It wasn't improved ability. Three things played big parts. 1. Performance enhancers 2. Rapid expansion of teams, allowing for players to face inferior talent that would not have been there in 1992. 3. Less overall players available to MLB, compared to 1987-1992. That is more in depth, so just take my word on it for now. Other things would include livelier baseball introduced to the games, smaller strike zones, body armor, no real inside pitching allowed. Those things all contributed as well.
Domination? Palmeiro had one top five OPS finsih after 1993, and a few top tens. He had one top five in 1991. His 44 homers per year('98-'02) may look sexy, but it only gave him one top five finsih in OPS, and that is NOT Hall of Fame material. Add the steroid factor, and it turns to a definite NO.
ASK YOURSELF THIS.....IF BACK IN 1982 YOU WERE ASKED IF A 1B WITH 17 HOME RUNS PER YEAR, AND A .460 LIFTIME SLUGGING PERCENTAGE THROUGH AGE 27 IS HALL OF FAME MATERIAL, WOULD YOU LAUGH, FAINT, SCOFF THE REMARK AS IDIOTIC, OR SAY YES HE IS A HALL OF FAMER? Nobody in their right mind would say yes to that, yet that was Palmeiro. It took roids, and all the other factors to give him sexy looking numbers.
0
Comments
Ralfie had 3 seasons prior to 1993 in which he hit over .300, as for late blooming HR hitting, check out Ted Klusewski ( sp ? ), not great power , just like Ralfie, untill later on. No one can say he has not produced some outstanding stats., regardless of talent levels, roids, sexy-ness, etc.
If he can hit about 23 HRs this year , I think there will only be seven players in the entire history of baseball, who hit more. Homers are the glamour stat, the fan's favorite, pretty hard to leave out the 8th all-time homer hitter !!
The Kluzuski comparison? Age 33-37 Palmeiro averaged 44 homers a year, after averaging 17 through age 27. He TRIPLED HIS HOME RUN OUTPUT!!! I gave the reasons why it happened, and ability change is not one of them.
Klu hit a grand total of 20 home runs after age 33, so that comparison is very invalid. Klu had 74 home runs through age 27, so that argument is thrown out the window. Then he had his three best home run years age 28 to 30
Klu averaged about 15 HRs per year by about the age of 28
Ralfie averaged about 17 HRs per year by about the age of 28
Some men develop more power after some time in the bigs, sure Klu did not last as long as Palmeiro, not many have. His big power numbers started a little before he turned 30, quite similar to Ralfie. Both were decent hitting firstbasemen who became power hitters AFTER some seasons. The similarity should not be too hard to see.
Regardless of what you or I may think, it is almost certain Palmeiro WILL be in the Hall.
You might have a point that Palmiero is not one of the top players in history and that there are better hitters with far lesser stats. But the raw numbers are hard to ignore and I do not see the voters changing their criteria any time soon.
<< <i>Several already in the Hall are less qualified than Palmeiro is, in my opinion at least. >>
Very true, but Hall of Fame standards should not be based on the least talented of the bunch. Allegations of doping aside, Palmeiro was a fairly consistent player through his career, but he never dominated the game or even his position, as a true HOFer should. I would not vote for him.
Edit: formatting
And I really, really dislike the argument that 'soandso is in the hall, with less numbers'. If a player can't get in on his own merit, don't start comparing him to other players in the hall to justify his entry.
Palmeiro, in 3,270 at bats through age 27, which just happens to be before the onset of the juice, and all the other factors of the live ball era...averaged 17 home runs a year.
Palmeiro, age 33-37, which is dead smack in the middle of the live ball era averagd 44 home runs per year! He tripled his output compared to the time when he played during a tougher time to dominate. And he tripled it at an age where it isn't done unless something else is helping him.
SIR, BEFORE YOU SPOUT OFF, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND A GUY THAT AT AGE 33-37 TRIPLED HIS HOME RUN OUTPUT, COMPARED TO WHEN HE WAS A FULL TIME PLAYER AGE 22-27. A GUY NOT FROM THE JUICED ERA.
Players just do not triple an established level of ability without external factors being the cause at that age. 3,270 at bats is a good amount of at bats to establish a level of ability. You could possibly have a point if Raffy only had 300 at bats in the time I am talking about, but he didn't.
All of baseball saw the increase! The league slugging percentage in 1989 was .387. Because of the factors I mentioned, the league slugging percentage in 2000 was a whopping .454! That is an astronomical difference for an entire league. And that is not a one year blip. The star players dominated to an even greater extent because of those factors.
The three years before 1993, the league SLG% was .388, .391, .378. In 1993 the SLG% jumped to .400, .444. .436. It became much easier for power hitters to thrive because of the reasons I stated.
In 1992 Palmeiro had an OPS of .922, at age 27, when compared to league avg it comes out to a 155. In 2002 at age 37 Palmeiro had an OPS of .962, which looks superior, but when you compare it to the league avg it comes out to only 141, which is well inferior.
THEN WHEN YOU FIGURE THAT THERE WERE 36 STARTING POSITION PLAYERS WHO WERE PLAYING THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PLAYING IN 1992, AND THAT THOSE GUYS ARE PULLING DOWN THE LEAGUE SLUGGING PERCENTAGE EVEN MORE......you make Palmeiro's slugging percentage look even better than it actually is compared to the league average. So his 2002 141 is more like a 135. It is a false 141.....Then the other factor of less players being available in 2002 compared to 1992, then it pulls that 135 down into the 120's, and you should get the point.
Klu did improve as a home run hitter age 28-31, just like people do, but then he also started dropping rapidly going more into his 30's. He didn't triple his prime years at age 37 like Palmeiro did.
Had baseball stayed normal from 1993-1995 Palmeiro probably could have increased his HR ability without help, BUT NOT TO THE DEGREE that he did, and NOT continue to do it well into his late 30's. That was done with help, as the rise in league SLG% and HR per at bat attests to. Had baseball continued to have a high population to draw from in the mid 90's, and still had four less teams, then Palmeiro's numbers go down just like everybody else's, just like everybody elses did from 1988-1992.
Palmeiro pre 1993 averaged a home run once every 34 at bats. He was 27 in 1992.
Palmeiro 1993-'96 age 28-31, averaged one every 16 at bats. Most of that is attributed to the league wide rise in hitting home runs, as it became much easier for EVERYONE to hit, and EVEN MORE So for the good hitters. Sure, some of it can also be attributed to becoming a better home run hitter. Had the league not changed, my estimate would be one home run every 23 at bats instead of the 16.
Palmeiro 1998-2002, age 33-37 averaged a home run once every 13 at bats! Now it is getting ridiculous. Of course, this is also the easiest time in the history for good hitters to dominate a league, and it shows nicely in Palmeiro, as well as many others.
Like the others above has said, Raffy did not dominate well enough to be a deserving Hall of Famer.
Compare that to the 15, 500 home run club members from the rest of the history of the game! The writers may have to change thier tune in the seven years when Raffy is coming up for election.
How many MLB players have finished their careers with well over 3,000 hits?
How many MLB players have finished their careers with well over 3,000 hits and well over 500 (perhaps 600) Home Runs?
How many Hall of Fame players have finished their careers with well over 3,000 hits and well over 500 (perhaps 600) Home Runs?
Case freaking closed.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/H_career.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HR_career.shtml
Whatever that may infer, .
...Davy Johnson of the Braves TRIPLED or actually QUADRUPLED his average HRs in 1973, at the age of 30. Prior to then he averaged almost 10 HRs per year. Maybe he was on roids, maybe his peers all hit 43 plus homers, maybe you might give credit where credit is due ... ??
We could all probably look up some stats to confirm or deny almost any claim, but whether you, SIR, like it or not, Palmeiro, if he beomes the 8th most prolific home run hitter ever, will be in the Hall. !!!
<< <i>in 1973 >>
The fact you have to go back 30 years states it just does not happen.
Raffy is obviously a roid case, along with many other players of the juice era.
<< <i>Palmeiro has 2,922 hits.
How many MLB players have finished their careers with well over 3,000 hits?
How many MLB players have finished their careers with well over 3,000 hits and well over 500 (perhaps 600) Home Runs?
How many Hall of Fame players have finished their careers with well over 3,000 hits and well over 500 (perhaps 600) Home Runs?
Case freaking closed.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/H_career.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HR_career.shtml >>
I agree completely. What is stupid is that some people even have to question that a player with 600 + career home runs, > 3000 hits, and > 500 doubles, plus a career .290 BA needs to be questioned about the HOF. He is first ballot HOF. Also, did I mention his 2 gold gloves?
What hurts him is that he never beat up his wife, never got caught cheating on his wife, never got arrested for a felony or for a DUI, and never played for a really big market team. Maybe he should smack his wife around so he can get more attention.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
I asked you to find a guy who from age 33-37 more than tripled his home run output from his years prior to age 27. However, the guy must have played a significant time prior to age 27 ala Palmeiro. You come up with Davey Johnson who at age 30 had a career year. Had Davey Johnson continued to hit 44 homers a year for the next 9 years, then you would have had something.
LETS GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT, I'M NOT SAYING WHETHER OR NOT HE WILL GET IN, BUT THAT HE DOESN'T DESERVE TO! Many of the writers do not know what they are doing, just as many of the posters I am coming across do not either. He will end up getting voted in, but he shouldn't, and I am telling you why, albeit in abbreviated form.
NUMBERS HAVE TO BE PUT INTO CONTEXT! If the numbers are not put into context, then all of the best pitchers came before WWI. Those are all the ERA leaders, and Koufax, Clemens, Seaver, Unit, Carlton, Ford, Maddux, Ryan, don't even come close to their numbers at face value!!! Does that mean that these modern pitchers are inferior? No! But using the same logic you guys are using with Palmeiro, you cannot ignore the career ERA leaders.
But you can ignore them, because their ERA's back then are lower for certain reasons, not because they are ALL better than Seaver, or Clemens. Just like you can ignore many of the numbers of Palmeiro, or Helton, or McGwire etc....because even though their numbers are better than the Schmidt's, Reggie's, Brett's, Murray's, Yaz's, it does not mean they are better, or deserve the Hall of Fame!
One way to judge them is against their peers....this eliminates a lot of the cross era problems....but Palmeiro does not match against his peers to the same degreee as other Hall of Famers do.
After you measure agains't their peers, their are other adjustments to make, and none of those adjustments are in favor of this current crop of ball players.
I am trying to be brief here, on what is a long topic.
But if you still believe that you should take those numbers at face value, then you MUST cross off all the modern pitchers from the best ever list, because there are a LOT of 1900 pitchers who kill them in ERA.
School is out!
<< <i> Also, did I mention his 2 gold gloves?
>>
Uhm, are you counting one of the gold gloves he won at first base when he spent more than 75% of that year AT THE DH?
Yeah, gold gloves are a GREAT way to justify someone's HoF induction, when only one of them was truly earned.
Palmiero should NOT be in the Hall, and by the time he's done, 500 HRs isn't going to have the same weight it once was.
<< <i>
<< <i> Also, did I mention his 2 gold gloves?
>>
Uhm, are you counting one of the gold gloves he won at first base when he spent more than 75% of that year AT THE DH?
Yeah, gold gloves are a GREAT way to justify someone's HoF induction, when only one of them was truly earned.
Palmiero should NOT be in the Hall, and by the time he's done, 500 HRs isn't going to have the same weight it once was. >>
Check your stats. Palmeiro is way over 500 home runs and will have 600 by the time he retires. Sure, he didn't dominate like Bonds has, but he has had something just as important - consistency. Also, Hank Aaron never truly dominated the league, but he was consistent. Still, Hank doesn't get the respect he deserves. Note: I am not comparing Palmeiro to Aaron other than consistency.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
It is more than just consistency. You need to be one of the very best hitters in your league. I posted the dominance of Murray, Brett, and Schmidt who were recent Hall of Famers who played mostly in the normal era. Their domination is the type you look for out of a Hall of Famer. Plus they also added the consistency. Like I said 1,000 times, Palmeiro's numbers look sexy compared to the players of the last fifty years, but take those numbers with a grain of salt.
Off the top of my head the following players from Palmeiro's time were ALL better hitters, and certainly dominated better than Palmeiro. Thome, Bonds, McGwire, M. Ramirez, Vlad, Giambi, E. Martinez, Sosa, Pujols, and Frank THomas. Those guys are absolutely clear cut better in the dominance, just look where they rank on the leader boards compared to Palmeiro. THEN, you have guys who are right there in hitting ability, but their defense and their position make them clearly better players than Palmeiro...Chipper, Arod, Jeter, Nomar, Tejeda, Piazza, and Pudge.
All of those guys dominated their leagues better than Palmeiro......leagues that Palmeiro was part of! So those guys dominated HIM! That is 17 players just from the 90's-00's who are better than Raffy. Then you have many more who are right there, like Walker, Delgado, Vaughn etc.....If that is your definition of a hall of famer, then he is. But that isn't what is normally put in the Hall.
Then if you consider the guys he played against in the 80's who were his contemporaries......Ripken, Boggs, Schmidt, Brett, Murray, henderson, yount, Winfield, Sandberg, Gwynn, D. Evans......welll the picture should get pretty clear.
If Palmeiro could throw up three more pretty good years, then he will make a better case.
Compare that to all the guys on the list above and you will see that they all dominated better, some to overwhelming degrees like Frank Thomas. Palmeiro may end up being the fifth best first basemen of his era, not even counting the guys from the 80's.
Heck Delgado checks in at 1,3,4, 7, 10. When he is done, he will probably end up being more dominant. Heck, I forgot about Albert Belle....at 1,2,2, 7, 8. His career was cut short...but he was more dominant too. I could probably find a few more guys too. But I am too busy mixing cement to finsih my debate.
By the way, an example of raw numbers not meaning as much without context....Palmeiro hit 46 HR in 1998, good enough to finish sixth in the AL. Mike Schmidt led the league in Home Runs a couple of time swith 36. Which guy would you rather have on your team, the guy who hits more homers than anybody else, or the guy who finsihes sixth? Palmeiro will hit more than 600 home runs. He will be schmidt by about sixty homers. Go ahead and check where each guy ranked in their league on a yearly basis on the home run boards. Remember, I am just using home runs as a simplified example......Schmidt's ON base, and SLG skills are the real things that made him soo great.
A very good season in the 1980's was a .300 average, 30 homers and 100 RBI's (actually probably less than that back then)--this was THE NORM for the best in the game. If you were able to reach those numbers you were a star, you were actually a superstar if you could do it 3 times or so over a 5 year span. Then the offensive explosion of the 1990's took place a few years after Fielder hit 51 (91 I believe). By 96-98 if you were a #1 outfielder or a 1st baseman if you didn't hit .300 with 30 homers and 100 RBI you might end up losing your job! By then, THE NORM was still .300, but you had to hit at least 40 homers and the very good players were all driving in 120+++ RBI--30 homers and 100 RBI were no longer a bench mark. If you started your career sometime in the early 90's, the odds are if you hung on long enough (or hang in long enough for others who are close), you were going to end up with some stagering numbers. At this point the very good players over a 10 year span were up over 400 homers and 1200 RBI--all pretty good bench marks for borderline HOFers. If you added 3 or 4 years at the end where you were still pretty productive you could reach 500 Homers pretty easily, and we've seen that at an incredible rate (a ridiculous rate if you ask me), and that's still going on. So those old bench marks of 500 homers and 1200--1400 RBI are going to have to change, or in 5--10 years you'll have 2 or 3 guys a year with 500 homers! THIS ISN'T A JOKE, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS!!! Now go back and conversely look at the superstar from the 80's--Andre Dawson is a good example seeing as I'm a Spos fan. Here was a guy who every year was on the All-Star team, was up in homers and RBI, but really has no shot at the Hall (MAYBE although I certainly think he deserves it). All because he was averaging THE NORM, which after 10 years back then equated to 300 homers and 1000 RBI--simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
The way baseball is now, 300 wins is going to be very hard to acheive--extremely difficult actually. BUT, we're going to see all the best position players in the game every year being passed on the HR list by guys like Palmeiro, Thomas and Gonzalez--would anyone on these boards say Palmeiro was a BETTER player than someone like Mickey Mantle or Mike Schmidt? NO, yet his numbers certainly make him look better. Simply put, I believe the voters will take a hard look at Palmeiro when the time comes, and I really believe he WON'T get in first ballot, but because he was around long enough to get 3000 hits, eventually he will get in. Just as I said if McGriff hits 500 HR's he won't either (but that's another arguement we've already had). Simply put, and I'll say this again and again--THE BASEBALL HALL OF FAME IS FOR THE VERY GREAT, NOT THE VERY GOOD!!!
Jay
Sports fans are almost like religous zealots. They have these beliefs, and despite overwhelming evidence against their prevailing thought, they just discount it. In a way it is good, as I take money from these types of fans every year!
There are some sports fans that probably still believe that a broad shouldered guy named Atlas is the reason planet earth is held up.
Palmeiro had 3,270 at bats in the normal era, and we saw what he was on track for. He was averaging 17 homers a year and SLUGGIng .460ish. Compare those numbers to all the Hall of Famers from the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's, and you find a slugging HOF 1b-OF type that had an average of 17 HR per year, and a .460 SLG, and a .350 OB% through the age of 27! you won't find any! There were tons of players in the 50's- 80's who did what Palmeiro did up to age 27. They just didn't benefit from the era change.
Yes, Palmeiro could have improved some, and he probably did, but the majority of his increase in numbers were due to the ease of which to hit and dominate, and the ENTIRE league benefited. What, did every player just make a miraculously jump in ability from 1992 to 1994, where hte league SLG% rose about 50 points? Or was there other factors that created that environment?
Also remember, 500 HR and 3,000 hits from Palmeiro doesn't make him a better hitter than Edgar Martinez who got neither of those milestones. Like I said before, many of the writers don't know jack, but seven years from now they may become enlightened and become capable of putting those things into perspective, and ultimately get it right and say NO.
Palmiero has seven seasons in the top 10 in OPS. Palmiero has nine seasons in the top 10 in rbis. Palmeiro has 11 seasons in the top 10 in homers. How many other players who are not in the Hall of Fame can make those claims? Traditionally there have been around 30 active Hall of Famers playing at any one time. Is Palmiero one of those 30 today?
Palmeiro was in the top ten, but they weren't strong top tens....3, 5, 6, 9, 9, 10. That is OPS+ as park factor comes into play, rather than just straight OPS. You will be hard pressed to find a Hall of Fame first basemen with that weak of dominance.
RAFFY WILL BE BEHIND......THOMAS, MCGWIRE, BAGWELL, PUJOLS, AND THOME IN HIS ERA ALONE, AND THOSE ARE ONLY THE FIRST BASEMEN. THOSE GUYS PLAYED BASICALLY SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SAME ERA AS PALMEIRO.......THEN THERE WILL BE GUYS LIKE DELGADO AND HELTON WHO ARE RIGHT THERE WITH PALMEIRO.
SO PALMEIRO IS NO BETTER THAN THE SIXTH BEST FIRST BASEMEN IN HIS DIRECT era! That is not the Hall of Fame my friend. Looking at the list above, he may very well end up being the thirtyfifth best player in his generation, and that isn't including pitchers.
Is there any time in history where the sixth best first basemen of his era was in the Hall of Fame? Or the thirtyfifth best position player of his era? If there is one, it would be pre war, and that era is goofy too. That is where we need to look, as all of his numbers have salt on them.
As of right now there are only TWO full time first basemen(Post WWII) that are in the Hall of Fame....Willie McCovey, and Eddie Murray!
And now all of a sudden this era is going to let in SIX?!?!? Seven if you count Palmeiro? Then Helton, and Delgado? Give me a break.
So those forty plus years produced two Hall of Fame First basemen, and these last 15 will produce seven or nine, or more? Does anybody see it yet?
These numbers right now are soo inflated it is ridiculous. These guys are being made out waaay better than they actually would be if they played in environments like McCovey and Murray did. I said it a thousand times, and I will say it again....This era is the absolute easiest era for good hitters to seperate themselves from their peers, than at any other time in history? I have a book load of information to shed the light on it, and the more posts I get that don't recognize the obvious, the more chance i will actually sit down and organize it into the book.
The talent is so thinned down from rapid expansion, and lower amounts of players available, compared to 1985, and it isn't even close. That is why it is easy to dominate. You have a bunch of guys who would have no business on the field if they were in 1985 who are dragging down the league percentages, allowing for the star players to domiante like never before. There it is.
P.S. I am not counting guys like Banks, or Brett who finsihed their careers at first, because all of the modern guys I listed are full time first basemen in the mold of Murray and McCovey.
<< <i>RAFFY WILL BE BEHIND......THOMAS, MCGWIRE, BAGWELL, PUJOLS, AND THOME IN HIS ERA ALONE, AND THOSE ARE ONLY THE FIRST BASEMEN. THOSE GUYS PLAYED BASICALLY SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SAME ERA AS PALMEIRO....... >>
Hall of famer's have great careers not just great seasons. McGwire aside I don't think any of those players has had a better career then Palmeiro. Thomas was the best in game for a few years but if his career ended now he probably doesn't make the hall. Mattingly was the best in the game for a few years but does not make the hall because he did not end up having great career numbers. MVP's have great seasons - Hall of Famer's have great seasons and careers.
<< <i>Too many posts for me!! I am out of the discussion. You guys can enjoy the thread, rip me, throw eggs at me, agree with me, or debate, but I'm gonna turn my computer off for a few days. My eyes are starting to hurt! >>
The above quote may show how "beliveable" one might really be..
While still posting up a storm, ( eyes must be better ) some points regarding modern pitchers were brought up.
ERA comparisons; While important, are not the only measure of a pitcher's true merit. Was Ed Walsh the all-time leader, a better pitcher than Walter Johnson or Christy Mathewson ? most would think not . Walsh, a great pithcer indeed, had a lifetime 1.82, from a similar time peroid, Johnson finished at 2.17, while Matty was at 2.13.
From 1920 forward, about 40 times, pitchers had a season of less than 2.00 ERA, including Greg Maddux' 1.63 in 95, and Perdo's 1.74 in 2000, both from the "juice period"
Winning percentage may be a better measure for Hall induction. Reagardless of the time a pitcher was from, the percent he wins is more important AND constant than ERA or strikeouts. Whitey Ford has the best all-time mark. Mathewson and Lefty Grove are in the top five.
Current guys ( "juice peroid" ) very high all-time are ; Pedro, Randy Johnson, and Maddux.
But hey, those of us still in the discussion, should be talking about Palmeiro !
Something like 600 Homers, wherever and whenever hit, if mostly done in the "juice peroid", or mostly in the minors, or mostly in little league, maybe even if mostly in a fantasy league, is a truly outstanding and remarkable feat !!!
Considering there may also be near 3,000 hits, two gold-gloves, and tremendous longevity added, he will be in the Hall and deserves to be.
Since World War II - Murray, Mize, Killebrew, Mccovey, Perez, Cepeda are all firstbaseman who are in the Hall.
~"These numbers right now are soo inflated it is ridiculous. These guys are being made out waaay better than they actually would be if they played in environments like McCovey and Murray did. I said it a thousand times, and I will say it again....This era is the absolute easiest era for good hitters to seperate themselves from their peers, than at any other time in history?"~
How is it easy to separate yourself from your peers when you have all these great hitters who are similar? It is easy to put up big numbers but to dominate. Absurd. The Major Leagues are not like college baseball where you have .500 hitters and pitchers with .000 e.r.a's. The Time Line today is no different than the time line in the 1980's. Check the population of the United States than and now. Check all of the other areas we can draw players from. Rapid Expansion??? Major League Baseball is not the National Hockey League.
Check out baseball abstracts from the early 90's. At least a couple of people projected Palmiero's career power surge
That gives six hall of famers in approximately 45 years. You get nine in approximately 15 years here! Probably more when we see careers blossom. See it yet?
Population? I think you need to look at the demographics. There were far more people born in the US from 1950-1962, compared to 1970-1982. Far more! This is part of the long study I have. Those players from the 50's, early 60's, would be coming of age in the 80's. Those players born in the mid 70's would be coming of age in the Mid 90's-2000's. If you took the number of men (age 22-35) in the US in 1985, and compared it to the number of men of the same age in 2001, there was about a 12 million difference! That is 12 million more men of baseball playing age were available in 1985, compared to 2001. *****So 2001 had 12 million less men to choose from, and had to fill FOUR MORE TEAMS!******CAN YOU SAY TALENT THINNING? CAN YOU?
SO WITH 12 MILLION LESS MEN AVAILABLE IN 2001, COMPARED TO 1985, ISN'T IT KIND OF STRANGE THAT THERE WILL BE NINE HALL OF FAME 1B THAT PLAYED IN 2001, AND ONLY ONE HALL OF FAME 1B THAT PLAYED IN 1985?????????
MLB has shifted to more hispanic, less african american now, compared to the 80's. But the minority population is about the same. Japan is the other source of talent, and there have probably been about three Japanese players who have shown to be above average since 1995. So that really isn't a factor. Nomo, Ichiro, and Matsui(though he has more to prove, and his numbers aren't that great compared to the league anyway).
Then there is the BIG factor of baseball of today losing LOTS of athletes to other sports. The 1950's, early 60's. had kids mostly playing baseball, and that was the biggest sport to play. the 1980's, and 1990's, had lots of american youth putting their efforts into other sports, which not only included Football, and basketball, but soccer, volleyball, and even extreme type sports. So, in conjunction with less overall males being available today, they also lose a lot more of the athletes to other athletics that the 50's and 60's didn't lose kids to!
For anyone who thinks Palmeiro is better than Frank Thomas, or any of the other guys I listed, you are either a fan of Palmeiro, or you don't know what makes one better.
As it is, Palmeiro would be the seventh 1b of his era to go into the Hall, and when it is all said and done, that number could climb to as high as 12. Compare that to the six first basemen who made the Hall in the previous 45 years.
So the hitters get to feast on these bum pitchers, blowing up their hitting numbers. The bad pitchers get to balloon up the league ERA, making the best pitchers lookin immortal, achieving unachievable heights compared to Seaver, Carlton etc...
The good pitchers also get to feast on all the bad hitters that they wouldn't have faced 25 years ago, also making it easier to achieve lots of k's, and low numbers of hits.
All the while, we have seen players seperate themselves from their peers like never before, and those are the reasons.
Of course, other things DO make it harder for the typical pitcher....like the juiced balls, strike zone etc....so don't get me wrong, it is still a tough era to pitch in, but it iis an easy era to seperate yourselves from a bunch of guys who wouldn't have been there 25 years ago.
For those who insist on taking numbers at face value, then Todd Helton will be WAAAAAY ahead of Palmeiro with his .329 AVG .432 OB% and .616 SLG. I don't see those shrinking too much in the next five years, and he wil finish much higher than Palmeiro in all of those when it is over.
You guys just keep looking at HR and RBI. Those are not the telling stats of a players value or ability. I know writers don't realize this either, but they should if they are voters.
As for the Bill James fan, just check where he ranks Palmeiro in the latest version of Win Shares......not very flattering considering he has better raw numbers than almost any other 1b on the list ahead of him(except for the guys in his own era of course).
Bagwell checks in at .408 and .542 in OB and SLG.
Palmeiro is beat handily by these guys. He is not in the same class, and those guys my friends: Thomas, McgWire, and Bagwell, are the class of this era's first basemen. Those are your HOF members. Raffy is not in that class. Then Pujols and Helton will finish in that class as well. Not Helton for sure if you do the Coors adjustment, but you guys only look at face value.
<< <i>Thome ahead of Raffy too. He is in the Hall with a few more really good years. Taffy is just no those guys class, and those guys define a HOF player....ONE OF THE VERY BEST HITTERS WHO DOMINATED THEIR LEAGUE, AND ALSO ADDED THE LONGEVITY. >>
We shall all see when he retires and is inducted as a first ballot HOF'er. Using your short-sighted analysis (focus on seasons rather than career), I'm interested to hear your take on Cal Ripken Jr. Sure, he won two MVP's, but other than that, he didn't do much else RELATIVE TO HIS PEERS.
A career .276 BA (compare that to Gwynn and Boggs who played during the same era), career .340 OBP , and career .447 Slugging %. These numbers fall quite short of his peers relative to his time, but everyone seems to have him slated for a first ballot HOF'er given the attention he got for his streak.
As Joe DiMaggio said when they flashed his career stats at the game in which he broker 2130: "That's all he did?"
Not looking to start an argument, just looking to get your respected opinion here.
Thanks
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
It is kind of similar for Sandberg. Had Sandberg put those numbers up while playing 1b, he is nowhere near the Hall. But he manned a tough defensive spot(and was one of the best at it), so he had similar value.
There is a lot discussion to be had about position value, etc...., and that too is a lengthy topic, but it is pretty clear that playing SS very well, and hitting as well as he did, Cal was a true HOFer.
Imagine how things would have been different in 2001 if four full teams were not there. You would get rid of four full teams of players that would not make the cut in 1985. Now imagine if there were 10 million more american men to choose from. Now you would replace the next level of the worst players with even more better players. That competition gets fierce then, and then players wouldn't be able to dominate, and thrive like they do now. The environment would be more similar to the 1985 environment. Palmeiro would have a harder time, and in fact he did back then.
Not to mention how many athletes lost to other sports, and you have a big thinning of the talent.
Add that Palmeiro will end up being anywhere from 7th to the 12th best first baseman of the juiced era, and there it is. Add that Palmeiro had only one top five OPS+ finish in his career, and that there were even other first basemen like Giambi who were clearly better in their prime(even though the didn't play as long), then the evidence is strongly against Raffy. He most likely does not deserve it! He is a product of the time, just like the title of the topic says.