The Palmeiro myth in laymens terms...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Palmeiro's sexy numbers are merely a product of his time. His status as a Hall of Famer is borderline at best. He was never the best at even his own position(and was not even close many times), let alone among the entire game. A Hall of Famer is among the very best in the game.
From 1996-2000 Palmeiro averaged 41 HR, 128 RBI, and 173 hits per year, numbers that would make him an MVP in previous generations. Those numbers were a marked increase over his own numbers during IN HIS PRIME YEARS, before the live ball era was ushered in. It wasn't an increase in ability to achieve those numbers, but rather a change in the environment of the game that allowed him and EVERYBODY else to see large increases in hitting numbers. To the average fan they think immortality and greatness when they see 41 HR and 128 RBI per year. THe unenlightened fan thinks the same, and may even go back to when they were kids 30 years ago and say "Hey that is as good as Reggie or Schmidt!" Then the ultimate 3,000 hits and 500 home runs! Wow, sure Hall of Famer and immortal! Of course they would be wrong on all counts.
On the surafce 41 HR and 128 RBI per game seem like incredible numbers, UNTIL THEY ARE PUT INTO CONTEXT!!
1996-2000 are the years Palmeiro should have been declining as a hitter, but because of good fortune those happened to be among the easiest years in history to be a hitter, so it makes his numbers look better than they are. Reggie and Schmidt would lead the league with those numbers in their time, WHICH WOULD MAKE THEM VERY VALUABLE TOWARDS WINNING GAMES, AND ULTIMATELY MEAN THAT THEY ARE THE BEST!
Based on OPS+ here is where Palmeiro ranked each year as a hitter AMONG FIRST BASEMEN ONLY! The list is a list of 1B who were better hitters than Palmeiro that year.
1996
Vaughn
Thomas
McGwire
Bagwell
1997
Tino
W. Clark
Vaughn
Delgado
Thome
Thomas
Sorrento
Erstad
Clark
McGwire
PLUS 7 MORE GUYS IN THE NL!!!
1998
Vaughn
Delgado
Thome
Galarraga
Olderud
Bagwell
McGwrie
1999
McGwire
Bagwell
2000
Delgao
Giambi
Mac
Sexson
bagwell
Helton
Klesko
So what did 205 HR, 866 hits, and 641 RBI make him from 1996-2000? ON A YEARLY BASIS IT MADE HIM THE 8TH BEST HITTING FIRST BASEMEN??? That is why you can take his numbers with a grain of salt and that is why his numbers don't put him in the company of his most recent HOF slugging players of Schmidt, Brett, Murray, Reggie, Yaz etc...
As I showed on previous posts, during Palmeiro's career he was typically around the 30th best hitter in MLB on a yearly basis, and he cracked the top ten just one time as being the best hitter in MLB. That is not sure-fire hall of fame material. His candidacy is borderline at best. If steroids are indeed entered into the equation, then he drops from borderline to NO WAY.
From 1996-2000 Palmeiro averaged 41 HR, 128 RBI, and 173 hits per year, numbers that would make him an MVP in previous generations. Those numbers were a marked increase over his own numbers during IN HIS PRIME YEARS, before the live ball era was ushered in. It wasn't an increase in ability to achieve those numbers, but rather a change in the environment of the game that allowed him and EVERYBODY else to see large increases in hitting numbers. To the average fan they think immortality and greatness when they see 41 HR and 128 RBI per year. THe unenlightened fan thinks the same, and may even go back to when they were kids 30 years ago and say "Hey that is as good as Reggie or Schmidt!" Then the ultimate 3,000 hits and 500 home runs! Wow, sure Hall of Famer and immortal! Of course they would be wrong on all counts.
On the surafce 41 HR and 128 RBI per game seem like incredible numbers, UNTIL THEY ARE PUT INTO CONTEXT!!
1996-2000 are the years Palmeiro should have been declining as a hitter, but because of good fortune those happened to be among the easiest years in history to be a hitter, so it makes his numbers look better than they are. Reggie and Schmidt would lead the league with those numbers in their time, WHICH WOULD MAKE THEM VERY VALUABLE TOWARDS WINNING GAMES, AND ULTIMATELY MEAN THAT THEY ARE THE BEST!
Based on OPS+ here is where Palmeiro ranked each year as a hitter AMONG FIRST BASEMEN ONLY! The list is a list of 1B who were better hitters than Palmeiro that year.
1996
Vaughn
Thomas
McGwire
Bagwell
1997
Tino
W. Clark
Vaughn
Delgado
Thome
Thomas
Sorrento
Erstad
Clark
McGwire
PLUS 7 MORE GUYS IN THE NL!!!
1998
Vaughn
Delgado
Thome
Galarraga
Olderud
Bagwell
McGwrie
1999
McGwire
Bagwell
2000
Delgao
Giambi
Mac
Sexson
bagwell
Helton
Klesko
So what did 205 HR, 866 hits, and 641 RBI make him from 1996-2000? ON A YEARLY BASIS IT MADE HIM THE 8TH BEST HITTING FIRST BASEMEN??? That is why you can take his numbers with a grain of salt and that is why his numbers don't put him in the company of his most recent HOF slugging players of Schmidt, Brett, Murray, Reggie, Yaz etc...
As I showed on previous posts, during Palmeiro's career he was typically around the 30th best hitter in MLB on a yearly basis, and he cracked the top ten just one time as being the best hitter in MLB. That is not sure-fire hall of fame material. His candidacy is borderline at best. If steroids are indeed entered into the equation, then he drops from borderline to NO WAY.
0
Comments
I'm not debating if he will or will not make it. I am laying out his accomplishments and putting them into the proper light to see if he actually merits consideration. Quite frankly, most of the evidence says no way, and that he should be sitting next to Harold Baines.
<< <i>Skinpinch, how many guys in baseball history have 500 or more Home Runs and 3,000 or more hits? >>
Ignorance will have you looking at raw numbers. Oh wait, you're the spam boy, you can't look at things in pure light.
His power numbers are a direct result of the steroid era, the bandbox ball parks, and an overall increase in power numbers.
3000 hits and 500 home runs, sure, a decade ago would be (in my book) hall of fame worthy...but now, when you look at the fact he's never dominated, tells me he DOESN'T belong.
Eddie Murray is in that club, and you being a Yankee fan I'm sure would take exception if somebody said Muray was better than Mantle because Mantle is not in that club, or Ruth or Gehrig for that matter. Does that make Murray a better hitter than those guys? Based on your logic he is. He isn't of course, because somebody that knows what they are talking about will look at more meaningful measures. Then they will take those measures and compare them to the players who played in the same environment. In Palmeiro's case you will see that he on average was about the 30th best hiter in the game for his years, or the 8th best first basemen.
While Ruth, Gehrig, and Mantle, none of which are in that club, were all at the top of their positions and among the very top(or the top) in their leagues.
You see two things at work here. One, Palmeiro doesn't even sniff that club if his career starts ten years earlier, and that is where context comes into play, and TWo, just because a guy has more total home runs, or more total hits than another player, it doesn't make him better or more worthy or recognition.
Edgar Martinez was a better hitter than Palmeiro every year from 1995-2003, except for 1999. In fact, significantly better most of those years. Yet, he never hit more homers than him in any of those years, and had more hits in just three of those seasons.
As for the club, lots of guys would be in there if they either, A)didn't get pitched around as much, or B)became lesser hitters by swinging more often which would lead to more outs, but more hits (but overral hurt the team by making more outs). C) IF many players from yesteryear were given the opportunity to play during this live era, The club would not be that exclusive.
Just because everything fell into place for Palmeiro, A) was a good hitter, B)was never really pitched around like the other sluggers, thus more hit chances, C) was not a big walk machine in general like other sluggers of his team, thus more outs made, but more hits(but less value as the outs weigh down the hits more than if a walk was just taken), and D) MOST IMPORTANTLY HE PLAYED DURING THE ERA THAT MADE IT ALL POSSIBLE FOR HIM. A CAREER THAT STARTED TEN YEARS EARLIER KNOCKS HIM OUT OF BOTH THE 500 CLUB AND THE 3000 HIT CLUB, AND MAKES HIM HAROLD BAINES, HAROLD BAINES, HAROLD BAINES!!!! JUST LIKE I SAID INITIALLY!
But Im also of the belief that there are three or four tiers of Hall of Famers in the current Hall of Fame and you could cut out the bottom two and not miss anything. Nothing you can do about it though.
Its interesting, but in Skinpinch's original list of people who ranked higher than Raffy, there are only 3 that I would consider Hall of Famers. Long-term consistency counts for more than just 2 or 3 years of brief dominance in my book.
If Raffy's numbers are just a product of the times, should the same be said for Sosa, McGuire, Griffey Jr. and the other similar late 1990's stars?
I already explained above about the 'club' he will belong to.
What bears repeating is how poorly he ranked among his peers in his career. Look at the Hall of Fame first basemen. How often were they among the best hitters in the game? Looking at OPS+ top three, and total top five finishes...
Name, Top 3 and Top 5 OPS+ finsihes of HOF 1B (guys that at least played in the 1930's).
Perez......2 and 2
Cepeda...1 and 3
Murray....5 and 6
McCovey..4 and 7
Killebrew..5 and 10
Mize..........9 and 9
Bottomley..3 and 4
Greenberg..6 and 8
Foxx...........8 and 11
Gehrig.......12 and 12
That doesn't count all the guys like Yaz, Stargell, Brett, Schmidt etc... who played a lot of games at 1B, but had more at another position.
And the sure-fire Hof from now:
Thomas.....7 and 8
Bagwell....3 and 5
McGwire...5 and 5
That doesn't count any younger 1B like Pujols, Helton etc.. where many will still eclipse Palmeiro.
Palmeiro...1 and 2; and with plenty of other first basemen better than him each and every year who just didn't play as long!!!!!
FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DO IS NOT LOOK AT THE TOTALS OF 3,000 AND 500 AS THOSE ARE PRODUCTS OF THE TIME, AND HE WOULDN'T BE IN EITHER ONE IN A TOUGHER ERA.
Palmeiro fits right in with Tony Perez and Cepeda, two other mistakes, both of which waited about 15+ years to get in. He doesn't fit in with the real Hall of Famers, he just was not good enough in his league. Yes, he had longevity, but so did most of those other guys. Then don't forget aobut the other half time first basemen who also dwarf him. Also Don't forget about the Mo Vaughns, Giambi's etc..who were better than him when they were in their prime, but it just didn't last as long.
In any given year he was probably about the 7th or 8th best first baseman in MLB, that is NOT Hall material!!!
SO like I said initially, he is borderline at best(only because longevity pushes him up). If steroid use even hints a little, then it drops him to a certain NO in deserving it.
Everybody needs to stop treating him as an immortal, like it is a no brainer that he belongs.
and he was the only player at that congress meeting that made it believeable that he didnt take steroids.
anyway im noty arguing with your points but like it or not he is going to the hall of fame.
<< <i>You could probably put a list together as long as my arm of Hall of Famers who didnt dominate their league for a very long time. But they were very very good over a long time. >>
He NEVER dominated the league! He was top 5 in OPS, what, once or twice? That's not dominating. He's never even sniffed an MVP. Hardly dominating.
<< <i>
If Raffy's numbers are just a product of the times, should the same be said for Sosa, McGuire, Griffey Jr. and the other similar late 1990's stars? >>
Unlike Raffy, but those three DOMINATED the game...McG was the most feared hitter for years..from his 49 bombs as a rookie to 70 in the prime of his career. Sosa hit 60+ HR's what, 3 times? Something no one else has ever done?
And Junior, come on now, you are comparing a hack like Raffy to the greatest player of the 90s? MVP, 10 straight gold gloves in the most difficult position (CF), as well as hitting for power and average?
It's laughable that longterm average players like Raffy are going to start flooding the hall just because they have hit 500 hrs.
Sad, actually.
It was set by the "lesser" Hall of Famers such as Tinker, Chance, Hooper, Kiner, Mize, Kell, etc...
If a player had to match Ruth, Aaron, Mantle, etc... the Hall of Fame would be made up of 15 players at the most (not including pitchers)!
Steve
<< <i>
Everybody needs to stop treating him as an immortal, like it is a no brainer that he belongs. >>
I don't think anyone thinks of Rafael Palmeiro as an immortal. He was a good player with very good career numbers.
Can you think of one player who has 3000 hits that is not in the HOF? Can you think of one player who has 500 HRs that is not in the HOF? One day those numbers will be less significant, but those are the threshold numbers today and I don't think the writers will change this in six or severn years by excuding Palmeiro.
I don't care if the writers take to long to figure out that the thresholds are wrong now, that is NOT what I am arguing. I know he WILL make it(because of the myth belivers as we see on here), but it is if he DESERVES to make it is what I am saying.
Right now you backers are all saying that the annual 7th best 1B belongs in the Hall of Fame, and a no brainer at that. That is the ranking that Palmeiro basically averaged on an annual basis. Go down the Hall of Fame roster of post 1930 times and see how many have that annual of a rank at their position. The ones most likely that will be found are the ones who got in on the vetereans committee because of their buddies.
Dave Kingman would be near 600 Home Runs in this current environment, Bill Buckner well over 3,000 hits. Those numbers wouldn't make them better players than what they did in the tougher environments. It would be the same ability guys who just played in easier environments to hit. You see, everybody else would be seeing those increases too. The guys who were better than them when it was harder to hit would also see the increases. IN the end, the value of the runs created for their team remains the same relative to their peers, even though the numbers look sexy to the novice analyst or fan.
I also don't think you have to match up to Ruth etc..., but Palmeiro's dominance is less than any other 1b in the Hall right now, and less than the others that are guaranteed to make it, and less than the others that are young and still have a lot of years left who will also make it. Look at the chart above.
Oh, yeah? Prove it!!!! Back to the Future.
Lets make Frank Robinson a first baseman in this case. Lets put them on identical teams teammate wise too. They produced the same stats. Does that mean that they are of equal value to their teams, hence equal offensive players??
On the surface people say yes because they had the same amount of numbers. But tell me, which player is going to give his team an edge over the opponent and help win more games?
Just look at how they rank among their peers to see if there are other guys in the league that are giving THEIR team an advantage.
Frank Robinson was the best hitter in his league FOUR TIMES, he was in the top five EIGHT other times, and in the top ten FOUR other times!!! So there were four years where nobody had an advantage over Frank, eight other times just a few did.
Now lets look at how Palmeiro's opponents measured up against him. When they came marching to town, was there anybody that was better than Palmeiro, thus giving a blow to Plameiro's.
Well, Palmeiro ranked 3,5,6,9, 9, 10, 10, and he was annually the 7th best first basemen of MLB.
Robinson was at 1,1,1,1, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,7,7,10. Being how many times Robinson was best in the entire league, I would safely assume he was among the top three in his position on an annual basis, and often clearly the BEST.
But they have the same numbers, and Robinson was not a member of 3,000 hit club. And they have close to the same Home Runs too. You see, putting Palmeiro in that environment and being the 7th best 1B, just take a look at those guys to get an idea of what his stats may look like, instead of the sexy numbers you see now. Guys like Dave Parker, Harold Baines, Dwight Evans(who was actually better offensively), are the guys who come to mind(even though that is a different era than Robinson's)
The only guys who would see a decline are the guys in declining skills, or guys coming off years that were above their established norms. Then look at Palmeiro's own numbers in that span and get an idea of what he would look like in a normal era, when he was putting up good numbers, numbers that were good, some of which were actually his best years, but just didn't look sexy because it wasn't the 41 Homers and 130 RBI.
He was the 7th best first basemen in the normal era, and he was the 7th best first basemen in the live ball era. His ability didn't change with the increase in numbers. What changed is the environment he did it in.
Now gemmy, go to the local park and have somebody pitch you batting practice , go to the large adult field and see how many home runs you hit. Now go to the little league field and see how many home runs you hit.
My estimation is that you will hit zero home runs out of 100 swings in the big field, and ten in the little field.
Now, did your ability change with the ten home runs in the little field? Or was it the environment that changed? Every man on this board go and do the same thing, and every man will see an increase in home runs on the small field. The best hitters on the big field will be the best hitters on the little field, but the raw numbers will be different. Unless there is some punch and judy in the group who is good at popping up the ball 210 feet every time, he may be an outlier, but Palmeiro compared to other all-star hitters/sluggers see no such outliers. That is the same type of thing as going from 1990 to 1995. The players ability didn't change, but their raw numbers did.
Knowledgeable analysts recognize this. Little league analysts don't, plain and simple.
I actually might be giving you too much credit with ten home runs in the little field.
Hank Aaron and Pete Rose each had only one MVP duing their very long careers. If you take that away are they not hall of fame worthy? Don't be ridiculous.
Palmeiro will surpass 500/3000 in 20 years, not 30. And he hasn't been just "hanging around to pad his numbers" as some have suggested, having over 100 rbi in 03 and currently hitting 270 with 40 rbi and 12 hr for the birds.
Palmeiro has batted over 300 in a season 6 times.
Over 100 rbi 10 seasons (9 consecutive).
Over 30 hr in a season 10 times.
Four times an all star.
Three times gold glove winner.
Two times silver slugger winner.
He finished second to Tony Gwynn for the batting championship in 88. (How many homeruns you think Gwynn hit that year?)
He finished third to Brett and Henderson for the batting championship in 90.
He finished second to Ramirez for the slugging championship in 99.
He finished second in total bases 3 times.
Top 5 in league in homeruns 6 seasons.
Led the league in runs in 93.
Led the league in hits in 90.
Led the league in doubles in 91.
His hall of fame monitor is 156.0 (a likely hall of famer is 100).
His hitting stats compare most simarly with Frank Robinson, Eddie Murray, Reggie Jackson, Mel Ott and Dave Winfield.
Nobody said he was Mickey Mantle, but he ain't Bob Uecker either. How many other players in his era can say they had better careers????
Palmeiro deserves a little more respect and is a definite hall of famer.
HOF Quarterbacks Football
thats one heck of a post! i agree he has my vote!
were broken. It was also the era of the hitter. We loved seeing Sammy and Mac battle it and we loved Barry hitting them into the
ocean while standing at home plate watching. We came on the boards and we said how these guys were greater than Aaron and
Ruth and Williams. We paid big time money for their cards and we sent in everything we had to PSA in hopes of that one 10.......
you made your bed, now you must lay in it! While you failed to believe roids was a problem, you can now forget about ever
comparing what would of been, with what really happened. There are now, and will be in the future, much lesser players than
Raffy making it into the hall because of their raw numbers. We must now accept that.
Every few months there is another _____ should be in the HOF post...Im amazed at some of the bums that guys thing should be in, I
have always believed that if you have to discuss wether or not a guy should be in then he shouldn't be. I find it silly that Lefty
Carlton was NOT a first vote HOF'er......now we know the voting process sometimes doesn't always have to do with what a guy
did on the field.
With that said, how can anyone question 500HR/3000hits??? I mean think about it...sure you have to play a long time but you also have
to produce, which Raffy did....he was never as talked about as Sammy or feared as Bonds, but the guy can hit, and if Maz can get in
on the basis of defense and one decent WS series, then Raffy should get a seat right next to Aaron and Mantle!
Roids, dinky ballparks, and juiced balls are a by-product of keeping the fans happy and selling out games......the days of comparing
guys to players of the 50's is over.
JS
Steve
<< <i>
Roids, dinky ballparks, and juiced balls are a by-product of keeping the fans happy and selling out games......the days of comparing
guys to players of the 50's is over.
JS >>
No one is attempting to compare him to the 50s.
He doesn't even dominate the players of his era!
<< <i>
Over 100 rbi 10 seasons (9 consecutive).
Over 30 hr in a season 10 times.
>>
30 HR in this juiced era is nothing...players are routinely hitting 30 hr's by the all star break. And RBI is the most overused and worthless stat there is...all it shows is you have good hitters ahead of you.
<< <i>
Four times an all star.
Three times gold glove winner.
Two times silver slugger winner.
>>
4 times? Out of 20? And don't pull the 'popularity contest' thing...the managers of the league who want the best bats on their team don't even want him...what does that tell you? And let's not forget that one of those 3 gold gloves came at first base while he played over 70% of the season at DH. So 2 gold gloves in 20 years? Ooh dominating!
<< <i>
He finished second to Tony Gwynn for the batting championship in 88. (How many homeruns you think Gwynn hit that year?)
He finished third to Brett and Henderson for the batting championship in 90.
He finished second to Ramirez for the slugging championship in 99.
He finished second in total bases 3 times.
Top 5 in league in homeruns 6 seasons.
Led the league in runs in 93.
Led the league in hits in 90.
Led the league in doubles in 91.
>>
Wow you are really, really reaching. Lead the league in doubles once. Put him in the hall!
The absolute single best stat for determining a power hitter's worth to a team is OPS. Why don't you go see how many times he's led the league in OPS?
Keep looking you Raffy backers....
No no keep looking!
Yes, that's right. ZERO times. He finished second once (once!) Other than that, he's finished top 5 once (yes, once, fifth), sixth (once), seventh(once), eighth, and tenth (twice).
That tells you without looking for minute stats (led the league in runs once? doubles once? huh, that's important how?) that compared to the players of the same era, he's never been elite WHICH IS WHAT THE HALL OF FAME IS FOR.
Not for letting in a slightly above mediocre player. Not letting in someone who's suspiciously jumped their HR totals towards the end of his career. Who's 'coincidentally' started hitting HR's in bunches after Dr. Steroid Jose Canseco shows up.
Yes, it's likely he will make it in. But the discerning baseball fan will never (a) see Raffy as an all-time great and (b) know that he doesn't belong.
He is the annual 7th best first basemen, get that through your head. You compare his stats to Frank Robinson who has the same stats on the surface, but Robinson was far and away a great player. You compare him to Rose, Murray, etc..and those guys were the best at their positions very often, or near the very top, not where Plameiro was.
You need to re-read the post comparing him to Frank Robinson again. He only compares to him because the environment inflated his numbers, along with everybody elses! Robinson was the best hitter in the league FOUR DIFFERENT years, and in the top five MANY, MANY, Times!
Reading comprehension must not be a strong point on this baord.
Your list of stats lists NONE of the important numbers for a batter. They are all TOTALS numbers. Go look where he ranks in OB% on a yearly basis, but after you take into account the ballpark. To make it simple just look where he ranks in OPS+ on a yearly basis and then take that list and wipe your butt with it because it doesn't mean anything.
Then you make the stupid comparison to Ripken. Ripken's value is sky high because he was a shortstop. Ripken had about five years where he was in top three in MLB as a player, the TOP THREE, and the very best a few times! Palmeiro's consistent rank in MLB among all players is in the mid 30'S!! The comparison is not valid at all. You should be comparing hs consistency to Al Oliver, Harodl Baines etc..., but put Palmeiro's numbers into context.
Now all of you guys go do the experiment at the little league fields and big fields. See how the environment can make you look better than you are.
Stalin, which head are you talking with? You rip Bonds for those same reasons, but say just accept it for Palmeiro? I will give you some credit, at least you recognize the inflation of the numbers. But you also fail to recognize that total hits and total Home Runs aren't the best judge of a hitter. When you use the correct judgement, you will see that you are campaigning for a guy who ranks as the 35th best player on a yearly basis among his peers.
OUTS MADE
Palmeiro 7,569
Thomas 5,054
Bonds 6,743
Bagwell 5,806
McGwire 4,797
Thome 4,274
Sosa 6,170
Now you see that by just listing totals you can clear the picture up by seeing how many outs they made, as it is the expense of having a lot of at bats on a yearly basis to accomplish those totals. That is why you just don't list totals, and why total hits and home runs are not a great measure.
All you have to do is use OPS+ and it wraps that all up and takes the outs, and every offensive attritube into account. And it is pretty accurate.
Then measure Palmeiro against his own peers during the normal era, and then during the live ball era. You will see that he was not at the top in either era. The only thing that changed was that his numbers were higher in the live ball era, but not because of his ability getting better, but becasue EVERY batter saw increases because the environment around them changed! What did stay constant was Palmeiro's rank among his peers, and his rank was annually the 35th best player in the league, in both eras!! Do you guys not understand that?
If all the past players in the previous 30 got to experience a 12 year run in the best and easiest time to be a hitter, then 3,000 hits would have been accomplished by MANY MANY more players, as would 500 Home Runs. THen when you add the guys who will reach those figures in the future, the club would not mean much at all, and we wouldn't have to listen to idiots be impressed by Palmeiro's INFLATED numbers.
Text
What does make him a borderline candidate, as I've said before, is his sustained very goodness. That helps make up for his very appearant lack of being among the very best as most Hall of Famers truly were at one point in their career. To say he should make it because of other mistake entries isn't a good argument. You don't fix mistakes by making more.
But to proclaim he is automatic because of 3,000 hits and 500 home runs is a case of pure ignorance on what is at work. Those numbers simply do not equate to what they meant in the past, and not just forty years ago, but a past that Palmeiro was actually part of!
Jay
I simply beleive Palmeiro was incredibly consistent for a long period of time.
I beleive he was one of the best hitters of his era.
I beleive he had the rare ability to hit for average AND power, in an era when most players can only do one or the other.
I beleive he was a very good defensive player as well.
Palmeiro's career numbers would be more impressive had he played in another era for sure. But they are still hall of fame worthy. There were many other outstanding players that played during Palmeiro's time. How many beside Bonds will reach 3000/500?
Is he among the top 50 players ever? Certainly not. But he is one of the best players of his era and deserves induction.
HOF Quarterbacks Football
<< <i>Consistent excellence is a component of greatness in sports. Can you say Cal Ripken? A player can have a great career without dominating. Other players can be dominant for parts of their careers without being great.
Hank Aaron and Pete Rose each had only one MVP duing their very long careers. If you take that away are they not hall of fame worthy? Don't be ridiculous.
Palmeiro will surpass 500/3000 in 20 years, not 30. And he hasn't been just "hanging around to pad his numbers" as some have suggested, having over 100 rbi in 03 and currently hitting 270 with 40 rbi and 12 hr for the birds.
Palmeiro has batted over 300 in a season 6 times.
Over 100 rbi 10 seasons (9 consecutive).
Over 30 hr in a season 10 times.
Four times an all star.
Three times gold glove winner.
Two times silver slugger winner.
He finished second to Tony Gwynn for the batting championship in 88. (How many homeruns you think Gwynn hit that year?)
He finished third to Brett and Henderson for the batting championship in 90.
He finished second to Ramirez for the slugging championship in 99.
He finished second in total bases 3 times.
Top 5 in league in homeruns 6 seasons.
Led the league in runs in 93.
Led the league in hits in 90.
Led the league in doubles in 91.
His hall of fame monitor is 156.0 (a likely hall of famer is 100).
His hitting stats compare most simarly with Frank Robinson, Eddie Murray, Reggie Jackson, Mel Ott and Dave Winfield.
Nobody said he was Mickey Mantle, but he ain't Bob Uecker either. How many other players in his era can say they had better careers????
Palmeiro deserves a little more respect and is a definite hall of famer. >>
Vikesfan hit the nail right on the head. Not every player needs to compare to Willie Mays or Babe Ruth. Palmeiro put to together a number of very respectable seasons. What a lot of casual fans do not understand is that longevity counts for a lot when evaluating a career. There are 215 players in the HOF right now and Palmeiro compares favorable with many of them. Like I said above, I am not the biggest Rafael Palmeiro fan, but I will be surprised if he is not a first ballot HOFer.
Take a look at the recent induction classes
2005 Boggs, Sandberg
2004 Molitor, Eckersley
2003 Murray, Carter
2002 Smith
2001 Winfield, Puckett
2000 Fisk, Perez
Does anyone think that all of these recent inductees are more deserving than Palmeiro?
You and I had our adventures on the board regarding analysis. I am a scholar by trade, so I totally know what you are talking about and obviously agree. I guess you know that anyway. I am very tired of explaining the term CONTEXT to people, that's why I did not interject earlier. You made a noble effort in educating some people on it. That takes nerves.
I have always liked Palmeiro, but in the last few years, I felt that he really did not distinguish himself enough from other first basemen to merit HOF induction. He is more of a longevity player, not someone like Koufax. He was an above average first basemen, but not a HOF. Yes, he would make a good first baseman on just about any team, but he is not HOF material.
Frank Thomas gets the nod over Palmeiro.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Of course everyone understands what the word CONTEXT means. You are saying that Palmeiro is not as strong when compared to his contemporaries as his numbers would suggest. Thus his inflated numbers do not make him deserving of HOF induction. You are not the only people in the world who see this.
I understand this and I agree with you that his numbers in any given season are not fantastic. I also agree that he was playing in an era where offensive numbers are easier to come by. I even agree that I do not think HOFer when I think of Palmeiro as a player. In spite of all of this, I still think the AP writers will be swayed by the numbers and vote him in on his first try.
As for nobody else in this era not reaching 3,000, 500, well like I said before, that doesn't make him better than those players. Frank Thomas could have easily hacked his way to both if he didn't take walks, make more outs, and ultimately get more hits(but be less valuable to the team because of the amount of outs made). You see, Palmeiro has a lot more at bats than a lot of his contemporaries. Obviously more at bats equals more hits. Palmeiro averaged over 600 at bats year for a long stretch there. Given the same amount of at bats, you probably have four or five more guys from this era alone that make it, and more in the future.
As for what belongs in the Hall, there really is no guideline, but you people talk out of both sides of your mouths on this. On one hand you bring that up when Palmeiro's lack of greatness is exposed. But when Mattingly greatness is put into light you conveniently say he doesn't meet the standards of longevity(yet 10 years is the longevity standard), AND EVEN BY YOUR OWN MOUTH YOU SAY THERE ARE NO SET STANDARDS. So you have no problem setting longevity standards for Mattingly, but not greatness standards for Palmeiro. It can't be both. Again, bias and speaking out of two mouths is a typical problem here.
The only thing that you can compare them to is what is typically put in there, no not the rare errors by veterans committees etc.., but the voters over the last 50 years. What Palmeiro fails to do is to measure up to the typical Hall of Famer in that he was never the best at his own position, let alone among the whole game. Not only was he not the best even in one year, but he would average around 7th best on a yearly basis. There just aren't many Hall of Famers of the last fifty years that are that bad. The ones that did make it ala Perez, and Cepeda waited fifteen years.
As for what belongs in the Hall, there really is no guideline, but you people talk out of both sides of your mouths on this. On one hand you bring that up when Palmeiro's lack of greatness is exposed. But when Mattingly greatness is put into light you conveniently say he doesn't meet the standards of longevity(yet 10 years is the longevity standard), AND EVEN BY YOUR OWN MOUTH YOU SAY THERE ARE NO SET STANDARDS. So you have no problem setting longevity standards for Mattingly, but not greatness standards for Palmeiro. It can't be both. Again, bias and speaking out of two mouths is a typical problem here.
I HAD TO REPEAT THIS PARAGRAPH AS IT BEARS REPEATING!
DeutscherGeist, I had to put that plug in for Mattingly there!!
If you truly understand context and you KNOW his numbers don't mean the same, then that is like saying a guy 'back in the day' with 2,650 hits and 415 home runs is a LOCK for the Hall of Fame. Nobody in their right mind would say a guy with 2,650 Hits, and 415 Home Runs who was routinely the SEVENTH BEST AT HIS POSITION on a yearly basis is a lock Hall of Famer! That is basically Palmeiro's numbers in a normal era ala 60's-80's. So think of him in those terms when making your decision.
Looking at his career pre expansion also gives you insight on what his career looks like in a normal era, plain and simple!
Also nderstnad that not only did Palmeiro's era help him, but his outstanding hitter parks for left handed batters too.
By the way, that 7th best may be generous as I breeze through some more of his years. He was second best one time, and was waay down the list on other seasons. I am just not counting the way down years and focusing on when he was his best.
By comparison, Eddie Murray was best like four years in a row at his position. Schmidt, all the time. Brett very often at his position. Ripken many times. Winfield yes. Morgan, all the time. Stargell, Mccovey always best in their position in prime. Killebrew, Mize, Fisk, Bench all had stretches as best at their positions. Gary Carter, YES. Young YES. Sandberg BIG YES. Reggie, of course. Those are your typical Hall of famers, and they were at one time in their career the best the position had to offer. Plus they all had longevity. If their careers overlapped then they were second a lot. Palmeiro? Never the best, second once, rarely in top five, and often overshadowed by MANY!
<< <i>Koby, by the way, if you say "you can't argue with the numbers" then that smacks dead of NOT understanding context, because those numbers need to be argued with and that is the whole point!!
>>
If you are saying that I wrote somewhere "you can't argue with the numbers" then you either have a problem with reading comprehension or you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. I never said that and you should read before opening your mouth again.
I wrote that I agreed with you that Palmeiro is not as impressive as his numbers reflect, nonetheless I beleive that the writers will vote him in when he become eligible.
I agreed with what you said in the opening of my previous post. I geuss I am on a campaign to put serious thinking into his Hall consideration. But like Toyguy said, he may be the first as it is with those thresholds and not make it. Seven years from now who knows what the career leaders numbers look like. If they are clogged with modern guys, he won't make it. If the modern sluggers all retire early, or get hurt early leaving him up there then he will make it no problem.
palmeiro has been a steady productive player who has kept the flash to a minimum. he is not a show boat and that is why many people do not see him in a higher light perhaps. he is a professional ballplayer who has had a career worthy of induction to the hall of fame. he should not be compared to anyone. he is what he is and that is all.
not being on a winner has not helped his cause but 3000 hits and 500 hrs in any generation is a very high achievment. All these other guys that some say will be in the same group have yet to do it. things happen, guys get hurt etc.
Steve D
I think the Baseball Writers will vote Palmeiro in. But that would be the time when we will begin seeing many players going into the 500 HR club at record pace compared to other eras.
Again, there is no doubt that Palmeiro was not a dominant player like Frank Thomas, but he may be deserving of the longevity vote. I am still waiting for more years to pass by to see where his numbers really fit in the large scheme of things. I want to see just how many more players reach 500/3000.
On the same note, if ageless Julio Franco plays until he is 50, he may reach 3000 hits. Sure he was an excellent player, but just did not dominate except for 1994, which he got 3rd in MVP I believe.
Skinpinch,
I purposely avoided mentioning Mattingly because everyone here knows I am such a big fan and using him in my analysis would paint me as biased in one direction or another. But while we are on it, wasn't Mattingly one of only a handful of players from the last 100 years to lead MLB in OPS+ not once, but twice? Palmeiro cannot touch that, neither can most very good first baseman.
What I like about Palmeiro is that he was always ready to play and dependable. No DL, he was a real tough gamer. He had a great glove. Three gold gloves are no fluke considering he had to compete with Mattingly (who had 4 gold gloves just in the 90's) and then other glove men like Olerud, Tino Martinez, JT Snow and McGwire. I think Palmeiro would have been a more effective player had he been more patient at the plate and took some walks, regardless of home run decline, but that is just speculation.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i> Also nderstnad that not only did Palmeiro's era help him, but his outstanding hitter parks for left handed batters too. >>
Talk about reaching. Your'e right. Babe Ruth played in Yankee Stadium's short right field porch and the Red Sox actually moved right field in for the pull hitting Ted Williams. Let's throw them out of the hall too.
Maybe you should stick to beating a dead horse instead of trying to make new points why one of the best hitters of his time shouldn't be in the hall. Tell us about context one more time.
HOF Quarterbacks Football
Vikesfan, he has played in the most extreme hitters park in the AL...Texas. If you don't think that helps his raw numbers, then you know less than I originally thought. Baltimore is also an outstanding Home Run park.
RUth and Williams are measured in neutral parks as well. That is done with all players in any good analysis. The thing is, when that is done with Ruth and Williams they are still the cream. When it is done with Palmeiro, well you should know the numbers by now....he would be the annual 7th best first basemen. BY the way, that isn't a new point. It is on obvious thing to anyone that knows anything, but it is something that bears repeating based on the ignorance that prevails on your posts, and countless others'. I could talk more about context and you still wouldn't understand it. You should just go back and keep re-reading until it sinks in.
Winpitcher, yeah , those three or four pitchers a game really made it hard for the hitters by allowing record home run rates
Also, those extra pitchers you see are middle relievers because the starters have to throw more pitches because of the tight strike zone and amount of hits given up. When hitting was a little harder to come by, your ACES were able to stay in the game longer because they didn't have to throw as many pitches. So to answer your question, I would prefer to face that middle reliever who should be in TRIPLE A, as opposed to the ACE who still has plenty of gas left in the tank because of less pitches thrown.
Deutcher, I had to put the Mattingly statement in because people always talk out of two faces. That is an example of that.
Steve D
One of the best hitters of his time if it includes the top 35 of his own time
Good point! how many players played during his time? THOUSANDS!
and to be in the TOP 35 well that is quite an achievment
you just made everyone's case regarding if he belongs now. And destroyed yours by that very statement!
I await your statistical twist!
After reading your post again, you need step one to learn what context is. You can't just use the basic stats and raw numbers. There are probably about four books that you would need to read based on your ignorance. A message board is waay to small to explain this stuff if you can't even handle even the simplist concept of context. I'm certainly not going to explain all of that stuff and waste my time. If you want to chime in, I can give you a few books to read on the subjects to at least have some sort of clue to know what is being talked about.
TO everybody else who had an idea what context is I apologize for lumping you in with posts like the last one by winpitcher, and painting you with the same brush.
Am I ever wrong? Yes, I am wrong sometimes in future predictions, but when everything is laid out and the evidence is strong, it is tougher to be wrong.
secondly, you said OF HIS TIME........that would mean his career.
you claimed he was the 35th best player IN HIS TIME. during HIS TIME players have come and go, some for 1 ab I think now maybe you get my point.
please, do not attempt to act like your some smart guy no it all. You are not. did I put that into context?
Steve D
But, to clarify for winpitcher , it is that he was annually, on average, the 35th+(being generous by excluding his worst two years) best player in the league(excluding pitchers)! I didn't do a full count of all the players that crossed careers with him and rank him as the 35th best player of his time.