winpitcher, he does own the total home run mark, but whenever a young person asks me who was a better home run hitter, I tell them Ruth, because he was! Of course it is nice for Aaron to say he has more Home Runs than anybody ever, and he does. Does that make him better than RUth? Of course not. Of course Aaron is an all time great in his own right anyway. Same goes for Rose and Cobb, yeah Rose has more hits, but that doesn't make him a better hitter than Cobb.
Franco will be interesting if he does approach that. I don't think he will though. But if the Hall of FAME is taken for it's word, a guy who is still hitting away at fifty years old will certainly attain a degee of fame I think. Does that make him better than a Mattingly? No way. This is a weird thing I tell you. One just has to put it into the proper perspective when dealing with it.
In all fairness, how do we know if the live ball era will still continue? It may be dying down as we speak.
Let us wait 5-10 years and see if Palmeiro's totals really do stand up. 3000 hits is a lot harder to get than 500 homers. A hitter needs 50 a year for 10 years. We have seen 50 homers hit a year the last 15 years, and most of the time it did not result in a home run title. A player would need 300 hits a year for 10 years to get 3000 hits. If such a season existed, that player would have won the hits title every year for the past 15 years. Actually, no one in history got 300 hits a season. I am more impressed with his 3000 hits than 500 homers.
So, if in the next 10 years, we don't have an explosion of 3000 hits and it remains a distinguished club, then its OK for Palmeiro to get in. So many people want him in, so its fine.
Skinpinch or others,
correct me if I am wrong, but at the turn of the century, was it not a big deal to hit 10-15 homers a season? Babe Ruth ushered in a new era of power baseball, but before, the home run was more of an abnormality, not really part and parcel of the game. It would happen occasionally, but it was nothing people thought to hard about. So, when looking at the home run totals for players of that era, one could laugh at the 50-100 homers during a career, but that was the best for that time. You have to judge it according to what it meant in that era. THis is why I say, let us wait on Palmeiro to see if 3000 hits remains exclusive or if it becomes more inclusive.
Another reason why 3000 hits could not be easy even in the live ball era is because one would still need to play 15 years without injury, but even then, it would average 200 hits per season, which is easily top 10 year in and year out. A period of 15 years is starting to overlap on another era. Most players do not play even 10 years. What I am saying is that it takes most of two different eras combined to play long enough to get to 3000 hits. Palmeiro played in the 80's, 90's and 00's and still does not have 3000 hits (he will soon, I know). He had to deal with the tough pitchers and dead balls of the 80's too. So, his climb to 3000 was not all live ball era aided, he had to endure the 80's as part of his hit totals. He would not be able to get 3000 hits if you only count his live ball era stats. I think he will only play one more season after this, so he really needed those hard won 80's stats to make the stats that fans are raving about. IF the live ball era started in 1990 (that may be a little early), that makes it 15 years and it may be dying down now gradually. Who is close to 3000 besides Palmeiro? Bonds and Biggio and Franco? Thay may not even get it. But that is not a enormous group. It is hard for a live ball era to last long enough to really be totally responsible for a player's 3000 hits.
Sure, Palmeiro really took advantage of the live ball era and really milked it to his benefit. He was the right age, the right health at the right time. Still, with all of that, we are not yet seeing too many members of the 3000 hit club. the 500 homer club is a different story.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Skinpinch, ah, mentioning Mattingly again? He is just a great example to refer to with the points you want to make, I understand.
While we are on that point. I have wondered how many ERA+ 1st rankings Koufax has. Dodgers stadium is a real pitcher's park, so the ERA+ is a better indicator of his true value than the ERA titles he has. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but Don Mattingly led MLB in OPS+ twice, and that was done only by a handful of players in the past 50 years, 100 years?
To be honest, I got into ERA+, OPS+ fairly recently, but we both know it is a much more accurate measurement stat-wise. I suspect Koufax might have gotten one ERA+ and some in the top 10, which is still dominant---I am not taking anything away. I just wanted to take away the Yankee stadium bias for Mattingly. I suspect Mattingly may indeed be closer to dominance than I first suspected if he indeed got more OPS+ "titles" than Koufax got ERA+ "titles." I remember you posting how rare getting an OPS+ title was, but I can't find that post right now.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Actually the live ball era had its roots in 1993, and then took off in 1994. 1998 and on is the easiest time in history to be a MLB hitter, plain and simple. The decline in available population at this time, plus two expansions in the era made it easier for the stars to dominate relative to the league average because many players simply would be in the minor leagues in different eras.
That is why it is also easier for pitchers to domiante, relative to the league average, in a hitters era. The star pitchers are being compared to the league average ERA which is getting artificially blown up by guys who would not be in MLB in 1988.
Think of an ACE pitcher and his ERA+. Compare him to the typical ACE pitcher in 1988 in ERA+ ERA+ is your ERA compared to the league average ERA. Well the guy in 2001 is being compared to a group of players of which 44 of them wouldn't be in MLB if the same amount of teams were around as in 1988. Plus there were more people of baseball age available in 1988 than in 2001, so logic would dictate more players closer in ability to the best in 1988 than in 2001.
So that isn't exaclty fair that the 2001 guy gets 44 scrubs into the league to blow up the league ERA and make him look better, because his ERA is now better compared to a weaker league average than the 1988 guy because the 1988 guy didn't have those scrubs blowing up his leagues ERA.
Same goes for hitting. The star hitters have four teams worth of players bringing down the league OPS so that a guy like THOME actually looks better relative to the league because those hitters that should be in the Minor Leagues are bringing the league OPS down so now the stars are separating themselves from the league average far greater than a player could in 1988 because the 1988 guy doesn't have the scrubs bringing it down.
That is the problem with the OPS+ number in cross era comparisons, because it is unfair. That is why it is more telling to judge the player only against the best players in the league, because those guys would be in the league regardless of how many teams or how many good players are available. The easy way to do that is just look at the yearly ranking. You could average the top 10 or top 20 to get a little more scientifc if you wish.
This is an extremely short explanation of a complex topic, and based on a lot of people's reaction to some of the other stuff, they won't even bother with something that in detail. But if you don't believe me on OPS+ and ERA+ being unfair, just look at the list of the top 100 seasons in history of those stats and you will notice the majority of them occuring from 1994 to now, and from the 1930's and down. Not too many guys from the 70's and 80's crack those lists because those are the most competitive years of baseball history, thus the hardest to separate from the average player.
Mattingly had two MLB OPS+ titles(one of which was a tie with Murray), and that is very impressive. In fact, I believe that the number of players with TWO or more OPS+ titles is less than the number of players with 3,000 hits. I am going by memory as I don't feel like looking it up right now. That should put that accomplishment into perspective. So it is probably harder to do that(which is a very valuable stat, unlike leading the league in hits), than it is to accomplish 3000 hits, I think. I have to look it up though.
Palmeiro is one of the greatest hitters of all-time.
It's pretty tough to win MVP awards when you spend the majority of your career with teams that finish below .500 --- Rangers/Orioles/Cubs ---
Eddie Murray wasn't dominant either. His only HR & RBI crowns in strike shortened 1981?
Baseball Reference says players with similar stats to Palmeiro are:
Frank Robinson (880) * Eddie Murray (876) * Reggie Jackson (842) * Mel Ott (828) * Dave Winfield (820) * Fred McGriff (817) Al Kaline (805) * Harold Baines (792) Willie McCovey (768) * Billy Williams (756) *
It's funny how the same people who think Mark Mcguire is a sure bet , don't think Raffie should get in. Palmiero hit for a better average, fielded better and ran the bases better. All in all a better all around player. Mcguire did one thing--- hit homers, oh and by the way Raffie hit MORE than him!
Collect vintage basketball and baseball,graded rookies allsports, Robin Yount,Brewers,Bucks,Packers Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better. Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
estang, you are way off in looking what constitutes dominance. You are looking at the wrong stats, and Eddie was domiant, he had a stretch where he was THE best hitter in MLB. I'm not sure if the last two posters read the last few threads on the context of the numbers, AND what constitues a better hitter. Check out Murray's top rankings in OPS+ and you will see what I mean.
Add to the fact that he was absolutley incredible with men on base those years too, and you have a no brainer most valuable hitter in MLB for his prime. For example, from 1982 to 1985 look at Murray's stats with men on base(1,295 plate apperances), the man batted .339!! His OB% was .440! , and she lugged .593! He was simply responsible for more runs than any player in baseball in his prime. You cannot even begin to compare that to Palmeiro's situation. He wasn't never even near the best among his own position, let alone all of MLB.
The hitter that was neck and neck with Murray during that stretch was Schmidt. His numbers were just as good, but it is the Men on Base numbers that gave Murray the edge in how many runs they were responsible for. In 1,291 plate appearances with men on Schmidt hit .266, OB%.390, and SLG%. 507. So you can see the marked difference of the value of the hits.
RBI ARE MISLEADING. Looking at how Murray was at the top in OPS+ those years, AND that he was one of the absolute best hitters with men on base, then why don't you think he lead the league in RBI every year those years like he should have?? Two reasons. 1) He didn't have the same amount of men on base as the guys who had more RBI than him(see Jim Rice and his number of men on), and 2) The man was soo good that he simply got pitched around in a lot of RBI situations.
I would suggest NOT basing your dominance on HR and RBI unless you actually know the facts of what is at work like I showed above. Stick with the OPS+ and you can add the men on hitting to supplement it. Then put it into context for the era and you should be 98% there.
Yeah, Palmeiro had more Home Runs than McGwire, but it took him how many more at bats? Their slugging percentages are worlds apart, and Palmeiro's longevity does not close the gap of how many runs McGwire was worth vs. Palmeiro.
By the way, McGwire didn't just hit homers....his OB% was .394. Palmeiro's .372. So McGwire slugged better AND got on base more frequently. Being that they are from the same eras, McGwire was better.
If you want to take it a step further and look at their men on base hitting, McGwire also was better with men on base. Palmeiro was merely average.
Their fielding didn't differ much at all.
Park factors....the park factors favor Palmeiro as well.
For all others I have been responding with, these last two posts show that a lot of people still don't know what constitues good and still have no idea on what context means. That is probably why it seems as if I beat a dead horse. Or the new posters just jumped in and weren't involved in any previous post or thread.
Not to sound condescending like the Geico guy, but it would do a lot of good for baseball fans to research a little more on topics as this, and read a few very good books that explain this in more detail before they jump into a discussion like this. This stuff about being more valualbe and creating runs isn't opinion, it is well researched and backed up very nicely.
Oh yeah, you guys forgot something...there is another thing Palmeiro did better than McGwire....he was better at making OUTS! 2,772 of them!! There is a price for all those extra at bats to achieve something that McGwire did in far less at bats(home Runs). It beehoves me how people cannot comprehend this. Being that they are from the same era, it is a fair comparison. Remember 1995-NOW was the best time in MLB HISTORY to be a hitter.
<< <i>It's funny how the same people who think Mark Mcguire is a sure bet , don't think Raffie should get in. Palmiero hit for a better average, fielded better and ran the bases better. All in all a better all around player. Mcguire did one thing--- hit homers, oh and by the way Raffie hit MORE than him! >>
Raffy hasn't hit more than him yet. Although I love Raffy, McGwire was much more dominant when healthy. He was a one dimensional player who hit either singles or home runs. He was much too slow for doubles and his job was to hit home runs and did that well. Unfortunately, his batting average was very low for many years and injuries took a toll on his body.
Palmeiro was much more consistent than McGwire throughout the same period, although he never dominated like McGwire. he was also much more multi-dimensional with his skills. Personally, I would rather have Palmeiro any day of the week as a manager as I could count on his consistency and power. McGwire on the other hand was fun for the fans to see as he hit 500 foot homers, but also batted in the low .200's at times.
I don't see the big deal with McGwire, as well. Harmon Killebrew was a much better slugger than McGwire in terms of dominance, yet he had to wait until 1984 for election to the HOF.
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>It's funny how the same people who think Mark Mcguire is a sure bet , don't think Raffie should get in. Palmiero hit for a better average, fielded better and ran the bases better. All in all a better all around player. Mcguire did one thing--- hit homers, oh and by the way Raffie hit MORE than him! >>
How many times did Raffy lead the league in homers?
How many times did Raffy dominate a position like Mac did?
People get SO hung up on the accumulation of numbers, without putting into context of where that player ranks with his contemporaries. So we should just start putting in people who did well for a long period of time?
Raffie's hit more home runs than MacG? Since when?
Through the end of last year, Raffy was behind Mac by over 30. Yet Raffy has 4000 (!!!) more at bats that McG does.
4000!!!!
To sit there and say Raffy was a better power hitter than Mac is just ignorance, plain and simple.
Mac's OPS career numbers are nearly a full 100 points better than Raffy's too.
Comparing Raffy as a power hitter to Mac is funny it's such a bad comparison.
Megatron, since your personal prefernce as a manger would be to have Palmeiro over McGwire, then you must like your players to be good at making outs . There are two primary dimensions to hitting 1)efficiency of getting on bases over how many outs you make. 2)The efficiency of bringing other runners and yourself close to home plate over how many outs you make. Those two dimensions are reflected in OB% and SLG%. I believe McGwire was much better in both dimensions by a large margin. He was not one dimensional, he excelled in the two most important dimensions of hitting. Making contact accounts for about .01 percent of the equation.
Fielding wise they really aren't any different. Palmeior is no Keith Hernandez by any stretch. McGwire was never bad, and was actually pretty good in the field for a while. If you like versatility, then McGwire was also able to play 3B.
Does baserunning make up enormous difference in batting? Palmeiro's stolen bases are at 70%, so he is basically near nill value there. McGwire is near nill value too. You can research the times going from first to third or second to home. But don't forget to add the extra times he was thrown out on those attempts. Each time you are thrown out in those situations far outweights the time you advanced.
So those factors don't really do anything to close the offensive gap. Which leaves staying healthy and playing. This is where Palmeiro makes up his ground no doubt. You certainly overstated Palmeiro's value in baserunning and versatility. If you were discussing Ricky Henderson or Ozzie smith in terms of being valuable in other ways, then you have a case. But I'm quite confused where Palmeiro is considered versatile and valuable in baserunning and defense.
As a manager you have Palmeiro, a considerably lesser player, but plays everyday, or McGwrei, far better but is hurt often. Well, if you want you can check Mcgwire's teams and see how well his replacements did in his stead, add those numbers to McGwires, and then compare them to Palmeiro's and you can see which situation was more valuable to a team. That should provide the answer on the more valuable player for a manager to have.
Then don't forget to account for the advantages that Palmeiro had for his home ballparks, both of which are better hitter parks than both of McGwire's.
Based on Axtell's logic, Palmeiro could have been the second best player in Baseball for 20 years and still not be considered a great player or worthy of the hall.
Better than every single player in Baseball except one for every year over a 20 year span and still not be great, because he would have never been "the best".
Not worthy because second is not "dominating". Bull.
Collecting PSA and BGS 500 HR & 3000 Hit Club Baseball HOF Quarterbacks Football
<< <i>Based on Axtell's logic, Palmeiro could have been the second best player in Baseball for 20 years and still not be considered a great player or worthy of the hall.
Better than every single player in Baseball except one for every year over a 20 year span and still not be great, because he would have never been "the best".
Not worthy because second is not "dominating". Bull. >>
But he wasn't the second best player for 20 years. He was the second best for ONE year.
If you are the second best player for 20 years, you ARE dominating. Quit trying to twist my words and arguments, please.
I know the answer to your question, but its hard to explain, so follow carefully.
Take the OPS+ of every player each year. Award 10 points for 1st, 9 points for 2nd, .........
Tally them up. The results will clearly show one, two or three dominant players that have the most total points and separate themselves from the crowd within a career span.
Someone that played for ten years and always ranked second, is DOMINANT. Usually a player can be the best once and never get close anymore--that will show up in points like I described above.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
I understand what you are complaining about. After so many posts, you still get guys that say Palmeiro will get more homers than McGwire, so that will make Palmeiro the better home run hitter.
They ignore the context of the home run totals.
Understanding mathematics will fix so many of the ignorance shown in comparing numbers. Its not just baseball knowledge, one has to be a good mathematician to understand these things.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Does the fact that Palmiero was CONSISTENT for almost 20 years matter? Was he not a consisitently dominating major leaguer? I understand he was never the most dominant, however one must review a career on a case by vase basis and the CAREER that this guy has had is worthy of Hall of fame status in ANY ERA.
I just do not get all the reasons you guys are giving why he does noy belong. You say you can't compare him to anyone already in yet in the same breath you compare him to who ever was the so called dominant player each year.
Vikesfan to answer your question he was typically the 7th best first baseman on a yearly basis. That is only among his own position, and there were a slew of others that were better from other positions. The best he ever finished as a HITTER in MLB is 7th(three times), and his next best finish was 17th. He didn't crack the top twenty any other time, and I believe he may have finished 25th once.
So his best ranking as a hitter in MLB is 7,7,7,17. Then he had some good consistent seasons throughout his career. Vikesfan, if you feel that is worthy enough for the Hall, well thats your preference. If you feel those rankings are incorrect, then it doesn't turn into a preference anymore. I will say though, if there are guys on the leaderboard ahead of Palmiero with quite a few less at bats that season, then Palmeiro's value could be higher than that guys. I didin't got that deep. I also didn't account for men on hitting(that actually doesn't help Palmeiro much though).
At bats example, in 1983 George Brett edged Murray in OPS+ by two points, but he only had 424 at bats, so Murray's full season worth of at bats at virtually the same rate of production, made him the more valuable hitter of the two. Then when you add the men on hitting, Murray is the easy leading hitter for the season.
Just for kicks for the gentleman who said Murray was never dominant and just consistent, here is Murrays dominance in hitting when you include men on hitting and account for value with at bats. Here is where Murray Ranked as a MLB hitter....
Murray 5,1,1,1,3,3,7,14,,20,20. He also had lot of consistent good years ala Palmeiro. Those three number ones were a consecutive three year stretch, so that is pretty darn hard to accomplish. That is his prime. The five and three are the years right before and right after his number one's stretch.
Winpitcher you already know that the longevity counts, as to how much for the Hall, well that is a matter of preference. My last posts were aimed at a couple of direct comparisons to specific players that were mistakingly made by other posters.
P.S. One thing about at bats...If you are getting extra at bats because you are in a superior lineup or bat second instead of fourth, then extra value doesn't come from those at bats when doing a direct comparison to a player who played all the time but just didn't come to the plate as much because his teammates were worse. If you are getting less at bats because you take days off(probably against a tough matchup), or to nurse minor injuries(or injuries caused by the same thing that makes you good...see Mcgwire and muscle building), then yes, your value takes a hit. After all, your forcing a lesser player to play in your stead. See the McGwire post about replacement player value to determine thus. This is where Palmeiro gets extra value no doubt.
<< <i>Does the fact that Palmiero was CONSISTENT for almost 20 years matter? Was he not a consisitently dominating major leaguer? I understand he was never the most dominant, however one must review a career on a case by vase basis and the CAREER that this guy has had is worthy of Hall of fame status in ANY ERA.
I just do not get all the reasons you guys are giving why he does noy belong. You say you can't compare him to anyone already in yet in the same breath you compare him to who ever was the so called dominant player each year.
sd >>
How was he a consistent home run threat for 20 years?
He didn't hit 30+ home runs until his 8th year in the league (37) which he followed up with 23, then too him until his 13th year in the league to crack 40 (43).
His best OPS finish (which is a great way to determine his relative value as a hitter against the league and era he plays shows a top 2 finish in 1999, then the best he could muster was a top 5 (once), 6th (once), 7th (once), 8th (once), 10th (twice).
That is hardly dominant. One second place finish? That's the best he could do? 2 top 5 finishes in 20 years?
I'll say this for those in the cheap seats: HE WAS A VERY GOOD PLAYER. He just played forever and was lucky enough to play in the juiced ball era (or juiced body era, ask his buddy Canseco), and is able to compile a HoF career based on it.
There's a reason people haven't embraced Raffy's cards or him as a player, and someone else said it perfectly: "when people recall this era, a name they WON'T be mentioning in Rafael Palmiero."
<< <i>Palmeiro is one of the greatest hitters of all-time.
It's pretty tough to win MVP awards when you spend the majority of your career with teams that finish below .500 --- Rangers/Orioles/Cubs ---
E >>
One of the greatest hitters of all time?
Based on what stats? It's not even about MVP (even though he's finished top 10 3 times out of 20? If he were truly so great, he'd have won an MVP on a bad team like Arod did).
Like I said in my other post, check his OPS ratings. 2 top 5 finishes in 20 YEARS. He's a good hitter, but one of the best of all time? Your drunk on his numbers, failing to look at how many more at bats he has then those you mentioned.
I'd like to see a web site using the OPS+ stat as a major factor in determining the greatest hitters of all time. Please share, so I may learn something new.
Palmeiro is a 1st ballot HOF'er unless it is proven he was on roids.
I just don't recall Eddie Murray being a "dominant" hitter. I remember George Brett & Jim Rice in that era being dominant, but not Murray. Murray played in a weak era for AL sluggers and still had just 1 HR and RBI crown. The NL had many more sluggers/hitters than the AL.
By the way, Pete Rose was OVERRATED. He can take his career .303 lifetime average and sit behing Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, Ichiro as a great contact hitter.
How was he a consistent home run threat for 20 years?
Ax if that was for me..........
I never said he was. re read my post
not a mention of homers........
He didn't hit 30+ home runs until his 8th year in the league (37) which he followed up with 23,
first off his first yr shant be counted, as he was most prolly a late season call up, to call that a yr is ludicrous. the 2nd was a half yr. and as for follwed up with 23. you conveniently left out that it was the STRIKE yr when almost 1/3 of the season was wiped out. Now if it is later proved that he was indeed on the juice , well then perhaps my opinion of him will change. with that said,. you will never convince me that Palmiero is not hall worthy and bound.
<< <i>I'd like to see a web site using the OPS+ stat as a major factor in determining the greatest hitters of all time. Please share, so I may learn something new.
Palmeiro is a 1st ballot HOF'er unless it is proven he was on roids.
I just don't recall Eddie Murray being a "dominant" hitter. I remember George Brett & Jim Rice in that era being dominant, but not Murray. Murray played in a weak era for AL sluggers and still had just 1 HR and RBI crown. The NL had many more sluggers/hitters than the AL.
By the way, Pete Rose was OVERRATED. He can take his career .303 lifetime average and sit behing Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, Ichiro as a great contact hitter. >>
Yes websites are the best at saying who are great hitters! Why don't you talk to baseball GMs or anyone who KNOWS baseball, and they will agree that OPS is the single most telling statistic about a batter.
Eddie Murray was an 8 time all star, 6 times finished in top 5 MVP voting, and hit home runs in a much tougher era for home runs than Palmiero.
Peter Rose overrated? Had you stated that from the beginning, I would have stopped reading. You obviously know NOTHING about baseball.
Axtel --- You're coming across like Tom Cruise ---- My experiences and knowledge and OPINIONS are better than anyone else --- THAT DISAGREES with you. Lighten up bro'
<< <i>Axtel --- You're coming across like Tom Cruise ---- My experiences and knowledge and OPINIONS are better than anyone else --- THAT DISAGREES with you. Lighten up bro' >>
My opinions are just that - my opinions. I am not alone in feeling that Raffy is the blandest, least dominating player to ever receive this type of attention.
He'll retire, fade into obscurity, pop up for his hall induction, then disappear again...unless he feels the need to pitch some more viagra ads.
Here's one point that I haven't heard yet on this post...
Rafael Palmeiro has NEVER been on the disabled list!
If we take it that one symptom of steriod use is the nagging injuries suffered by "alleged" users, i.e., McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Thomas, etc...
How can anyone say that Palmeiro used steriods, without any substantiation?
He testified before Congress that he had never used steriods, and he has been free from the common "symptoms" of use.
Seems like most, if not all of the first basemen who have put up better stats while Raffy has played, were probably using steriods, which would cloud their statistics; therefore, Palmeiro's accomplishments should be looked at in a better light
He testified before Congress that he had never used steriods, and he has been free from the common "symptoms" of use.
Seems like most, if not all of the first basemen who have put up better stats while Raffy has played, were probably using steriods, which would cloud their statistics; therefore, Palmeiro's accomplishments should be looked at in a better light
Steve >>
Sosa testified he never took steroids either.
And you really think Raffy just happened to become a power threat when Canseco showed up in Texas?
And most, if not all, first basemen were probably using steroids? Huh?
<< <i>Sosa testified he never took steroids either. >>
But he did get busted with a corked bat
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
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
Comments
Franco will be interesting if he does approach that. I don't think he will though. But if the Hall of FAME is taken for it's word, a guy who is still hitting away at fifty years old will certainly attain a degee of fame I think. Does that make him better than a Mattingly? No way. This is a weird thing I tell you. One just has to put it into the proper perspective when dealing with it.
Let us wait 5-10 years and see if Palmeiro's totals really do stand up. 3000 hits is a lot harder to get than 500 homers. A hitter needs 50 a year for 10 years. We have seen 50 homers hit a year the last 15 years, and most of the time it did not result in a home run title. A player would need 300 hits a year for 10 years to get 3000 hits. If such a season existed, that player would have won the hits title every year for the past 15 years. Actually, no one in history got 300 hits a season. I am more impressed with his 3000 hits than 500 homers.
So, if in the next 10 years, we don't have an explosion of 3000 hits and it remains a distinguished club, then its OK for Palmeiro to get in. So many people want him in, so its fine.
Skinpinch or others,
correct me if I am wrong, but at the turn of the century, was it not a big deal to hit 10-15 homers a season? Babe Ruth ushered in a new era of power baseball, but before, the home run was more of an abnormality, not really part and parcel of the game. It would happen occasionally, but it was nothing people thought to hard about. So, when looking at the home run totals for players of that era, one could laugh at the 50-100 homers during a career, but that was the best for that time. You have to judge it according to what it meant in that era. THis is why I say, let us wait on Palmeiro to see if 3000 hits remains exclusive or if it becomes more inclusive.
Another reason why 3000 hits could not be easy even in the live ball era is because one would still need to play 15 years without injury, but even then, it would average 200 hits per season, which is easily top 10 year in and year out. A period of 15 years is starting to overlap on another era. Most players do not play even 10 years. What I am saying is that it takes most of two different eras combined to play long enough to get to 3000 hits. Palmeiro played in the 80's, 90's and 00's and still does not have 3000 hits (he will soon, I know). He had to deal with the tough pitchers and dead balls of the 80's too. So, his climb to 3000 was not all live ball era aided, he had to endure the 80's as part of his hit totals. He would not be able to get 3000 hits if you only count his live ball era stats. I think he will only play one more season after this, so he really needed those hard won 80's stats to make the stats that fans are raving about. IF the live ball era started in 1990 (that may be a little early), that makes it 15 years and it may be dying down now gradually. Who is close to 3000 besides Palmeiro? Bonds and Biggio and Franco? Thay may not even get it. But that is not a enormous group. It is hard for a live ball era to last long enough to really be totally responsible for a player's 3000 hits.
Sure, Palmeiro really took advantage of the live ball era and really milked it to his benefit. He was the right age, the right health at the right time. Still, with all of that, we are not yet seeing too many members of the 3000 hit club. the 500 homer club is a different story.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
While we are on that point. I have wondered how many ERA+ 1st rankings Koufax has. Dodgers stadium is a real pitcher's park, so the ERA+ is a better indicator of his true value than the ERA titles he has. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but Don Mattingly led MLB in OPS+ twice, and that was done only by a handful of players in the past 50 years, 100 years?
To be honest, I got into ERA+, OPS+ fairly recently, but we both know it is a much more accurate measurement stat-wise. I suspect Koufax might have gotten one ERA+ and some in the top 10, which is still dominant---I am not taking anything away. I just wanted to take away the Yankee stadium bias for Mattingly. I suspect Mattingly may indeed be closer to dominance than I first suspected if he indeed got more OPS+ "titles" than Koufax got ERA+ "titles." I remember you posting how rare getting an OPS+ title was, but I can't find that post right now.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
That is why it is also easier for pitchers to domiante, relative to the league average, in a hitters era. The star pitchers are being compared to the league average ERA which is getting artificially blown up by guys who would not be in MLB in 1988.
Think of an ACE pitcher and his ERA+. Compare him to the typical ACE pitcher in 1988 in ERA+ ERA+ is your ERA compared to the league average ERA. Well the guy in 2001 is being compared to a group of players of which 44 of them wouldn't be in MLB if the same amount of teams were around as in 1988. Plus there were more people of baseball age available in 1988 than in 2001, so logic would dictate more players closer in ability to the best in 1988 than in 2001.
So that isn't exaclty fair that the 2001 guy gets 44 scrubs into the league to blow up the league ERA and make him look better, because his ERA is now better compared to a weaker league average than the 1988 guy because the 1988 guy didn't have those scrubs blowing up his leagues ERA.
Same goes for hitting. The star hitters have four teams worth of players bringing down the league OPS so that a guy like THOME actually looks better relative to the league because those hitters that should be in the Minor Leagues are bringing the league OPS down so now the stars are separating themselves from the league average far greater than a player could in 1988 because the 1988 guy doesn't have the scrubs bringing it down.
That is the problem with the OPS+ number in cross era comparisons, because it is unfair. That is why it is more telling to judge the player only against the best players in the league, because those guys would be in the league regardless of how many teams or how many good players are available. The easy way to do that is just look at the yearly ranking. You could average the top 10 or top 20 to get a little more scientifc if you wish.
This is an extremely short explanation of a complex topic, and based on a lot of people's reaction to some of the other stuff, they won't even bother with something that in detail. But if you don't believe me on OPS+ and ERA+ being unfair, just look at the list of the top 100 seasons in history of those stats and you will notice the majority of them occuring from 1994 to now, and from the 1930's and down. Not too many guys from the 70's and 80's crack those lists because those are the most competitive years of baseball history, thus the hardest to separate from the average player.
Mattingly had two MLB OPS+ titles(one of which was a tie with Murray), and that is very impressive. In fact, I believe that the number of players with TWO or more OPS+ titles is less than the number of players with 3,000 hits. I am going by memory as I don't feel like looking it up right now. That should put that accomplishment into perspective. So it is probably harder to do that(which is a very valuable stat, unlike leading the league in hits), than it is to accomplish 3000 hits, I think. I have to look it up though.
It's pretty tough to win MVP awards when you spend the majority of your career with teams that finish below .500 --- Rangers/Orioles/Cubs ---
Eddie Murray wasn't dominant either. His only HR & RBI crowns in strike shortened 1981?
Baseball Reference says players with similar stats to Palmeiro are:
Frank Robinson (880) *
Eddie Murray (876) *
Reggie Jackson (842) *
Mel Ott (828) *
Dave Winfield (820) *
Fred McGriff (817)
Al Kaline (805) *
Harold Baines (792)
Willie McCovey (768) *
Billy Williams (756) *
Pretty damn good if you ask me. HOF!!!
Erik
Palmiero hit for a better average, fielded better and ran the bases better. All in all a better all around player. Mcguire did one thing--- hit homers, oh and by the way Raffie hit MORE than him!
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
Add to the fact that he was absolutley incredible with men on base those years too, and you have a no brainer most valuable hitter in MLB for his prime. For example, from 1982 to 1985 look at Murray's stats with men on base(1,295 plate apperances), the man batted .339!! His OB% was .440! , and she lugged .593! He was simply responsible for more runs than any player in baseball in his prime. You cannot even begin to compare that to Palmeiro's situation. He wasn't never even near the best among his own position, let alone all of MLB.
The hitter that was neck and neck with Murray during that stretch was Schmidt. His numbers were just as good, but it is the Men on Base numbers that gave Murray the edge in how many runs they were responsible for. In 1,291 plate appearances with men on Schmidt hit .266, OB%.390, and SLG%. 507. So you can see the marked difference of the value of the hits.
RBI ARE MISLEADING. Looking at how Murray was at the top in OPS+ those years, AND that he was one of the absolute best hitters with men on base, then why don't you think he lead the league in RBI every year those years like he should have?? Two reasons. 1) He didn't have the same amount of men on base as the guys who had more RBI than him(see Jim Rice and his number of men on), and 2) The man was soo good that he simply got pitched around in a lot of RBI situations.
I would suggest NOT basing your dominance on HR and RBI unless you actually know the facts of what is at work like I showed above. Stick with the OPS+ and you can add the men on hitting to supplement it. Then put it into context for the era and you should be 98% there.
Yeah, Palmeiro had more Home Runs than McGwire, but it took him how many more at bats? Their slugging percentages are worlds apart, and Palmeiro's longevity does not close the gap of how many runs McGwire was worth vs. Palmeiro.
By the way, McGwire didn't just hit homers....his OB% was .394. Palmeiro's .372. So McGwire slugged better AND got on base more frequently. Being that they are from the same eras, McGwire was better.
If you want to take it a step further and look at their men on base hitting, McGwire also was better with men on base. Palmeiro was merely average.
Their fielding didn't differ much at all.
Park factors....the park factors favor Palmeiro as well.
For all others I have been responding with, these last two posts show that a lot of people still don't know what constitues good and still have no idea on what context means. That is probably why it seems as if I beat a dead horse. Or the new posters just jumped in and weren't involved in any previous post or thread.
Not to sound condescending like the Geico guy, but it would do a lot of good for baseball fans to research a little more on topics as this, and read a few very good books that explain this in more detail before they jump into a discussion like this. This stuff about being more valualbe and creating runs isn't opinion, it is well researched and backed up very nicely.
Oh yeah, you guys forgot something...there is another thing Palmeiro did better than McGwire....he was better at making OUTS! 2,772 of them!! There is a price for all those extra at bats to achieve something that McGwire did in far less at bats(home Runs). It beehoves me how people cannot comprehend this. Being that they are from the same era, it is a fair comparison. Remember 1995-NOW was the best time in MLB HISTORY to be a hitter.
<< <i>It's funny how the same people who think Mark Mcguire is a sure bet , don't think Raffie should get in.
Palmiero hit for a better average, fielded better and ran the bases better. All in all a better all around player. Mcguire did one thing--- hit homers, oh and by the way Raffie hit MORE than him! >>
Raffy hasn't hit more than him yet. Although I love Raffy, McGwire was much more dominant when healthy. He was a one dimensional player who hit either singles or home runs. He was much too slow for doubles and his job was to hit home runs and did that well. Unfortunately, his batting average was very low for many years and injuries took a toll on his body.
Palmeiro was much more consistent than McGwire throughout the same period, although he never dominated like McGwire. he was also much more multi-dimensional with his skills. Personally, I would rather have Palmeiro any day of the week as a manager as I could count on his consistency and power. McGwire on the other hand was fun for the fans to see as he hit 500 foot homers, but also batted in the low .200's at times.
I don't see the big deal with McGwire, as well. Harmon Killebrew was a much better slugger than McGwire in terms of dominance, yet he had to wait until 1984 for election to the HOF.
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>It's funny how the same people who think Mark Mcguire is a sure bet , don't think Raffie should get in.
Palmiero hit for a better average, fielded better and ran the bases better. All in all a better all around player. Mcguire did one thing--- hit homers, oh and by the way Raffie hit MORE than him! >>
How many times did Raffy lead the league in homers?
How many times did Raffy dominate a position like Mac did?
People get SO hung up on the accumulation of numbers, without putting into context of where that player ranks with his contemporaries. So we should just start putting in people who did well for a long period of time?
Raffie's hit more home runs than MacG? Since when?
Through the end of last year, Raffy was behind Mac by over 30. Yet Raffy has 4000 (!!!) more at bats that McG does.
4000!!!!
To sit there and say Raffy was a better power hitter than Mac is just ignorance, plain and simple.
Mac's OPS career numbers are nearly a full 100 points better than Raffy's too.
Comparing Raffy as a power hitter to Mac is funny it's such a bad comparison.
Fielding wise they really aren't any different. Palmeior is no Keith Hernandez by any stretch. McGwire was never bad, and was actually pretty good in the field for a while. If you like versatility, then McGwire was also able to play 3B.
Does baserunning make up enormous difference in batting? Palmeiro's stolen bases are at 70%, so he is basically near nill value there. McGwire is near nill value too. You can research the times going from first to third or second to home. But don't forget to add the extra times he was thrown out on those attempts. Each time you are thrown out in those situations far outweights the time you advanced.
So those factors don't really do anything to close the offensive gap. Which leaves staying healthy and playing. This is where Palmeiro makes up his ground no doubt. You certainly overstated Palmeiro's value in baserunning and versatility. If you were discussing Ricky Henderson or Ozzie smith in terms of being valuable in other ways, then you have a case. But I'm quite confused where Palmeiro is considered versatile and valuable in baserunning and defense.
As a manager you have Palmeiro, a considerably lesser player, but plays everyday, or McGwrei, far better but is hurt often. Well, if you want you can check Mcgwire's teams and see how well his replacements did in his stead, add those numbers to McGwires, and then compare them to Palmeiro's and you can see which situation was more valuable to a team. That should provide the answer on the more valuable player for a manager to have.
Then don't forget to account for the advantages that Palmeiro had for his home ballparks, both of which are better hitter parks than both of McGwire's.
<< <i>Mark Mcguire >>
Who is that?
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
Better than every single player in Baseball except one for every year over a 20 year span and still not be great, because he would have never been "the best".
Not worthy because second is not "dominating". Bull.
HOF Quarterbacks Football
<< <i>Based on Axtell's logic, Palmeiro could have been the second best player in Baseball for 20 years and still not be considered a great player or worthy of the hall.
Better than every single player in Baseball except one for every year over a 20 year span and still not be great, because he would have never been "the best".
Not worthy because second is not "dominating". Bull. >>
But he wasn't the second best player for 20 years. He was the second best for ONE year.
If you are the second best player for 20 years, you ARE dominating. Quit trying to twist my words and arguments, please.
How many years would he have to have been the second best player to be dominating? 19?, 18?, 10?, 5?
How about if he was the third best player for 12 years?
The fourth?
At what point do you draw the line?
HOF Quarterbacks Football
I know the answer to your question, but its hard to explain, so follow carefully.
Take the OPS+ of every player each year. Award 10 points for 1st, 9 points for 2nd, .........
Tally them up. The results will clearly show one, two or three dominant players that have the most total points and separate themselves from the crowd within a career span.
Someone that played for ten years and always ranked second, is DOMINANT. Usually a player can be the best once and never get close anymore--that will show up in points like I described above.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I understand what you are complaining about. After so many posts, you still get guys that say Palmeiro will get more homers than McGwire, so that will make Palmeiro the better home run hitter.
They ignore the context of the home run totals.
Understanding mathematics will fix so many of the ignorance shown in comparing numbers. Its not just baseball knowledge, one has to be a good mathematician to understand these things.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I just do not get all the reasons you guys are giving why he does noy belong. You say you can't compare him to anyone already in yet in the same breath you compare him to who ever was the so called dominant player each year.
sd
So his best ranking as a hitter in MLB is 7,7,7,17. Then he had some good consistent seasons throughout his career. Vikesfan, if you feel that is worthy enough for the Hall, well thats your preference. If you feel those rankings are incorrect, then it doesn't turn into a preference anymore. I will say though, if there are guys on the leaderboard ahead of Palmiero with quite a few less at bats that season, then Palmeiro's value could be higher than that guys. I didin't got that deep. I also didn't account for men on hitting(that actually doesn't help Palmeiro much though).
At bats example, in 1983 George Brett edged Murray in OPS+ by two points, but he only had 424 at bats, so Murray's full season worth of at bats at virtually the same rate of production, made him the more valuable hitter of the two. Then when you add the men on hitting, Murray is the easy leading hitter for the season.
Just for kicks for the gentleman who said Murray was never dominant and just consistent, here is Murrays dominance in hitting when you include men on hitting and account for value with at bats. Here is where Murray Ranked as a MLB hitter....
Murray 5,1,1,1,3,3,7,14,,20,20. He also had lot of consistent good years ala Palmeiro. Those three number ones were a consecutive three year stretch, so that is pretty darn hard to accomplish. That is his prime. The five and three are the years right before and right after his number one's stretch.
Winpitcher you already know that the longevity counts, as to how much for the Hall, well that is a matter of preference. My last posts were aimed at a couple of direct comparisons to specific players that were mistakingly made by other posters.
P.S. One thing about at bats...If you are getting extra at bats because you are in a superior lineup or bat second instead of fourth, then extra value doesn't come from those at bats when doing a direct comparison to a player who played all the time but just didn't come to the plate as much because his teammates were worse. If you are getting less at bats because you take days off(probably against a tough matchup), or to nurse minor injuries(or injuries caused by the same thing that makes you good...see Mcgwire and muscle building), then yes, your value takes a hit. After all, your forcing a lesser player to play in your stead. See the McGwire post about replacement player value to determine thus. This is where Palmeiro gets extra value no doubt.
<< <i>Does the fact that Palmiero was CONSISTENT for almost 20 years matter? Was he not a consisitently dominating major leaguer? I understand he was never the most dominant, however one must review a career on a case by vase basis and the CAREER that this guy has had is worthy of Hall of fame status in ANY ERA.
I just do not get all the reasons you guys are giving why he does noy belong. You say you can't compare him to anyone already in yet in the same breath you compare him to who ever was the so called dominant player each year.
sd >>
How was he a consistent home run threat for 20 years?
He didn't hit 30+ home runs until his 8th year in the league (37) which he followed up with 23, then too him until his 13th year in the league to crack 40 (43).
His best OPS finish (which is a great way to determine his relative value as a hitter against the league and era he plays shows a top 2 finish in 1999, then the best he could muster was a top 5 (once), 6th (once), 7th (once), 8th (once), 10th (twice).
That is hardly dominant. One second place finish? That's the best he could do? 2 top 5 finishes in 20 years?
I'll say this for those in the cheap seats: HE WAS A VERY GOOD PLAYER. He just played forever and was lucky enough to play in the juiced ball era (or juiced body era, ask his buddy Canseco), and is able to compile a HoF career based on it.
There's a reason people haven't embraced Raffy's cards or him as a player, and someone else said it perfectly: "when people recall this era, a name they WON'T be mentioning in Rafael Palmiero."
<< <i>Palmeiro is one of the greatest hitters of all-time.
It's pretty tough to win MVP awards when you spend the majority of your career with teams that finish below .500 --- Rangers/Orioles/Cubs ---
E >>
One of the greatest hitters of all time?
Based on what stats? It's not even about MVP (even though he's finished top 10 3 times out of 20? If he were truly so great, he'd have won an MVP on a bad team like Arod did).
Like I said in my other post, check his OPS ratings. 2 top 5 finishes in 20 YEARS. He's a good hitter, but one of the best of all time? Your drunk on his numbers, failing to look at how many more at bats he has then those you mentioned.
Palmeiro is a 1st ballot HOF'er unless it is proven he was on roids.
I just don't recall Eddie Murray being a "dominant" hitter. I remember George Brett & Jim Rice in that era being dominant, but not Murray. Murray played in a weak era for AL sluggers and still had just 1 HR and RBI crown. The NL had many more sluggers/hitters than the AL.
By the way, Pete Rose was OVERRATED. He can take his career .303 lifetime average and sit behing Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, Ichiro as a great contact hitter.
Erik
Ax if that was for me..........
I never said he was. re read my post
not a mention of homers........
He didn't hit 30+ home runs until his 8th year in the league (37) which he followed up with 23,
first off his first yr shant be counted, as he was most prolly a late season call up, to call that a yr is ludicrous. the 2nd was a half yr. and as for follwed up with 23. you conveniently left out that it was the STRIKE yr when almost 1/3 of the season was wiped out. Now if it is later proved that he was indeed on the juice , well then perhaps my opinion of him will change. with that said,. you will never convince me that Palmiero is not hall worthy and bound.
<< <i>I'd like to see a web site using the OPS+ stat as a major factor in determining the greatest hitters of all time. Please share, so I may learn something new.
Palmeiro is a 1st ballot HOF'er unless it is proven he was on roids.
I just don't recall Eddie Murray being a "dominant" hitter. I remember George Brett & Jim Rice in that era being dominant, but not Murray. Murray played in a weak era for AL sluggers and still had just 1 HR and RBI crown. The NL had many more sluggers/hitters than the AL.
By the way, Pete Rose was OVERRATED. He can take his career .303 lifetime average and sit behing Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, Ichiro as a great contact hitter. >>
Yes websites are the best at saying who are great hitters! Why don't you talk to baseball GMs or anyone who KNOWS baseball, and they will agree that OPS is the single most telling statistic about a batter.
Eddie Murray was an 8 time all star, 6 times finished in top 5 MVP voting, and hit home runs in a much tougher era for home runs than Palmiero.
Peter Rose overrated? Had you stated that from the beginning, I would have stopped reading. You obviously know NOTHING about baseball.
Erik
<< <i>Axtel --- You're coming across like Tom Cruise ---- My experiences and knowledge and OPINIONS are better than anyone else --- THAT DISAGREES with you. Lighten up bro' >>
My opinions are just that - my opinions. I am not alone in feeling that Raffy is the blandest, least dominating player to ever receive this type of attention.
He'll retire, fade into obscurity, pop up for his hall induction, then disappear again...unless he feels the need to pitch some more viagra ads.
Rafael Palmeiro has NEVER been on the disabled list!
If we take it that one symptom of steriod use is the nagging injuries suffered by "alleged" users, i.e., McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Thomas, etc...
How can anyone say that Palmeiro used steriods, without any substantiation?
He testified before Congress that he had never used steriods, and he has been free from the common "symptoms" of use.
Seems like most, if not all of the first basemen who have put up better stats while Raffy has played, were probably using steriods, which would cloud their statistics; therefore, Palmeiro's accomplishments should be looked at in a better light
Steve
<< <i>
He testified before Congress that he had never used steriods, and he has been free from the common "symptoms" of use.
Seems like most, if not all of the first basemen who have put up better stats while Raffy has played, were probably using steriods, which would cloud their statistics; therefore, Palmeiro's accomplishments should be looked at in a better light
Steve >>
Sosa testified he never took steroids either.
And you really think Raffy just happened to become a power threat when Canseco showed up in Texas?
And most, if not all, first basemen were probably using steroids? Huh?
<< <i>Sosa testified he never took steroids either. >>
But he did get busted with a corked bat
<< <i>Viagra, steroids, what's the difference?
To the ignorant and stubborn, not much at all
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>To the ignorant and stubborn, not much at all >>
I'm just joking. Personally I think with those numbers he deserves to be in