POLL: Will Rafael Palmeiro make the Hall of Fame?
GoYankeesGo
Posts: 226
in Sports Talk
I say NEVER.
0
Comments
...did I mention that soccer is gay?
dgf
That pic of the formerly cool Johnny Damon makes me sick. You suddenly dig the guy because he's a Yankee? How does THAT work? He's a tool. I hope you enjoy the 1.5 years of quality service he brings the Bronx on his 5-year deal. I don't sound TOO bitter, do I?
Two questions, First: your screen name is GoYankeesGo...where do you propose they actually GO to? I have a few suggestions...
Second: Can you help me name 3 pitchers that are realistic candidates to make more than 20 starts next year for the Yankees? Serious question here.
Lastly, I'm just having some fun with you. I don't mean anything personal. Just a little jab at a Yankee fan is all. I wish no ill will. I can take as good as I give. The Yankees have been a class organization and have never beaten any member of my family or detained them against their will. I just LOVE when the Sox make 'em grab their collective ankles. Damon made 2004 seem like it was a hoax when he turned pins last month.
I thought he was the real deal. He's just a MAJOR disappointment to an awful lot of people. I hope it was worth his baseball soul...the jerk...again--am I sounding a touch bitter?
dgf
<< <i> I hope you enjoy the 1.5 years of quality service he brings the Bronx on his 5-year deal. I don't sound TOO bitter, do I?
>>
4 year deal, but whos counting
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i> I hope you enjoy the 1.5 years of quality service he brings the Bronx on his 5-year deal. I don't sound TOO bitter, do I?
>>
4 year deal, but whos counting >>
So 1 year of quality service then, but who's paying
On the Damon thing DGF mentioned - he said the EXACT SAME THING when he left KC....just had to insert different team names! Not saying it's right or wrong, just expected from those of us who have dealt with him before.
....btw - he's overpaid
But, for his ultimate stupidity, he should have to suffer. After all, if Harmon "Killer" Killebrew had to wait until 1984 to get in, Palmeiro should have to wait, too. However, I hope that in today's age it isn't too long or the media will kill the issue to death.
And this coming from one of the guy's biggest fans.
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>I say NEVER. >>
Why, because he never played in NY? LOL. Because he took roids in an era in which everyone took roids? Why, because he was consistent and very good for many years instead of dominating?
Hey, I also heard that Jason Giambi, Bernie Williams, and now Johnny Damon will not only get into the HOF, it will be on the first ballot and unanimous.
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
the reason he may not get in is a simple one. he got cought, and not only did he get cought he got cought waving his finger at the american public and lied.
I was in favor of his selection at one time. i felt he was consistent over a long period of time and acted classy on the field. however that waving of his finger and looking me in the eye............
if he gets in it will be after a 10 year wait.
Steve
I was also strongly under the impression as well that MLB told all those guys to be sly and not tell anything, and I lost a lot of respect for Curt Schilling, as he got caught with his pants down making contradictory statements from what he had said in the past. If the Senate had a stronger goal of shedding light on this, they really could have made Schilling look stupid and showed his quotes from his past a little more forcefully. They kind of let him go easy on the contradictions.
As for Palmeiro?? He will be the scapegoat, and it will be the 'proof' that MLB needs to say that they cleaned up the game. They aren't going to catch or name any other big stars IMO. At best Palmeiro received luke warm support from his most ardent former teammates, and the Will Clark testimony was priceless on the true identity of Palmeiro...not to mention the whole Canseco thing either.
There were also a good share of writers/voters who DID hold the lack of dominance against Palmeiro as it was, though he would have gotten enough support to get in, but somewhere in the high 70's, low 80's percent wise. If he was sitting at 83% without the whole steroid thing, now I can see that staying somewhere in the 50-60% range for a long time. Based on the comments of his peers, he doesn't seem to be very well liked or even that respected.
I also see a veterans committee of past HOFers taking it very hard on him, even the ones who get in from now that took enhancements. I don't think those guys who took juice want to be viewed as being 'soft' on a proven cheater as it may lead some to believe that their allowing of a proven cheater will hint that they think it was o.k. to do it, and they themselves may be viewed as having done it (thats another people read on my part).
Getting put in 'Time Out' at the end of the season wasn't a very flattering thing either.
He was a good ballplayer even without doing anything to enhance, and we don't even know the degree of which roids help, though I have my estimation.
Based on all the above, he is going to have one tough ride, and the new tougher rules that may come out are only going to make people view it more harshly as time goes on. If Vegas had an over/under on the number of years for him to make it, I would lay HEAVY money on the over.
well it appears he did not take the advice.
he should have just sat there and said the things that McGwire did.
Once he stated that he never took roids he should have made sure from that point on that he did not.
We all knew that canseco was telling it the way it was. We just do not like rats. Palmiero destroyed his legacy the moment he took that stanozol after the hearing.
If i had a vote id vote NO
Steve
---------
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>GoYanks,
That pic of the formerly cool Johnny Damon makes me sick. You suddenly dig the guy because he's a Yankee? How does THAT work? He's a tool. I hope you enjoy the 1.5 years of quality service he brings the Bronx on his 5-year deal. I don't sound TOO bitter, do I?
Two questions, First: your screen name is GoYankeesGo...where do you propose they actually GO to? I have a few suggestions...
Second: Can you help me name 3 pitchers that are realistic candidates to make more than 20 starts next year for the Yankees? Serious question here. >>
GoYanks=Spammy, as if the sig pic of the moment didn't clue you in. Don't worry, if the Giants get lucky and win tommorrow, he'll replace the ridiculous Damon love pic with a Tiki Barber pic. Just watch.
I couldn't name 3 Yankee quality pitchers, either.
<< <i> Don't worry, if the Giants get lucky and win tommorrow, he'll replace the ridiculous Damon love pic with a Tiki Barber pic. Just watch.
>>
CT, is it possible that the Giants may play a good game and just flat out win? You know, instead of being lucky? Or are you just Axtell's offspring?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
You know, I'm not the only one who despises the NY teams. Just so we're clear.
And if the giants do find some way to pull a win out of their asses, Chicago has something waiting for Eli 'Mr. INT' Manning.
<< <i>What, he has to be my offspring because we share a dislike of Ny teams?
You know, I'm not the only one who despises the NY teams. Just so we're clear.
And if the giants do find some way to pull a win out of their asses, Chicago has something waiting for Eli 'Mr. INT' Manning. >>
Dislike for NY teams is not a problem. Hate them all you want. What IS A PROBLEM is when obsessed ding dongs like yourself label ANY NY victory or positive happening as "lucky", "the refs helped", yada yada yada. And that is what you do. Even if the Giants play a very good game and win Axtell will be on his soap box with his bullhorn spouting off some bull$hit about how mother nature is in on the NY conspiracy because the wind aided the Giants, etc, etc, etc,
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
What I have discussed (at length) is the obvious bias the media plays in this country with east coast, big market teams (especially from NY). The overblowing of Eli manning (his 4th quarter heroics! laughable), all the way through to the media overplaying every minute piece of yankee happening.
Talk about lame? I think that would most accurately describe YOU, softie.
that is an understatement. you mean whined at length?
Steve
Will you quit replying to my posts if I send you an autographed photo?
Steve
<< <i>When have I ever claimed a victory on the field was aided by anything other than the players?
. >>
well $hit Ax, don't make it so easy on me. You have a short memory. How about your conclusion that the refs had aided the Giants win in Oakland last week after the Giants stopped them on the goal line? Even though those points would have made no difference in the games outcome.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I am sorry you are unable to fathom that anyone could possibly dislike NY sports teams, as it's apparent you feel that EVERYONE should bow down to the almighty 'NY', and that anyone who doesn't must be an infidel who wants to destroy america.
<< <i>Simply making a point (that was echoed by the announers, no less) that he clearly broke the plane of the end zone is pointing out facts.
I am sorry you are unable to fathom that anyone could possibly dislike NY sports teams, as it's apparent you feel that EVERYONE should bow down to the almighty 'NY', and that anyone who doesn't must be an infidel who wants to destroy america. >>
Wrong again. I certainly can fathom Ny sports team haters. Are you that stupid to actually think that I would expect the entire sports loving nation to adore NY teams?
My problem is with obessed nuts like yourself that bash every single positive happening in NY sports because of a concocted notion that the NY area benefits from any bias in favor of them.
By the way, when it takes replays from every possible angle to say "well, he MIGHT have crossed the goal line" I wouldn't take much stock in any announcers opinion. The very rule of instant replay review that you endorse could not find substantial evidence that he did cross the goal line. In other words, good job by the Giants keeping the Raiders from gaining one freaking yard in four tries, AND with no obvious evidence THE CALL IS UPHELD. But, since this kept the Giants opposition from scoring, YOU now have a problem with it.
Poor form sir, POOR FORM
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I remember reading you are going to the game Soft - so you will get to witness this firsthand! Make sure to pack an extra crying towel for Eli.
<< <i>I believe the Giants are not up to the level of the Panthers, or the rest of the NFC playoff teams for that matter...and they should get exposed tommorrow. We shall see...
I remember reading you are going to the game Soft - so you will get to witness this firsthand! Make sure to pack an extra crying towel for Eli. >>
CT, I'm not driving and be rest assured that I will be too tanked to cry
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Axtell, Dan,
Just chill before you start insulting each-others genitalia. Axtell takes things a bit far with the anti-NY thing, but it's good fuel for spirited discussion. I like his delivery if I don't agree with the content. Dan, you're a funny guy and really passionate, but perhaps you assume peoples intentions and feelings a bit too much. Perhaps Axtell really doesn't like the constant coastal bias that everyone who's conscious knows exists. I find it entertaining and even necessary for my enjoyment. Other people just get tired of it. You're both smart guys with a good point. You just disagree. There's no more to it than that.
I am now done being rational...
You both suck and should be beaten by Brian Urlacher with a pipe.
dgf
and you may be waiting a few thousand years for the Knicks to ever show up again.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Now - if I could only predict lottery numbers as well as I predict football games... >>
Today just further solidified my opinion that the Manning family will never win the big game and always choke under pressure.
Sure the guys a douche, but look at the numbers. Out of the 200 Hall of Famers only 56 have either 500 HR's, 3000 Hits, or 300 Wins. ONLY 3 players have ever hit 500 HR's AND 3000 Hits... Mays, Aaron, and Eddie Murray. And Palmeiro.
Article
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I know Axtell got banned, came back, got banned and came back, etc.
As to Palmeiro, I would not use total hits and home runs to make a case for him.
He ranks 143rd all time in OPS+ and was in the top 10 seven times.
He ranks 44th all time in adjusted batting runs and was in the top 10 seven times.
Frank Thomas, another first baseman of his era.
He ranks 20th all time in OPS+, led the season 3 times, was in the top 10 a whole ten times.
He ranks 15th all time in adjusted batting runs, led the season 3 times, was in the top 10 nine times.
Don Mattingly, 1B
He ranks 211th all time in OPS+, led the season 2 times, was in the top 10 five times
He ranks 155th all time in adj batting runs, led the season 1 time, was in the top 10 four times.
Fred McGriff, 1B
He ranks 59th all time in OPS+, led the season 1 time, was in the top 10 seven times.
He ranks 59th all time in adj batting runs, led the season 1 time, was in the top 10 seven times.
Basically Palmeiro will have to compete with other first baseman that are on the ballot or will be coming up shortly. I did not list all first baseman on here, but McGwire would have very lofty numbers if I did place him here.
It is obvious that Frank Thomas is ahead of Palmeiro. McGwire would be too. Fred McGriff wins the tie breaker with Palmeiro because he led MLB in both OPS+ and adj batting runs at least once. They both were in the top 10 seven times. Don Mattingly's peak is superior to Palmeiro's. However, Palmeiro has more top tens. Mattingly's career was a short one, Palmeiro's career was one of longevity, so having more top 10s was a function of longevity at least to some extent. Mattingly's career OPS+ cannot be compared to Palmeiro's because it is very senstive to era. The 80s were anemic in offense compared to the 90s. Mattingly's defense was superior and his character was never questioned, nor his sportsmanship.
I guess you can argue at length between Mattingly and Palmeiro. I won't get into it here. Basically, you have Mattingly who had a shorter but more peak potent career compared to Palmeiro's longer, consistent and good career without being the best in any one season. Whatever the case, you have to put McGwire, Thomas and McGriff ahead of Palmeiro first. Then there is the question of Jeff Bagwell, Will Clark, etc.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Grote, that is a cast of characters indeed in this thread, LOL!
I think I have changed my feeling toward the roids players of the era, and probably just consider them part of the era. However, when comparing to players from other era's, I do believe a downgrade is in order(a downgrade above and beyond what a OPS+ or other league comparison stat says. More on that another time).
So, they better be heads and shoulders above their peers to get my nod. Palmeiro was not. With McGwire, Thomas, Bagwell, and Mcgriff beating Palmeiro...that is a LOT of 1B from your own era to say you are the best of the best, or HOF worthy. Then there are some pretty close too.
Exactly what I was thinking.
I say NO to the question.
Heh.
it's very difficult to not see Raffy's HOF merit and worthiness.
The accumulation of 3,000 hits alone, is usually HOF worthy, reaching the milestone/benchmark of 500 + HR, is also hard to ignore.
If traditional achievements are not enough,
perhaps a consideration of the WAR evaluation is warranted, a sabrmetric calculation, which combines a player's hitting, defensive, and baserunning skills, in comparison to baseline players of his time era.
Some other HOF 1B, their career WAR;
Eddie Murray 66.7
Willie McCovey 65.1
Harmon Killebrew 61.1
Hank Greenberg 56.8
Raffy complied a career WAR of 66.0, and actually averaged a higher WAR per season, or per 100 games, than Murray, atop that short list.
Among other guys who played at least 1000 games at 1B, during a comparable time era, he betters McGwire 63.1, Helton 57.9, and McGriff 50.5, and trails only Jeff Bagwell.
Despite any traditional, sabrmetrical, or fame measurements, Raffy will likely wait many years for election.
It bothers me that four first basemen from his own era are better than him(when accounting for McGwire's large Peak advantage), plus there are probably more corner type hitters besides just from his position.
Even though I am starting to put the roid guys as part of the era, it was still an advantage over other sluggers from other eras.
Who will PED's help more, a guy like Palmeiro/McGwire, or guys like Felix Fermin/Jose Oquendo? All it does it make the sluggers look that much better than the league average, because not all league members can benefit by it as much.
Plus you have the other era factors like, no inside pitching, small parks, live baseballs, and double expansion. These also make sluggers look that much better because not all league mates benefit as much...it is no wonder why even all the measurements that measure vs peers are still sky high in this live ball era.
Jaxxr, why are you downgrading Helton because he played in Coors
Curious how many other era's have four first basemen in there? Plus Helton may be move viable than Palmeiro if Peak measurements are used.
What about Giambi?? That could be SIX guys better than him from his era at his own position.
How about Thome? That would be SEVEN.
A few of them may not be 'better', but almost indistinguishable from.
None of it matters anyway, he fails badly in one HOF criteria, CHARACTER. He flat out lied in congress. That made him look real bad.
<< <i>
None of it matters anyway, he fails badly in one HOF criteria, CHARACTER. He flat out lied in congress. That made him look real bad. >>
Not that I'm trying to defend him, but it IS possible he was telling what he beleived was the truth when before Congress. IIRC, one of the treatments for ED (and ED-like issues) is what got ManRam a positive test.
Yeah, the whole explanation after the positive was as lame as can be, but he MAY have been dodging the whole ED subject at that point.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
But, I am starting to move forward away from distinguishing all that...it is one major headache, and then just treat them as part of the era. I really only added that in there because he looked really bad after all that, and it is something fairly concrete people can pick on.
With about 7 first basemen as good or better than him from his era, I think that takes him out of the Hall anyway...at least in how I look at the best of the best only going to the hall. He isn't hte best of the best. Of the best seven, he is somewhere in the bottom three, and probably last in peak value.
<< <i>bking, it may very well be.
But, I am starting to move forward away from distinguishing all that...it is one major headache, and then just treat them as part of the era. I really only added that in there because he looked really bad after all that, and it is something fairly concrete people can pick on.
With about 7 first basemen as good or better than him from his era, I think that takes him out of the Hall anyway...at least in how I look at the best of the best only going to the hall. He isn't hte best of the best. Of the best seven, he is somewhere in the bottom three, and probably last in peak value. >>
He's also the poster child for why Gold Gloves and other voted-upon awards are tough to use for HOF consideration.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
For the Rose fans, he got 3 write in votes. GL Pete, not gonna happen for you either. Da rules are da rules, and you broke them.