|
| Posted by: Seattle Zen
- Donor [55343019] Fri, May 02, 2003, 22:21
Is Rafael Palmeiro a Hall of Famer? The Case For: By Stark The Case Against: By Neyer.
Okay, I remember numerous people trash Jayson Stark as a poor writer. I didn't agree, back then. Then today I read the above-linked article and must ask your opinions. Is that the best Jayson can do on Raphi's behalf? Or perhaps the argument against him is so strong that any supportive article is going to suffer?
I read Neyer's piece and agree with him very much.
I guess I want two things:
1. What is your opinion on Raphi's hall-of-fame chances?
2. Was Stark's argument as flacid as I thought it was?
PS: i didn't post this in the Baseball Forum because so few posters over there say anything of worth, Neanderthals, really. |
| | | 1 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 53491714
Fri, May 02, 2003, 22:47
|
Since I already thing RP is a HoF caliber
player, I read Neyer first, who seem fixated on
the number of first basemen already in the
Hall. He then makes an unconvincing
argument about contemporaries' eligibility for
the Hall, again focusing on positions.
What Neyer doesn't do, in the entire piece, is
compare Rafael to anyone in the Hall.
pd
|
|
| | | 2 | Tree
Donor
ID: 38249212
Fri, May 02, 2003, 23:23
|
500 home runs. seriously, why is there even an argument here?
peace,
Tree
|
|
| | | 3 | Madman
Donor
ID: 21020124
Sat, May 03, 2003, 13:10
|
Tree, we do agree. Neither of us can find an argument here. Stark just couldn't come up with anything.
PD -- What Neyer doesn't do, in the entire piece, is compare Rafael to anyone in the Hall.
Neyer: Look at the hitters in the Hall of Fame (or at least the hitters in the Hall of Fame who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame). The great majority of them could claim, for at least a season or two, to rank among the very best players in their league. Or, at the very least, to consistently rank among the very best players at their position.
And this is the crux of his problem. Palmiero has been great, but his numbers are greatly inflated by park and era factors.
|
|
| | | 4 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sat, May 03, 2003, 19:35
|
I usually like Stark's writing, but his column is 100% trash. It is the worst kind of HOF advocacy, a listing of chosen accomplishments of the player accompanied by completely selective comparisons with the stats of the great players whose accomplishments Stark wished to leech upon. The result is an entirely factitious comparison with genuine HoFers. Stark's argument is the kind of thing that Bill James wanted to put out of business in 1985, when he commented on a mass-mailed appeal that urged that Ken Keltner be put in the HoF because "he had more RBI's than Jackie Robinson, a higher lifetime average than Eddie Mathews, and more lifetime hits than Ralph Kiner". As James pointed out, "By the same logic, one could argue that Walt (No Neck) Williams should be in the Hall of Fame because he hit more home runs than Rabbit Maranville, hit for a higher average than Luis Aparicio, and stole more bases than Harmon Killebrew."
Neyer at least approached the question in the right way -- who were Palmeiro's contemporaries, was he better than them, and if so by how much, and what would his induction do the the positional balance of the HoF. I would need to research the question further to have a firm opinion, but I would say there is an onus on his advocates. Neyer is not totally negative on him, you might note.
As to his chances -- eventually he will get in. Eventually the memories of contemporaries who say that he was never considered one of the absolutely top first basemen will fade, and the consistency and homers will get him in. Like Don Sutton.
Toral
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 34071820
Sat, May 03, 2003, 20:22
|
Madman, I should have been clearer: He didn't name names. He didn't line up Raphael with anyone in particular who is already in the Hall.
Check out his wording: he talks about a great majority of hitters who "deserve to be in the Hall of Fame" who were the best at their position or ranked at the top. Put another way, even Neyer believes there to be some hitters who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame (and are already there) who have put up an RP kind of career. He just doesn't want to include RP because, among other reasons, there are too many first basemen in already. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
What Neyer doesn't talk about is why there are a lot of first basemen in the Hall. But that's another thread, I believe.
pd
|
|
| | | 6 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Sun, May 04, 2003, 14:14
|
There are so many first basemen in the Hall for the obvious reason: You can be a lumbing stiff whose only skill is knocking the cover off the ball.
I completely agree with Toral, I see Palmiero's career much like Don Sutton's. He'll probably get in, but I think the guards are massing at the door to prevent McGriff. Truth is, Raphi could hit 50 more homers, valuting him past Mike Schmidt into the top 10. Really hard to keep him out after that.
|
|
| | | 7 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, May 05, 2003, 11:46
|
Why shouldn't there be more firstbasemen in the HOF? That is where they plug in the best hitters. In fact it must be harder to break into a starting firstbase position because you will almost always be forced to supplant a quality hitter/crowd favorite for the position. I look at what it took Choi to break into the majors and I wonder if we shouldn't give firstbasemen a bonus to their stats just for the degree of difficulty and delay in reaching the majors in that position.
|
|
| | | 8 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Wed, Feb 14, 2007, 17:14
|
"Let me make myself clear... I AM GOING TO COOPERSTOWN, as a guest, someone's guest... dude, do you have Ripken's number?".
|
|
| | | 9 | Boxman
ID: 211139621
Wed, Feb 14, 2007, 19:03
|
As one of the "Neanderthals" that enjoys the Baseball Forum, Rafael Palmeiro should never see the inside of the HOF because he tested positive for steroids and, to my knowledge, those allegations were never cleared up.
|
|
| | | 10 | Tree
ID: 56161416
Wed, Feb 14, 2007, 19:32
|
Rafael Palmeiro should never see the inside of the HOF because he tested positive for steroids and, to my knowledge, those allegations were never cleared up.
oh, whatever. the Baseball HoF is filled with liars, cheats, thieves, and scumbags.
|
|
| | | 11 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Feb 14, 2007, 21:10
|
oh, whatever. the Baseball HoF is filled with liars, cheats, thieves, and scumbags.
I wasn't commenting on the man's morality Tree. He cheated in the game.
|
|
| | | 12 | Punk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Wed, Feb 14, 2007, 23:47
|
Remember he cheated, while saying that he never was/has/will cheat in the picture in this thread.
|
|
| | | 13 | Tree
ID: 23129155
Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 06:35
|
as i said, he wouldn't be the first to cheat in baseball, and he won't be the last.
heck, Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame precisely because he cheated. but yet his cheating is met with a "wink wink, nudge nudge" because apparently saliva and Vaseline are funny, while steroids are not, despite the fact that Perry acknowledged that he cheated throughout his career.
|
|
| | | 14 | Boxman
ID: 47922511
Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 10:50
|
heck, Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame precisely because he cheated. but yet his cheating is met with a "wink wink, nudge nudge" because apparently saliva and Vaseline are funny, while steroids are not, despite the fact that Perry acknowledged that he cheated throughout his career.
So let's excuse bad behavior with bad behavior. Good one Tree.
|
|
| | | 15 | Tree
ID: 29082512
Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 12:27
|
So let's excuse bad behavior with bad behavior. Good one Tree.
hardly.
i'm just pointing out how hypocritical it is to single out "cheaters" who used steroids (which, for the majority of Palmeiro's career, were not against the rules of baseball, and thusly, not cheating), and let everyone else who has cheated get a free pass.
i do believe the rules in MLB for steroids went into effect for the 2005 season. Palmeiro tested positive in August of that year.
but, until 2005, were steroids against MLB rules?
take aways his stats from the 2005 season on, and you've still got a .285 hitter with over 500 career home runs.
it wasn't cheating until 2005, and it wasn't against the rules. what Gaylord Perry did was against the rules the entire time he pitched.
so if you're going to single out "cheaters", at least be consistent about it.
|
|
| | | 16 | Boxman
ID: 47922511
Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 13:14
|
Did I stick up for Gaylord Perry? In what way haven't I been consistent?
|
|
| | | 17 | Tree
ID: 29082512
Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 14:42
|
generally speaking. you keep guys like Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, Bonds out of the hall, then you need to go back and remove guys like Perry.
|
|
| | | 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 3517158
Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 14:44
|
I think there is a difference between keeping future cheaters out of the Hall, and removing guys already in. We do what we can.
|
|
| | | 19 | Tree
ID: 29082512
Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 15:37
|
again - for the vast majority of these guys careers, there was no cheating. if it wasn't against the rules, it can't possible be cheating.
|
|
| | | 20 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118
Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 15:48
|
Everyone who didn't juice before 2005 sure was stupid.
|
|
| | | 22 | Boxman
ID: 211139621
Fri, Feb 16, 2007, 06:32
|
again - for the vast majority of these guys careers, there was no cheating.
So then, Tree, what portion of a ball player's career is OK for him to cheat thru? Do you have a % of total years in mind or do you have a fixed amount of years?
|
|
| | | 23 | Tree
ID: 47140165
Fri, Feb 16, 2007, 06:44
|
Everyone who didn't juice before 2005 sure was stupid.
never said that. just said it wasn't against the rules. i'm pretty heavily anti-steroid. you and i are both pro wrestling fans, so we've both seen how dire the consequences of steroid use are.
So then, Tree, what portion of a ball player's career is OK for him to cheat thru? Do you have a % of total years in mind or do you have a fixed amount of years?
as i said, steroids weren't against the rules until 2005. any usage after that, and players were punished with the assigned suspensions.
do you DQ someone from the Hall of Fame because they used a corked bat once or twice or maybe a bit of sandpaper on the baseball?
you cannot punish someone for doing something that wasn't against the rules.
|
|
| | | 24 | Boxman
ID: 47922511
Fri, Feb 16, 2007, 13:05
|
Wake me up when you answer my original question. Then we'll continue.
|
|
| | | 25 | Tree
ID: 29082512
Fri, Feb 16, 2007, 13:35
|
Do you have a % of total years in mind
no.
or do you have a fixed amount of years?
no. now, go back and read my answer in #23. i realize in your world, everything is black or white, but in the real world, it's now.
Should Reggie Jackson be tossed out of the Hall of Fame because he once stuck his hip out to alter the course of a baseball being thrown between second and first, in an attempt to avoid a double play?
that is, after all, cheating.
|
|
| | | 26 | alfacorsoft.com
ID: 17647119
Tue, Jul 01, 2008, 20:47
|
dudes, what are you talking about? chill=)
--------------------------
support @ alfacorsoft.com
|
|
|
|