You’re overstating Palmeiro’s credentials a bit by comparing him to Willie McCovey and Willie Stargell. While those guys are superficially similar to Palmeiro, they played in homer–killing times and homer-killing parks. Raffy has played in neutral or better parks in one of a few historic times for offense.
His PECOTA comps perhaps are a better indicator of his quality. His best comp, by far (similarity score 56) is Darrell Evans, who is a perfect borderline Hall of Famer. His next best (40) is Norm Cash, who is a perfect “as good a player as you can be and clearly NOT be a Hall of Famer” player. Then, with similarity scores in
the thirties, come four Hall of Famers (Carl Yastrzemski, Frank Robinson, McCovey and Mike Schmidt).
Palmeiro is a Hall of Famer, but he’s as bad a player as you can be and still clearly be a Hall of Famer. Billy Williams/Dave Winfield/Chuck Klein feels better than McCovey/Stargell/Reggie Jackson/Eddie Mathews.
I don’t think Palmeiro’s era advantage should be simply swept under the rug when discussing his career. You mention that his raw stats are similar to McCovey’s, which is true. What is also true is that Palmeiro’s best adjusted OPS was 160, in 1999, a figure that McCovey topped seven times, including an unbelievable 211 in 1969. Stargell topped it six times as well.
David and Mark both raise a good point: I was a bit glib in equating Palmeiro with the twin Willies, because the latter both played in a considerably lower run environment for much of their careers. I was simply trying to make a statement about where Palmeiro really falls along the continuum of players, but the readers are right: Palmeiro isn’t as good as they were.
Palmeiro’s adjusted OPS coming into 2003 was 135, meaning he’s been a 35%
better hitter, by that metric, than the average player. McCovey’s career
figure was 148 and Stargell’s 147, so even though their career stat lines are
comparable, clearly both McCovey and Stargell were better hitters. Clay
Davenport has Palmeiro producing 905 batting runs above replacement, with a
.309 career EqA. The figures for McCovey are 937 and .330, while Stargell
checks in at 846 and .316. Palmeiro hasn’t been quite the hitter those two
were, although his durability and longevity given him an edge in batting runs.
With all due respect to PECOTA, I think grouping Palmeiro with Norm Cash (.315
EqA, 678 BRAR) and Darrell Evans (.292 EqA, 687 BRAR) is off base. Longevity
counts, and Palmeiro has produced nearly 30% more runs than those two guys
did. That’s why, even though he is “between” that group and the
Willies, he’s clearly closer to the Willies (and their brethren such as
Jackson, Mathews et al).
Just so we’re clear: Fred
McGriff is going to the Hall of Fame, too, right? He has career
numbers of .286/.379/.513.
If it’s simply the accumulation of 500 home runs that gets you in (with
comparable secondary numbers), then the case you make for Palmeiro is the case
you make for McGriff. And I think that’s what makes people scratch their head
a little bit about this one.
It works for me.
Palmeiro is comparable to McGriff–most comparable, according to the sim scores
at baseball-reference.com. However, Palmeiro has a big edge over McGriff defensively, and because Palmeiro is currently more productive than the Crime Dog, likely to stretch the offensive difference between them-especially in
counting stats-before he retires.
That said, I think McGriff is clearly a Hall of Famer, too. Unlike Palmeiro,
he spent some time in pitchers’ parks that dragged down his numbers, and he
wasn’t quite as good in his thirties as Palmeiro was. However, being just
behind Rafael Palmeiro-who is overqualified for induction-is a good place to
be in the grand scheme of things. Davenport has McGriff at a .323 EqA and 837
BRAR coming into 2003, safely above the Cash/Evans group and closer to the
Willies than even Palmeiro is, at least by rate.
A number of people referenced Rob Neyer’s ESPN.com
piece, one (along with Jayson Stark’s) I intentionally avoided reading
until after I’d written my column.
I was surfing around on the Davenport player cards, prompted somewhat by Rob
Neyer’s remark that “there are too many first basemen in the Hall
already.” [JSS: I can’t find this quote, and believe it to be a
paraphrase, perhaps a poor one.] It turns out that, by Clay’s WARP
measures, Palmeiro is certainly among the top 10, and ranks behind only the
three inner-circle guys: Lou
Foxx and Eddie
Murray (plus Cap
Anson and Roger
Connor, if you use the more 1800s-favorable WARP-1 measure).
To me, the starting point for any intelligent discussion of Hall of Fame
credentials is: About how many more games did this guy’s teams win with him
than they would have without him? And the most through estimates that people
have done show that Rafael Palmeiro has done more to win ballgames than almost
any other first baseman in the history of the game. That’s a Hall of Famer in
Rob argued that Palmeiro is, possibly, only the sixth- or seventh-best first
baseman of his era and, therefore, not quite good enough for the Hall. If
Rob’s ranking of first basemen is correct, my instinct would be to agree with
him. However, Rob’s definition of Palmeiro’s “era” is on the broad
side and included people like Todd
Thome and Jason
Giambi, who are coming in at the tail end of Palmeiro’s career
(although, in fairness, Rob does say that we need to wait a few years to see
how these other guys do to really judge where Raffy ranks.) Others Rob ranks
above Palmeiro are Jeff
Bagwell and Frank
Thomas. He also says that Palmeiro is comparable to McGriff and that a
vote for one entails a vote for the other.
What is your opinion of Rob’s logic about judging entry relative to other
players at the same position during the same era? And do you agree with Rob’s
placement of Raffy at number 6 or 7?
As Sophia will attest, I get into the most trouble when I disagree with
someone smarter than myself.
That said, I think Rob got this one wrong in his column, although it’s far
from a black-and-white issue. While one of the arguments against Palmeiro is
that he hasn’t been as good as Frank Thomas or Jason Giambi at those players’
peaks, an argument in his favor is that he’s been good enough, long enough, to
be a peer of both players. Thomas was better than Palmeiro through 1997 or so;
since that time, Palmeiro has run circles around him. Giambi and Palmeiro are
pretty good comps…if you ignore everything Palmeiro did before Giambi came
into the league. The guy is six weeks older than me and he doesn’t even have
250 home runs, so forgive me if I don’t see a Hall of Fame case just yet.
Palmeiro is being compared with such a deep group of first basemen because of
his longevity, which means players who peaked in 1994 (Frank Thomas, Jeff
Bagwell) and 2002 (Jim Thome) are finding their way into the discussion.
That’s wildly unfair to Palmeiro, a way of turning his key strength-extended
consistent performance-into a weakness.
The parenthetical point in S.E.’s e-mail above is the key to this argument.
Yes, all of these guys–Thomas, Giambi, Bagwell, Thome, Carlos
Delgado–might look better than Palmeiro if they do what Palmeiro
did through his fourth decade. But it’s because Palmeiro actually did
it that crazy people like me want to put him in the Hall of Fame. Lots of
guys look like they might be Hall of Famers at 33, but can’t get to 38 while
hitting .300/.380/.550 every year. When Palmeiro’s peers do that, then the
argument that what he’s done maybe isn’t that special will have merit.
Frank Thomas is one of the 10-15 best hitters in the game’s history, and
clearly superior to Palmeiro even given the way his career derailed after ’97.
McGwire was a better hitter, and probably a better player overall.
McGriff is slightly behind Raffy, as I mentioned. The rest of them–Bagwell,
Thome, Delgado, Giambi, Lee
Stevens–have work to do. Palmeiro isn’t the “sixth- or
seventh-best” first baseman of his era. He’s No. 3.
Todd Helton? Even setting aside the issues of context, Todd Helton is almost
nine years younger than Palmeiro, and made his major-league debut more than a
decade after Raffy did. The two players aren’t peers. For that matter, I think
calling Giambi and Delgado his peers is stretching it.
See the next letter for my real objection to what Rob wrote.
I’m sure others will mention this–I’m not that creative–but there is one
legitimate way to argue that Palmeiro is not a HOFer, and it was presented by
Rob Neyer on ESPN.com: over the last 15 years or so, among players who’ve had
long careers as first basemen, Palmeiro has NOT been as productive as Thome,
Giambi, Bagwell, Thomas, and Todd Helton. I’d also add McGwire. Maybe all
THOSE guys are HOFers, but how many other guys are there during that era who
are even eligible? Are there 15 first basemen who’ve had careers that
significantly overlapped the last 15 years who would even qualify for the
Hall? And, of those, Palmeiro ranks maybe sixth? 40 percentile, to me, is
middle of the pack. Based on his offensive contributions alone, he’s easily a
HOFer. Based on his rank among his contemporaries, it’s less clear. If every
first baseman of an era happened to be a .290/.365/.550 guy for 15 years,
would that make every one a HOFer? Maybe, but it’s reasonable to argue
Has there EVER been a period of time when six guys playing a single position
with basically overlapping careers made the hall?
Let me run the relevant portion of Rob’s column:
“Perhaps Rafael Palmeiro belongs in the Hall of Fame. But let’s give this
a few years, and look at his career in the context of other great first
basemen of the late-20th and early-21st century. Because if he’s only the
sixth- or seventh-best first baseman of his era, he doesn’t belong in the
The thing is, even if Palmeiro ends up behind some of the guys we’re talking
about in this column, he’d still be a Hall of Famer. We know, looking at the
scope of baseball history, that talent at various positions ebbs and flows
over time. Hall of Fame plaques aren’t granted by selecting an all-decade
team. Looking over the guys in the Hall-and focusing just on the BBWAA picks
and the more lucid efforts by various iterations of the Veterans Committee-we
see that ebb and flow; the 1930s were a great time for first basemen, with
three of 16 teams, all in the AL, having inner-circle Hall of Famers at the
position (Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg and Jimmie Foxx). In
1999, we had four of the game’s dozen best shortstops ever at or near the
height of their powers (Alex
Larkin) and you will hear Hall arguments made for Omar
Vizquel. Just as we currently have a peak in great first basemen, we
had one in starting pitching in the 1990s: Roger
Maddux and Randy
Johnson are inner-circle Hall of Famers, while Pedro
Martinez is a couple of healthy years from becoming an automatic
selection, and there were guys like Tom
Glavine and John
Smoltz floating around.
There are gluts and gaps like this throughout the game’s history. It’s
entirely possible that no Hall of Fame starting pitchers entered the league
Blyleven in 1970 and Clemens in 1984. Certainly, no Hall of Fame third
basemen have made their debut since Wade
Boggs came on the scene in 1982. The ’50s and ’60s were great for
The argument that Palmeiro, with a list of accomplishments that puts him
square in the group of Hall of Famers elected by the BBWAA, shouldn’t go into
the Hall of Fame because he played with a lot of other great first basemen is
just as wrong as the argument that Jack
Morris should be in because he was the best pitcher in his exceedingly
weak peer group. It happens that Palmeiro played in a time when a number of
players who might have been able to handle more difficult defensive
positions-Palmeiro included-were moved to first base. Thome, Bagwell and
Giambi were all third basemen, and Delgado was a catcher. It’s a historical
blip, and far from a reason to deny Palmeiro the honors he’s earned.
One last comment about the ESPN.com piece: I wouldn’t take it as gospel that
Rob believes everything he wrote. It’s possible that he was assigned the B
side of the Point/Counterpoint piece with Jayson, which happens sometimes.