Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
It happened to be
just a great period
Should we keep out Thome and Thomas as well?
Yes, it's that simple IMO. I just don't see why it matters that he was only the Xth greatest 1b of his era.
So for those that wouldn't vote for Palmeiro (based solely on numbers), do you really think that Gil Hodges and Tony Perez are better HOF candidates cuz they were closer to being the best first basemen of their (much weaker) eras?
But I do think getting a masher at 1B/DH during the sillyball era was a particularly trivial task.
That argument doesn't carry much weight unless you can come up with a good reason why it was a trivial task.
Talent is just distributed randomly. AL shortstops in the late 90s, early 00s; AL 1B in the 30s; 3B in the late 70s, early 80s; starting pitchers in the 70s; NYC centerfielders in the 1950s.
Who are you referring to that says that?
Doesn't it make sense that there SHOULD be four times as many HOFers from this group as there are, say, second basemen or shortstops?
Jeff Bagwell came out of the minors as a doubles-power third baseman, bulked up and became a homer-hitting first baseman for all of it.
But if the argument against Palmeiro isn't just "There were better 1B from his era", then what exactly is it?
So he "bulked up" in a way that he couldn't have if he needed to hold down the defensive responsibility of 3B, because it wasn't tough to gain enough homers to make it worthwhile? Kind of my point. (Not accusing Bagwell specifically of anything here; just talking about how the tradeoffs between positions changed due to the conditions.)
And if there were several guys hitting like Mike Trout playing center field, it'd be more likely to indicate that something had changed about center field than it would be to indicate that there were good center field sperm swimming around a couple decades ago.
Do you have any reason to believe that if you transplanted Raffy Palmeiro's career to 1955, that he wouldn't have put up similar numbers (at least adjusted for context, which his advanced stats try to do)?
What I do think is that 1955 first basemen didn't become musclebound behemoths as often as 1995 first basemen did because it was not nearly as easy to do and wouldn't have increased their value nearly as much.
I believe in equal representation per era
I guess that's our fundamental disagreement.
I totally think that the athletes 40 years later were worlds better; I just don't worry about it, because I believe in equal representation per era.
I don't want to take the tack of "putting Rafael Palmeiro in 1955" because yes, he'd tear apart the league because they're mostly inferior athletes, but that's not how you determine his value.
Oh, lord. I realize you want to make the same points for the twelfth time, but let me clarify what I meant.
The anti Palmeiro case almost sounds personal, specifically tailored to hand wave away Raffy's and only Raffy's credentials.
I haven't seen the typical Primer type value stats dismissed so easily in favor of things like standard deviations and such.
Well, yeah, I'm suggesting that things be done very differently... and I lack the math to present you with the results of my alternative... but I still believe that my train of thought is correct.
I'm guessing all stats will pretty much show the same thing - that he wasn't anything spectacular at his peak but that his prime lasted an unusually long time, giving him overall career value greater than or equal to many HOF caliber players with a higher peak.
An OPS+ (since WAR, Hall of Fame stats monitoring is irrelevant—funny how it’s irrelevant if it doesn’t conduce to your pet’s advantage, but if it does—well, eight batting crowns mean little, but stolen bases now--wow)
His value has to do with how he helped his team win compared to how other players in his time helped their teams win. Understand? Not how he hit more home runs than Gavvy Cravath, or, even, helped his team win more than Gavvy did, or Bill Terry, or George Sisler, or Johnny Mize, etc, did. He wasn’t playing against those guys and, no, we have idea what he would have done back then—none.
So, Ray, Booey, right back at you: what do you consider? What are your standards?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 1.2397 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed