Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
I've been away for several days, and so missed much of the fun surrounding Rafael Palmeiro. While creating a post on his Hall-of-Fame worthiness in the accompanying sidebar poll, I went into more detail than usual and ended up with something I thought I'd post as a short feature, to while away a few minutes of your day.

When considering Rafael Palmeiro's HoF worthiness, one possible angle is to compare him to the player he statistically most resembles: Eddie Murray. Murray is Palmeiro's second-closest BB-Ref comp (I trust no one here thinks Palmeiro is truly comparable to his number-one match, Frank Robinson), and as a fellow Oriole first baseman who received less attention than his performance merited, Steady Eddie seems a good fit.

My continuing problem with Palmeiro has long been a nagging sense that he was never among the best players in the game in most seasons he played. To test this, I looked at the Top-Five finishes throughout his career in several offensive categories (and one significant award category). I also added a similar line for Murray. The table below lists the total number of Top-Five finishes, with first-place finishes in parentheses:


Player     BA     R      H      2B     HR     TB     RBI     OBP     SLG     MVP

Palmeiro    2	  2(1)   3(1)   4      6      6       2      0       1       1
Murray      2     2      0	0     5(1)    5       5(1)   5(1)    4       6
Palmeiro ranks surprisingly well, I think, in hits and doubles -- he never seemed to be that well-rounded an offensive player, but he clearly was, especially relative to Murray. Where the older Oriole has a clear advantage, however, is in on-base and slugging percentage: Murray was conistently among the league leaders in these key offensive categories, while Palmeiro was not. And while RBIs are kind of a cheap stat, the fact is that only twice did Palmeiro finish in the top five in that category, one that matters to Hall voters. To my mind, Palmeiro measures up pretty decently against Murray, but falls short in terms of overall dominance of his era.

Murray himself is an interesting case: a perennial MVP runner-up (6 times in the Top 5 in MVP voting, compared to just once for Palmeiro), he was universally recognized as among the best in the game for virtually the first ten years of his career. But in 1988, Baltimore dealt him to the Dodgers for the immortal trio of Juan Bell, Brian Holton, and Ken Howell, and Murray's career went seriously off-track. Although he played 9 more years, he had only one other great season (1990 for LA at 33) and one pretty good one (1993 with the Mets at 37). At 32, in his last season with the O's, Murray's best years were behind him. His skills and legendary durability deserted him just as the offensive era of the mid-90s arrived.

Palmeiro's career, in many ways, went in reverse. Whereas Murray was a star from his rookie 1977 campaign at 21, Palmeiro didn't nail down a full-time job till he was 23 (1988 with the Cubs), and didn't crack 20 home runs until he turned 26 (1991 in Texas). After his age-27 campaign, in which he hit 22 dingers, Palmeiro was a .300 hitter with an average of 15 home runs a season; Mark Grace, if you will. Murray had already hit 25 or more homers 6 times after his age-27 season.

Late in the 1992 season, the Rangers obtained Jose Canseco from Oakland. Starting the very next year, Palmeiro's annual home run totals went like this:

37
23
39
38
38
43
47
39
47
43
38
23

Put differently: from age 30 onwards, Eddie Murray hit 246 of his 504 home runs (48.8%). From age 30 onwards, Rafael Palmeiro hit 396 of his 551 (71.8%).

Interestingly, the four seasons in which Palmeiro finished in the Top Five in hits and doubles were '88, '90, '91 and '93. Despite his power explosion, he finished as high as 2nd in home runs only once (3rd twice), while after 1994, he only ever finished as high as 10th in doubles.

Eddie Murray was well on his way to the Hall of Fame by age 30: nine straight seasons as one of the best in the game. Rafael Palmeiro, by age 30, had hit more than 30 home runs only once and was still widely regarded as a solid hitter with medium power -- his age-29 comp is John Olerud, his age-30 comp Will Clark. Palmeiro didn't start building his HoF statistics in earnest until after he turned 30, and as we all know, his post-30 accomplishments are currently under review and are potentially tainted.

Until the questions about his possible chemical enhancements are fully put to rest, it would be irresponsible to support a Hall of Fame vote for Rafael Palmeiro. He may very well be an innocent victim -- or he may have used steroids, but only sparingly and to no great assistance to his performance. But we have to clear that up, in full, to protect the integrity of the Hall. The appearance of wrongdoing, from the average fan's perspective, is too strong to risk looking the other way.

Palmeiro is the first player of his era to have to withstand scrutiny of his Hall-worthiness in light of steroid allegations. But he won't be the first player to hold a commanding spot on a Cooperstown ballot and experience an actual debate over whether he used steroids and whether steroids unfairly improved his performance. That honour will go to Mark McGwire.

Two Birds, One Stone | 6 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 11:55 AM EDT (#125882) #
Great stuff.

The Palmeiro poll is still live, just not on the front page ... interestingly enough, at this writing, it's split almost dead even if you add up the categories, with 40 thinking Raffy gets in the Hall and 39 thinking not.

jimmylarsoni - Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:02 PM EDT (#125895) #
Nice job. I really enjoyed the comparisons. I was curious, aside from the steroids what effect would the ballpark that he played in have to do with his numbers as compared to Murray? Both Baltimore and Texas are hitter friendly parks and Dodger stadium is not. Was the old stadium in Baltimore hitter friendly? Is there any real truth to a hitter friendly park? I am not sure if any of this has merit or not but, if anyone has an opinion I would love to hear it.
Magpie - Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:51 PM EDT (#125908) #
The old Baltimore park was a decent pitcher's park, but it was short down the lines and had a small outfield. Impossible to hit triples, a little tough to get the ball into the gaps... but a good home run park for dead pull hitters from either side. Very hard and fast infield - the Orioles always had great defenders who could make the plays.
Magpie - Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#125909) #
The thinking here is that PEDs lifted Palmeiro's performance sufficiently to cross the line from the Hall of Very Good into the Hall of Fame.

In some ways, McGwire's case is even trickier. I think McGwire had established levels of performance early in his career that were HoF worthy. However, he was having a devil of a time staying healthy enough to play. In his case, the impact of PEDs is far more significant not for how the raised the level of his play (although let's say that they did) - but in how they helped getting him in simply getting out onto the diamond. So that's an even stranger question.

Magpie - Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 02:05 PM EDT (#125911) #
Somehow, I think it's going to be impossible to sort out, both with respect to Palmeiro and to the 1994-2004 offensive explosion in general - how much is a product of legal strength training; how much to illegal strength training; new HR friendly ballparks; players turning doubles into homers as they mature (which has been going on for 70 years); changing offensive philosophies....
Pistol - Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 02:31 PM EDT (#125919) #
Well, I might be the only one, but I'm not convinved that McGwire's unwillingness to talk before Congress was a confession of guilt. He could deny using drugs and have everyone think he still used them, or confess and still have everyone think you use them (and when I say everyone I mean a large majority). It's really a no win situaiton and I think he's private enough and aloof enough to say nothing. And how many people that think McGwire saying nothing meant that he must have been a huge user thought Palmeiro didn't use anything because of the convictions of his denials?

All we really know about McGwire is that he took Andro while it was a legal over the counter supplement that wasn't banned by baseball.

And of course the other issue is trying to determine the effects of PEDs. For all we know it could be zero. Corked bats don't help you hit better, but people still have used those.

10 years ago the big theory was that the ball was the one that was juiced and that was the reason for the big surge in power after the strike of 1994. Now it's the steriod era and all that other reasons why HRs increased (ball, smaller parks, diluted pitching quality, superior training, and normal fluctuations) are thrown out the window.
Two Birds, One Stone | 6 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.