12eight

So really, the argument for and against Palmeiro comes down to a simple question; are raw numbers more important than rate stats?

Raw cumulative numbers have long been considered the benchmark for Hall of Fame inclusion; 300 wins, 3,000 strikeouts, 500 HR, 3,000 hits.  The vast majority of players who have reached those plateaus are in the Hall, most of them deservedly so.  On the rate stats side, one could set plateaus for OBP and SLG at, say, .400 and .500 respectively; these are longer lists and more spotty, but for the most part, the players who fall into those categories are HOFers or will be.  Palmeiro, as can be seen, has been a very good player for a very long time, but has never been a great player, for even a short time.

Obviously, credit must be given to a player who has the type of stamina and reliability over a long period of time that Palmeiro does.  Over the 18 seasons in which Palmeiro has played in the majority of his team's games (including 2005), he has put up an OBP between .350 and .400 in 14 of them, an SLG between .470 and .570 in 9.  During his prime, he could generally be counted on to hit between 30 and 40 homers, drive in 100-120 runs, and collect 160-190 hits.  However, even in those prime seasons, he never finished higher than 9th in the league in OBP, and finished higher than 6th in the league in SLG only once.  In an era where strong offensive 1B's were the norm, Palmeiro was in many ways simply one of the 5 or 6 best 1B's in any given year, but for a far longer time.

A common comparison for Palmeiro is Fred MGriff, a man who put up excellent numbers, but likely falling short of Hall-worthy ones.  I want to put their numbers up, side by side; first, in their 5 best seasons, then in their careers (only full years).  In each case, I'll look at totals and average (by AB).  The first set of tables will look at counting stats, the second set at rate stats.

Those are remarkably similar numbers - so close that if you equalize McGriff's AB's to Palmeiro's, here's what you get:

So, by counting stats, these two are exceptionally similar players.  Palmeiro had a better career rates in hits, doubles, total bases, runs, and RBI (though for those last two, the fact that Palmeiro has played more seasons with excellent offensive teams must factor in), while McGriff held better rates in walks and homers.  But despite that, the only really large difference between these two stat lines - in fact, the only difference of more than 100 - is in walks, in which McGriff holds a significant advantage.  Of course, McGriff didn't have as many AB's in his career as Palmeiro, and the fact that Raffy got to the plate more often certainly has to factor in; if you have two players with the exact same rates in every category, except that one played two more years, the latter is the best player of the two.  But the point of this comparison is this; has Rafael Palmeiro really been that much better a player than Fred McGriff was?  It certainly doesn't appear so.  And is Fred McGriff a Hall of Famer?  Almost certainly not.

Now to throw an additional point into the discussion, here are the two players' rate stats in their career:

All of this really causes me to ask: Are Rafael Palmeiro and Fred McGriff the same player?  By RC/27, BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS, they certainly appear to be.  McGriff is notably better in terms of his walk rate and HR rate, and decently better in his SecA.

Fred McGriff is not a Hall of Famer.  There are some that would argue this point, but I'm not one of them.  Really the only thing that could have saved him was collecting those 7 more homers, and even then I wouldn't vote him in.  Why, then, would I vote in Rafael Palmeiro, who has been - in nearly every important way - exactly as good as McGriff, but for somewhat longer?

The debate between rate stats and counting stats is a pretty long standing one, which I'm not likely to resolve here.  But in debates like these, sometimes it's good to extend the debate points to their extremes; let's say, then, that you have two players.  Each have exactly 3,000 hits, 500 HR, and equivalent amounts in every other counting stats.  Let's further imagine that these players put up the exact same season every year, and each had exactly 500 AB's and 650 PA's every year.  The only difference is that Player A played for 15 years, and Player B played for 20.  Their totals are the same, for their career; seasonal averages are very different, in that Player A averaged 200 hits and 33 HR, while player B averaged 150 hits and 25 HR.  Which of these players makes the hall of fame?  Their career counting numbers are precisely the same, except for their longevity, but their rate stats are significantly different.  Player A, for example, averaged a homerun once every 15 AB's; Player B once every 20.  Player A had a .400 BA, Player B a .300 BA.  Without actually creating and plugging in numbers, we can agree that all the rate stats would show a similar difference.  These players have equal career numbers, but Player A had far better seasonal performances.

This dynamic can be reversed as well, with similar results.  If Player A and Player B have exactly the same career rate stats, and had those same stats every single years across equal numbers of AB's and PA's, except Player A played for 20 years and Player B played for 15, Player A is a superior player over his career due to the 5 additional years, but on a yearly basis, they are exactly the same.

So, both yearly performance and longevity matter, which is why Palmeiro is a better ballplayer than Fred McGriff.  But in this case, the difference is not very large; Palmeiro has had enough additional AB's to reach the milestones that McGriff did not.

So after all this, I'm still on the fence.  Rafael Palmeiro was not ever a dominant player.  He was a steady player, over a long period of time.  He has never been the best 1st baseman in the league, he has never been an MVP, he has never dominated.  He has been left off All-Star teams far far more than he has been included on them.  Though his counting stats are generally in the top 20 all time, his rate stats are far far lower.  He's created fewer runs over 27 outs than 6 other 1B's who have played in the last 20 years.  Basically, every baseball instinct I have tells me that Rafael Palmeiro is not a Hall of Famer.  But I'm still on the fence, because those milestones do still mean something.

So, were I a member of the BBWAA, I would not vote for Rafael Palmeiro... at first.  He would not appear on my ballot in his first year of eligibility.  Maybe his second, maybe his third.  Maybe never.  The thing I love about the Hall of Fame in Baseball is that it remains - with a few notable exceptions - a very rarefied group.  Only the very best of the very best belong, and I cannot say in all seriousness that Rafael Palmeiro is among the greatest players to ever wear a Major League uniform.

What do you think?