Palmeiro just became only the 4th player with 3,000 and 500 homeruns. some people still think that he is undeserving of the hall. what do you think?
Are you serious? This guy is a first ballot hall of famer. He is only one of 4 people with 3000 hits and 500 homers. And he probley will hit 600 homers. This guy is one of the best players ever.
Skip Bayless is about the only person who feels that way. Seriously, 3,000 hits has ALWAYS been an "automatic" invite to the HOF (unless you have a gambling problem, lol). And not only does Palmeiro have the 3,000 hits, he also has over 550 homers. I mean good grief, what else does he have to do? I mean I don't like him but to say this guy isn't a hall of famer is seriously messed up.
I know the arguments against....never a league MVP, seldom the best player on his own team. But I think we should reward his longevity and consistant production.
Was there ever a season in his long career when he was the best first baseman in the game? I don't think so. If you're not even better than your peers year after year, how can you be a HOFer?
When I was living in Dallas and he was still with the Rangers, they kept touting him as a future Hall-of-Famer and I just kinda scratched by head and didn't think so. But the more I look at his numbers, the more obvious it is that he is definitely in. His career numbers are just sick.
He always got his numbers on the radar. No one (cept maybe the fans on the teams he played for) thinks of him as one of the best players in the game. One never really realizes how good he is until you look at his career stats. The question on whether he's deserving of the hall was answered in the first post - one of four players with 3000 and 500. It could matter less if he was never THE best; with numbers like that he was definitely one of the elite at one time or another. He should be an instant first balloter.
Who cares if he was ever the best first baseman in the game? There are plenty of guys (like Bill Mazeroski for example) who are in the Hall and they weren't the best players at their positions NOR did they have 3,000 hits in their career. As a long-time baseball fan, I can tell you 2 things that always hold true (unless you happen to be a schmuck like Pete Rose and are banned for life): 1) You win 300 games in your career - you are going to be in the hall 2) You get 3,000 hits in your career - you are going to be in the hall Period.
I'm not arguing that he won't be in the HOF. Hell, even a moron knows he'll be a first ballot inductee... I'm arguing his merits and whether he DESERVES to be in the HOF... Personally, I don't think so.
exactly. baseball "purists" and fans are too enamored with the sexy numbers (500 hrs, 3000 hits, etc). Palmeiro was/is a good player and he's a better player because of his consistency over 19 seasons. BUT why are they rewarding him for being CONSISENT? Sometimes I wonder about the selection of Hall of Famers....
Guess you haven't heard or read what Skip Bayless says about this. You play for 20 something seasons, accumulate over 3,000 hits and 550 homers and that isn't good enough for the hall. Geez..... Tell you what - why don't you guys tell those who feel Palmeiro will be in and easily (like myself), who you would take out of the Hall? The bottom line is that there has been over 100 years of major league baseball and the Hall of Fame has been around since 1936. So, you have had close to 70 years of people getting elected to the Hall in a sport that has over a 100 year history (over 120 years if you go all the way back to the beginning of the national league). Obviously, there are going to be guys who are a step above than the rest - guys like Ruth, Mays, Cobb, Young, Walter Johnson, etc., but if you just limited it to the very best ever, you are going to only have like 20 to 30 guys. A Hall of Fame for a sport that has over a 100 year history with only 20 to 30 guys is a joke. I am not saying that anyone should get in now, but baseball is about traditions - you get 3,000 hits or win 300 games, you get into the Hall of Fame. It is that simple - don't like it? Don't watch when Palmeiro gets inaugurated or quit following baseball altogether because that tradition is not going to change.
I think the Hall of Fame should be for the elite of the elite. Everyone else should be in the "Hall of Extremely Good"... where Palmiero could be inducted, along with most of the existing HOFers... Either that or create a designated wing for those 20-30 who are REAL HOFers. and don't worry, I won't watch Palmiero get inducted, since I don't think he deserves to get in.
he has a very legit shot at 3,000 hits and 600 homers. if he does that, he'll be sharing company with two men all-time...Willie Mays and Hank Aaron. yeah..he'll be in the hall. i truly don't think he's a first ballot guy, because i think this sentiment that drapg has is pretty "loud" with him. but he'll ultimately get in.
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. It is all about tradition, drapg. That might sound stupid to you and others but that is what has always set baseball apart from other sports. Sure, it can be maddening at times, but it has always been unique and has that certain allure to me thus the reason why I follow it more than any other sport.
The homeruns don't impress me. I wonder how many guys like Mike Schmidt and Dale Murphy would've had if they'd played in the same era.
Because consistency means something. Just as an example, most people would rank Mays ahead of Mantle because he was more consistent over his career and played better defense in center. But at his peak, Mantle, in my opinion, was clearly a better player. Also, I don't agree that a player has to be the best at his position for a period in order to make the hall of fame... I mean, by that criteria you could probably argue that Jimmie Foxx isn't a hall of famer because he played in the same era as Gehrig.
Because... consistency is one of the HARDEST things to uphold in all of sports. Anything can happen to a player on any given year that could affect his production... a fluke injury, a down year, a failure to adjust to the pitching, screwed up mechanics, playing on a bad team, personal-life problems... etc., etc., etc. Sure, he may have never led the league in HR's or .avg or had an mvp year... but there's definitely something valuable about being able to automatically plug in 30-50 HR's, 100 RBIs, 100 runs, walks, and hitting for a decent average for 10-15+ seasons. The ONLY thing I'll detract from Palmeiro is that he played quite a few games at DH (despite being voted a gold glove 1B), and thus that has probably helped prolong his career. Nevertheless... the argument AGAINST consistency is ridiculous. There have been plenty of one-"hit" wonders that have come and gone thru this league: Richard Hidalgo, Brady Anderson, or even guys who used to have success but have gone down fast... Jason Giambi and Ken Griffey, Jr.
Even in the era of the big hr, he's still at the top. I think he's in. Don't forget donruss had him as a "rated rookie".
just curious...do you think frank thomas should be in over palmiero? both are similar in the positions they have played 1b/dh, but thomas is by far the more dominating hitter even though he has lacked the durability.
