08-01-2005, 05:07 PM
08-01-2005, 05:52 PM
He should have been a no before this
08-01-2005, 06:20 PM
I was just thinking about this yesterday while watching the orioles game. I never understood why people seemed to dislike him so much. He was never the best on the team, so fucking what. Gehrig was on a team with Ruth keep him out too then. Aaron was always called overrated cause he played in the era of willie mays. It's just plain fucking nonsense, 500 homers was an automatic in or 3,000 hits.. he has both!!! only 3 other men, aaron, mays and murray have both. Raffy will probably end up with 600+ homers, only mays and aaron have 600/3000. How the fuck do you deny that he's not only a HOF but a slam dunk first ballot HOF. He'll end up probably 6th in homers all time, I don't even begin to comprehend how people can argue against him when his numbers are better than half the people in the HOF.
This new story will just open the floodgates of all the ignorant bufoons who've been saying he doesnt belong in the hall, it's like christmas come early. Maybe if he hit 900 home runs and had 6,000 hits with a .450 career BA, then just maybe they'd consider him. http://www.dvdspot.com/member=Gonzostyle http://www.myspace.com/brooklyngonzo http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770777388 diceisgod Wrote:I LOVE YOU GONZY WONZY SNOOKIE WOOKIE DUMPLIN BUNS!
08-01-2005, 06:51 PM
1. Cheater
2. Talent pool is dilluded significantly thanks to expansion. You have to compare players vs. their present day peers and not historical numbers which don't mean as much. 600 homers doesn't mean as much when 35 people a year hit 40 homers. Palmeiro gets at bats against Tanyon Sturtze and other such shitbag #5 starters. The addition of good relievers doens't offset 3 at bats against starters who would have never made the majors in 60s. When Mays was doing it, only a handful of people were hitting 40 homers a year (if any at all). I'd be shocked if Palmeiro ever finished in the top 5 in MVP balloting in his life or if he ever led the league in any major category. Probably once or twice in the top 10 of MVP during his career. He just was never dominant. I've always heard that a player had to be both dominant for a period of 5-10 years as well as have long-term success. Palmeiro's got the long-term success down, but he was never dominant in his time. He was always a very good player like a Fred McGriff, Kirby Puckett, Will Clark, and guys like that. None of whom belong in the Hall of Fame. 3. Expansion has dilluded the talent pool so
08-01-2005, 07:21 PM
bottom line is still that only 3 other people in the history of the sport did what he did, not 35 a year and certainly not fred mcgriff. If it was any other player it'd be no discussion. You can throw around all the talent pool excuses and I agree bnut every era has had its excuse wether it be a shorter game schedule, no night games, not playing against blacks or having a better talent pool but in turn facing the same pitchers more often. The finish line is the same, he's accomplished what less than a handfull have, aaron was no power hitter and never had more than 50 in a year but in the end no one questioned his durability and year in year out numbers.
Naturally now theres the steroid question but thats another issue, all the above was an issue before todays findings and I think it was just plain ignorant to even be a discussion. Even if you somehow dillute the fact he was on his was to 600 homers which only 4 other men have done. How do you combine that with consistent hitting and getting 3,000 plus hits or is everyone in the league throwing out 200 hit seasons with 40 homers. as for your out of the air numbers, last year less than 10 players had 40 home run seasons. http://www.dvdspot.com/member=Gonzostyle http://www.myspace.com/brooklyngonzo http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770777388 diceisgod Wrote:I LOVE YOU GONZY WONZY SNOOKIE WOOKIE DUMPLIN BUNS!
08-01-2005, 08:18 PM
Hank Aaron was in the top 5 in homers 15 years. Palmeiro: 6 and never did he lead the majors in homers while Aaron led the majors in homers 4 times.
And yes, I'm exaggerating about 35 people hitting 40 homers, but in the late 90s early 2000s, there were normally 20+ people who hit 40 homers. If you dillute his numbers, based on the fact that homer numbers were probably inflated by about 20-25% for much of his career vs history then his numbers don't look as impressive. And the fact that most other hall-of-famers didn't have steroids to keep their bodys in peak physical condition into their 40s, you also have to discount the fact that he's had an extra few years of production that Aaron and Mantle et al didn't have. So many of the longevity numbers you'll see of 3,000 hits and 500 homers aren't just from the inflated stats over the last decade, but the extra years of playing. His stats are massively inflated (as is everyone else in the current era) and so you have to compare him to those playing in his current times And Palmeiro has hit 40 homers with 200 hits exactly zero times in his life
08-01-2005, 09:02 PM
you stupid jew
08-01-2005, 09:11 PM
the whole hall of fame has been diluted. if there's any question about if a guy should be in, you know what, he shouldn't be in. it should be for the best of the best, not the best of the pretty good
08-01-2005, 09:15 PM
Here here!
The lowest common denominator continues to expand who is a Hall of Famer. "Well if Kirby Puckett is a Hall-of-Famer then _ most certainly is".
08-01-2005, 10:06 PM
last week, one of the announcers on wb11 mentioned that jeff kent should go to the hall of fame.
08-01-2005, 10:22 PM
i didn't read this thread but i'm gonna go ahead and assume that gonzo is wrong based on past debates
<center><img src="http://resized.filevend.com/anon/6d4hOYr3.gif"></center>
08-01-2005, 10:45 PM
I would vote in Kent before Palmeiro given that he's won the MVP before, and he's consistently been one of the two or three best players at his position for a decade. Palmeiro can't claim either of those
08-01-2005, 10:47 PM
the old timers just vote in their pals, its past the point of discussion now. rational reasons for why someone should be in the hall of fame went out the window.
08-02-2005, 12:44 AM
20 years, to get 3,000 hits? That's like 150 hits a season. By that logic, Tino's on his way to the HOF if he plays five more years.
08-02-2005, 12:45 AM
On steroids that is.
08-02-2005, 05:31 AM
I guess you're right, it's so simple to get 3,000 hits and 500 homers, thats why 3 other people have done it in the entire history of baseball, I stand corrected. The whole point is when you mention what he has done it's always in comparison with what people like mays, aaron and ruth have accomplished but he's just average, 600 home runs, pssh 4 people have done it but its all pish posh now. You're whole argument was basically that he's not as great as Aaron, thats like blocking someone for not being on par with Gretzky or Jordan.
http://www.dvdspot.com/member=Gonzostyle http://www.myspace.com/brooklyngonzo http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770777388 diceisgod Wrote:I LOVE YOU GONZY WONZY SNOOKIE WOOKIE DUMPLIN BUNS!
08-02-2005, 07:45 AM
This is totally ignoring the steroids issue, but here goes...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2005/7/18/75549/8022">http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/ ... 75549/8022</a><!-- m --> Quote:Raffy Palmeiro and the Hall of Fame <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/raffy-and-the-hall">http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/artic ... d-the-hall</a><!-- m --> Quote:Raffy and the Hall Edited By Sir O on 1122969056
08-02-2005, 01:52 PM
Both of those articles compare someone who hit in the juiced and/or steroid eras with those who weren't. Does anyone actually think that Palmeiro compares to Mike Schmidt? Please.
In Palmeiro's own time, he was not ever one of the best 5-10 players in the game. He was borderline one of the top 5 1B even during his heyday. Thomas, Bagwell, Vaughn, McGwire, Delgado, Thome off the top of my head were all better than him most years. He was consistently very good, never spent time on the DL, played for 20 years, and therefore has longevity-driven numbers. How can you think of someone as a hall-of-famer without being even one of the best when he played.
08-02-2005, 02:29 PM
Yeah, 300 hits and 50 home runs. he should be in the "hall of above average players who compiled stats by having a long career".
I love him. He's like those happy old people who become known for sitting by the side of a busy street and waving to passing cars. People drive by regularly and beep just to see him and get him to wave to them.
That's just like our Arpi... except he doesn't wave or anything. He just says mean things to you. GonzoStyle Wrote:I pledge my undying love for Arpi, any retraction of this undying love is to be ignored. Nominated for," 2005 poster of the year", by 4 out of 6 mods!
08-02-2005, 02:48 PM
Thanks, lapdog
|
|