Revisiting Rafi

by user DNL

more "on the DL" opinions

The Barry Bonds talk has reminded me of how upsetting it is that Rafael Palmeiro may make the Hall one day. When news broke that he tested positive for a performance enhancer not named Viagra, the fallout was immense -- but many would still vote for him. Last August, ESPN polled 100 Hall voters, asking them if they thought Rafi was Hall-worthy before the test, and for their thoughts after the fact. 84 of them were in the Rafi-for-Cooperstown beforehand. Of those 84, a mere 22 -- just over a quarter -- were ready to vote "no." (Incredibly, 13 were still willing to vote Palmeiro in!) The vast majority were undecided.

I'll let Jayson Stark "explain" why he is going to vote for Rafi, regardless of the roid issues:

My problem with Palmeiro's candidacy, though, is that if it weren't for the needle, he'd not be on the Hall's radar.

Through age 30 (seasonal age), Palmeiro had 194 home runs and 1,455 hits. He put up a .300/.365/.491 line. Pretty good. It's possible that, by then, he had already started to juice -- we're talking stats through 1995 here. But let's assume he hadn't.

The most similar players to him, using Baseball-Reference's similarity scores widget, were guys like Will Clark. Clark, through age 30, had 1,406 hits, 189 homers, and a .302/.378/.499 line.

Let's look at 8 of the 10 players Palmeiro was most similar to, career-wise, through age 30, and compare their progression until age 36. I'm going to omit John Olerud and Garret Anderson because, as of the date BR published the similarity scores, neither was retired (and Anderson was not yet 36), and therefore neither appear in the averages I wish to highlight.

BR publishes an average of all 8 retired players, through age 36. Because Don Mattingly retired at 34, I'm also going to add 400 hits and 80 home runs to the age-36 totals, giving Donny Baseball a ridiculous pair of 200 hit/40 homer seasons. (That's +50 and +10 to the averages, respectively.) For ease of math, I'm going to leave the averages alone.

What do these numbers mean?

First, Rafi managed to outpace the pack in hits, by about 50/season. Certainly, this is significant, but there are plenty of explanations that could be of the non-steroid variety. The big one? He had more at bats. He was at 8,446 through age 36; the other 8 averaged 7,159. Even a signifcant amount (say, +800/yr) for Mattingly won't make more than a dent.

Second, the OBP numbers stay pretty constant. Rafi has a slight edge, but it's a statistical hair, and not worth mentioning further.

The interesting numbers are, as we'd expect, the power numbers.

While Palmeiro's 144 "extra" homers are, in part, a biproduct of his increased at bats, the fact that he had more homers is not the concern. It's that he had, proportially, a sickeningly high number of extra home runs. Consider this: Over this six year period, Palmeiro had 300 "extra" hits, of which 144 were home runs. Nuts.

This is further reflected by the spike in SLG. While most players tend to lose a bit of power over time, -- indeed, all but Billy Williams declined -- some better players step it up a tad. As a whole his compatriarts tended to demonstrate their "Hall of Very Good" credentials by staying rather level over this period of time, losing a mere six points in SLG.

A distinct gain in power, but relatively little improvement otherwise? Maybe we should give Rafi a lot less credit for his numbers than Jayson Stark is willing to. It may not be his job to police the sport, but it is his duty to not act blindly.

Date

Mon 05/22/06, 7:12 am EST

MetsJetsDevilsDraft Pick

1288 days ago

Score 4

Without steroids Rafi is a more expensive Dave Magadan.

Permalink | Reply

EnyboDiv-I Stud

1288 days ago

Score 2

Jayson Stark is a dumbass. He is a cheater and should not even be hall eligible. Shoeless Joe was accused of throwing the world series yet his numbers during that series show otherwise. Why should people who took steroids be let in but other people who dishonored the game still remain out? If the likes of Rose and Jackson are banned so should be Rafi and Bonds and whomever else used steroids.

Permalink | Reply

MetsJetsDevilsDraft Pick

1288 days ago

Score 1

Boy Enybo, it likes I wrote that post. You are so amazingly correct.

Permalink | Reply

DNLLegend

1288 days ago

Score -1

I don't know if I agree that cheaters shouldn't be eligible, mostly because the slope is so slippery. What do you do with a Gaylord Perry-type of player? What about a guy who sits out the last game to maintain the grip on a batting title? I don't want these questions answered, because I'm protective of the game.

Even if that's a bad analysis, there are many (some voters, too) who subscribe to it. However, the analysis can't end there. Just because one thinks that steroids shouldn't bar someone from Cooperstown doesn't mean that the player's drug use shouldn't be considered. It's pretty clear that, but for the roids, Palmeiro would be a good-plus player. A Steve Garvey or Harold Baines. Maybe even an almost-great player. But he's probably not Hall material. Unfortunately, he's likely to get into the Hall because for most, steroids is an all-or-nothing proposition.

Permalink | Reply

Patrickburke1980All-American

1288 days ago

Score 1

It's an interesting argument. On one side, he doesn't deserve the Hall because without the juice he's not a hall of famer. On the other side, Stark is right...the voters job is voting on performance. It's MLB's job to enforce the rules. The whole era is tainted, so you almost have to put that aside when voting for the Hall. Again, it's tough. I think at the end of the day, I would not vote him in.

Permalink | Reply

CoreyisarealboyMajor Leaguer

1288 days ago

Score 1

Still, it's hard to imagine a few players being in the Hall simply based on performance. Take Robin Yount for example, sure he compiled two MVPs and 3,000 hits, but he had like one season that he batted over .300 in. His numbers certainly aren't eye-popping, but I think he got voted in because he meant so much to the city of Milwaukee. He and Paul Molitor were the face of a franchise for over 15 years. I think voters take more into consideration that simply performance.

Permalink | Reply

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

1288 days ago

Score -1

I think this would be an interesting arguement over Pete Rose, Jackson, and even guys like Mattingly or Jim Rice. Patrick wrote that "the voters job is voting on performance" and Corey thinks "voters take more into consideration than simply performance". Which view is correct? If they only look at performance, then Rose and Jackson, and probably Rice, are in and Mattingly is out. If you look at the big picture, then Rice and Mattingly would definitely be in and there is the destinct possibility that Rose and Jackson are left hanging despite better careers. Where do the voters, and the public, draw the line?

Permalink | Reply

DNLLegend

1288 days ago

Score -1

PBurke said: "The whole era is tainted, so you almost have to put that aside when voting for the Hall." That's true, but "taint" is not the same as "guilty." John Olerud almost certainly did *not* roid it up, so why should we put him in the same analysis as Palmeiro? Through age 30, the two were very similar. Olerud had slightly fewer hits and homers, but not greatly fewer. Three years later, they're still close in hits, but Rafi hit, on average, 40 homers/year while Olerud had 20/year. The likely reason for this difference is steroids. If you treat them as equal, the question becomes: Why should Olerud be punished for Palmeiro's cheating?

Permalink | Reply