21 replies to this topic

[JonathanMitchell]

Even as a small-hall guy I would include Palmeiro. He had enough peak to go with great longetivity of good-to-great seasons that he easily belongs. I think people use the lack of peak as a means for other reasons they won't vote for him and don't want to get coupled in with those reasons. Either that or they simply follow anything Keith Law says.

So are you calling me a closet anti-PED guy, an anti-viagra guy or a KLaw sheep?

Being really good for a long time doesn't make you great in my book. Feel free to disagree.

I have to admit I won't rage if Raffy gets in like I did for Rice or will do if Morris gets in.

Not at all. Sorry if came off that way. If I was I would have used the word "all" in front of "people."

[JonathanMitchell]

Murray would make my hall but he certainly wouldn't be an "inner circle" guy.

Six top 5 MVP finishes show how he compared to his contemporaries.

Higher peak (80-85 he never finished below 6th in MVP voting), his counting numbers (which I don't lend much credence to) happened primarily in a lower offensive era.

He did hang around too long.

Hall of Fame is about fame. Murray was the best switch hitter of his generation and was considered dominant in his time in a way Palmeiro never was.

Murray and Palmeiro are pretty much the same. Take a look at this graph: http://www.fangraphs... ... ,1266&wg=1

Using the flawed MVP voting is not the way I would go when debating a player's peak. Just me, though.

I know we will agree to disagree but I think there is room for both guys in a small hall.