The World's Worst Baseball Writer
That would be, of course, Skip Bayless.
This isn't directly Cubs related, although it is primarily about an ex-Cub, Rafael Palmeiro. According to Bayless, Palmeiro is not Hall-worthy, which is a defensible enough position ... I guess. I wouldn't agree with it, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The problem is that Bayless doesn't even pretend to lay down any kind of principled case for Palmeiro's Hall exclusion. It's completely subjective, and indeed, it's almost all about how he was portrayed by media folks like him. In other words, Bayless seems to think that a player's Hall of Fame credentials come down to ... hype.
What this means is that Bayless is free to ignore or minimize anything that we might use to look at these things objectively, on whatever whim he fancies at the time. Those impressed by Palmeiro's status as a 3000 hit/500 HR guy (the fourth ever) are improbably dismissed as being "imprisoned by milestone numbers." Notable accomplishments are dismissed by "gut feelings" as to whether they were good enough. At one point, he seems to dismiss Palmeiro's HR total largely on the basis that he's no Reggie Jackson (amusingly, Baseball-Reference.com ranks Palmeiro as the player in baseball history most similar to Jackson).
Simply put, this kind of reasoning really ticks me off. Obviously, everyone can make up their own mind about Palmeiro's worthiness for the Hall. I happen to think he belongs in (and I'd list him higher than several of his "no-doubters", such as Yastrzemski, McCovey, and Kaline), but I understand some may disagree. However, the closest Bayless comes to investigating Palmeiro's actual record is a mention that Palmeiro played in friendly ballparks (admittedly a valid point, if likely less consequential than Bayless indicates), and a recital of Palmeiro's mediocre playoff numbers, which are mostly meaningless, and at any rate no worse than "no-doubters" like Rod Carew or Mike Schmidt.
Indeed, he fails to make much of an argument that has anything to do with whether or not Palmeiro was a good baseball player, focusing instead on the perception of whether he was a good player or not - again, the hype. It's as superficial an argument as you're likely to find, but unfortunately I'd be surprised if Bayless produced anything else.
- Brian C's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I wasn't happy when Bayless c
I wasn't happy when Bayless came to Chicago to write for the Trib, and was elated when he left. What a hack.
--
Kevin B. O'Reilly
http://kevin.oreilly.net/howl/
So, the idictment against Raf
So, the idictment against Raffy is that he acheived his immortal numbers by consistently performing year in and year out rather than having outstanding seasons periodically? Sorry, Skip. I don't buy it.
peak vs. longevity
The funny thing is, even if you only look at Palmeiro's best years, he rivals some of Bayless's "no-doubters." Al Kaline's best years are awfully similar to Palmeiro's. Yastrzemski had one year - 1967, when he put up an OPS+ of 195 - that was clearly superior to anything Palmeiro did (his top OPS+ was 160). If anything, Yaz's Hall case rests even more on longevity than Palmeiro's. Reggie Jackson's career, as already noted, looks a lot like Palmeiro's. Rod Carew's best years weren't that different than Palmeiro's either.
The really strange part about
The really strange part about all this is that Bayless failed to mention the real reason why Palmeiro should not be in the Hall of Fame: His connection to steroids. Cheaters have no place in the Hall of Fame.
Palmeiro's Steroids Connection
Palmeiro's only connection to steroids is through the comments of Jose Canseco. Palmeiro denies the allegations. We need more to keep him out of the Hall on that basis.
Bayless's case (but not mine)
What this means is that Bayless is free to ignore or minimize anything that we might use to look at these things objectively, on whatever whim he fancies at the time. Those impressed by Palmeiro's status as a 3000 hit/500 HR guy (the fourth ever) are improbably dismissed as being "imprisoned by milestone numbers." Notable accomplishments are dismissed by "gut feelings" as to whether they were good enough. At one point, he seems to dismiss Palmeiro's HR total largely on the basis that he's no Reggie Jackson (amusingly, Baseball-Reference.com ranks Palmeiro as the player in baseball history most similar to Jackson).
He definitely does pick and choose which stats he uses according to the point he wants to make ... but he doesn't pretend that his bottom line is anything other than totally subjective - it all depends on whether or not he has to think about it (kind of a scary litmus test for a supposed man of letters). If he actually has to consider the evidence then the player fails by definition.
Having said that, the Reggie Jackson comments are not without merit - BBRef's similarity scores are based on raw stats and are not normalized for period/parks played in. Jackson's 500+ HRs were a lot harder to come by in the 70's and 80's than Raffi's were.
But as long as he brought up Reggie, I do find it odd the way he discounts Sosa because he strikes out too much - does he know who owns the strikeout record that Sammy has been chasing? And while we're at it, I was amused to see #12 on the all time strikeout list - Lou Brock - in his "small Hall". Brock is probably the most overrated HOFer that played in the last 40 years. But he did have good hype ...