Two contrasting takes on the legacy of Rafael Palmeiro, by Jayson Stark [link via OffTheKuff] and NY Times columnist George Vecsey. Stark raises some good points, about how cheating has always been a part of baseball, and how it is impossible to calculate the edge any juiced athlete might have received, but I have to agree with Vecsey on this one. Before today, Palmeiro was a cinch for the Hall of Fame, with the only question being whether his steady career numbers would offset the lack of any spectacular, dominating seasons for him to enter on the first ballot. The consensus was that anyone who could get over 3000 hits and approach 600 home runs was probably a pretty damn good player, and to hell with whether any of those hits was memorable.

Now, whether he deserves this fate or not, he will probably have to wait a few years to get in, if at all. The line on Palmeiro will now be that he was an ordinary singles hitter who bulked up in his mid-20's after a few unimpressive seasons, and then pounded out a series of 40-home run, 110-RBI seasons at a time when the greats of the sport were hitting 50+ /125+ per season. He had one big post-season jack (1996 ALCS, Game 2), but it was the only game his team won in that series, and I would be hard-pressed to name another big Raffi moment that actually had something to do with his team winning an important game. He never won a batting crown, a home run or RBI title, or an MVP award. His biggest credential was his statline, and now that will draw raised eyebrows. And, to boot, he went before a Congressional committee, and lied; in comparison, Mark McGwire's response (to tell the starchamber to stick their questions up their collective rectum) seems even more manly than it did before. Like Steve Garvey, another player who always seemed destined for first ballot honors during his playing career, to be enshrined he's going to have to wait for cooler heads to prevail.