Jim Thome (2009 edition)

[Fuzzy Bear]

He was not even close in winning that year. He finished 7th BBWAA seems to pretty much know what they are doing.

2002 MVP
Miguel Tejada
Alex Rodriguez
Alfonso Soriano
Garret Anderson
Jason Giambi
Torii Hunter
Jim Thome

I think it's clear that Thome has had a better career than all of those guys except A-Rod, and (MAAAAAAAAAAAAYBE) Tejada.

[Senor Octobre]

... and (MAAAAAAAAAAAAYBE) Tejada.

I'm guessing your tongue was placed firmly in cheek when you said that...

[mybaseballcardspace]

I say that Jim Thome certainly belongs in the hall of fame.

[BoSox Rule]

He was not even close in winning that year. He finished 7th BBWAA seems to pretty much know what they are doing.

2002 MVP
Miguel Tejada
Alex Rodriguez
Alfonso Soriano
Garret Anderson
Jason Giambi
Torii Hunter
Jim Thome
Who cares what the writers said? If you actually took the time to look at the numbers it is pretty clear that only A-Rod had a better season than Thome that year. Maybe Pedro.

Seriously, Tejada was very good in 2002. His OBP was .354, he won because his team went on an unprecedented winning streak. Soriano had an OBP of .332 his OPS+ was 129 and he was always awful defensively at 2nd. Hunter's OBP was about .335. Anderson's was .332. Giambi was a legitimate candidate.

The reason I listed OBP for all of them was because Thome had a much better OBP than all of them and he led the AL in SLG by a substantial amount. Thome should have finished 2nd, but A-Rod was such a good hitter, almost on par with Thome but not quite, and he was a great defensive SS.

edit - A-Rod was a good hitter, but I made a mistake saying he was on par with Thome. He wasn't even close. Only Manny was close and he had a 184 OPS+ to Thome's 197. A-Rod deserved the MVP, but Thome was a much better hitter.

[Bravesfan1984]

Who cares what the writers said? If you actually took the time to look at the numbers it is pretty clear that only A-Rod had a better season than Thome that year. Maybe Pedro.

Seriously, Tejada was very good in 2002. His OBP was .354, he won because his team went on an unprecedented winning streak. Soriano had an OBP of .332 his OPS+ was 129 and he was always awful defensively at 2nd. Hunter's OBP was about .335. Anderson's was .332. Giambi was a legitimate candidate.

The reason I listed OBP for all of them was because Thome had a much better OBP than all of them and he led the AL in SLG by a substantial amount. Thome should have finished 2nd, but A-Rod was such a good hitter, almost on par with Thome but not quite, and he was a great defensive SS.

edit - A-Rod was a good hitter, but I made a mistake saying he was on par with Thome. He wasn't even close. Only Manny was close and he had a 184 OPS+ to Thome's 197. A-Rod deserved the MVP, but Thome was a much better hitter.


How was Thome better hitter that year A-Rod had better stats then him in about every catagory.

Hits
A-rod 187
Thome 146

Home Runs
A-Rod 57
Thome 53

RBI
A-Rod 142
Thome 118

Runs
A-Rod 125
Thome 101

OBP is a bad way to evulate players becasue Thome had better obp where the numbers show Rodriguez was the better hitter

[BoSox Rule]

OBP is a bad way to evulate players becasue Thome had better obp where the numbers show Rodriguez was the better hitterUm, what? There really isn't a case to be made the Rodriguez was a better hitter than Thome in 2002. All you showed me were four stats. Hits, HR, RBI, and R. R and RBI are almost entirely dependent on a player's teammates.

A-Rod had 41 more hits than Thome. He also had 35 less walks.

-- PA AVG OBP SLG OPS+ EqA RC/27 OUTS
AR 725 .300 .392 .623 158 .320 8.9 459
JT 613 .304 .445 .677 197 .362 11.9 347

It's pretty clear that Thome was far better than A-Rod on a per-PA basis. He made a far less amount of outs and out-slugged Rodriguez by 54 points. Let's take a look at a few counting stats and see if A-Rod's ability to stay on the field for every single game and plate appearance moves him ahead of Thome as the more valuable hitter.

Runs Created
Thome 155
Rodriguez 153

VORP
Thome 85.3
Rodriguez 86.4
--Slight advantage for A-Rod due to the positional adjustment

EqR
Thome 135
Rodriguez 129

Basically A-Rod was a great hitter who played in 162 games and Thome was an elite hitter who played in 147 games.

[DoubleX]

edit - A-Rod was a good hitter, but I made a mistake saying he was on par with Thome. He wasn't even close. Only Manny was close and he had a 184 OPS+ to Thome's 197. A-Rod deserved the MVP, but Thome was a much better hitter.

Thome was a terrific hitter in 2002, easily better than A-Rod (who was a good year), but MVP is about more than offense, it's about value, and A-Rod producing like he did at SS is probably enough to have made him the most valuable that year.

For the sake of consumption, here the AL Win Shares leaders for 2002:

1) Alex Rodriguez - 35
t2) Jim Thome - 34
t2) Jason Giambi - 34
4) Miguel Tejada - 32
t5) Bernie Williams - 30
t5) Alfonso Soriano - 30
7) Manny Ramirez - 29
t8) John Olerud - 27
t8) Nomar Garciaparra - 27
t10) Carlos Delgado - 26
t10) Magglio Ordonez - 26

Had Thome and A-Rod played the same amount of games, Thome might have had a slight edge in Win Shares. I also don't think Tejada was a bad MVP choice as he really fueled the A's great second half run, and Win Shares have him up there.

[digglahhh]

He was not even close in winning that year. He finished 7th BBWAA seems to pretty much know what they are doing.


Jimmy Rollins sure thinks so.

[Bravesfan1984]

Thome was a terrific hitter in 2002, easily better than A-Rod (who was a good year), but MVP is about more than offense, it's about value, and A-Rod producing like he did at SS is probably enough to have made him the most valuable that year.

For the sake of consumption, here the AL Win Shares leaders for 2002:

1) Alex Rodriguez - 35
t2) Jim Thome - 34
t2) Jason Giambi - 34
4) Miguel Tejada - 32
t5) Bernie Williams - 30
t5) Alfonso Soriano - 30
7) Manny Ramirez - 29
t8) John Olerud - 27
t8) Nomar Garciaparra - 27
t10) Carlos Delgado - 26
t10) Magglio Ordonez - 26

Had Thome and A-Rod played the same amount of games, Thome might have had a slight edge in Win Shares. I also don't think Tejada was a bad MVP choice as he really fueled the A's great second half run, and Win Shares have him up there.

You are right it is not all about offense it is about defense where A-Rod was better at. Thome has better obp because he played less games thus it makes his stat look better. You can agrue all you want about where he should of been in mvp but the fact is that year he was 7th that year and that will not change. The fact is Thome has been a good player for a long time but rarely if ever great. Having one or two great seasons does not make you a Hall of Famer.

[Cougar]

Thome has better obp because he played less games thus it makes his stat look better.

This is objectively false. OBP is a percentage: Times on Base divided by Plate Appearances.

The number of games played would affect the number of plate appearances, but would affect the number of times on base equally, if one's performance were consistent.

For rate statistics, games played are irrelevant, at least above a certain minimum which Thome is well beyond.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You are right it is not all about offense it is about defense where A-Rod was better at. Thome has better obp because he played less games thus it makes his stat look better. You can agrue all you want about where he should of been in mvp but the fact is that year he was 7th that year and that will not change. The fact is Thome has been a good player for a long time but rarely if ever great. Having one or two great seasons does not make you a Hall of Famer.

No, this is NOT fact. It is YOUR OPINION, and a flawed one at that. We have given ample evidence to refute you opinion that Thome was never a great player.

[Brad Harris]

Bravesfan,

I'm just curious, but what's the significance of the number in your user handle?

[Bravesfan1984]

Bravesfan,

I'm just curious, but what's the significance of the number in your user handle?

the 1984 the year i was born

[Bravesfan1984]

No, this is NOT fact. It is YOUR OPINION, and a flawed one at that. We have given ample evidence to refute you opinion that Thome was never a great player.

Maybe in one or two years he was great but as an overall career no.

[digglahhh]

Maybe in one or two years he was great but as an overall career no.

Thome's career OPS+ is 149.

Just off the top of my head:

Pete Rose topped that twice in his entire career.
Derek Jeter, once
Cal Ripken, once

Now, of course these players had much more defensive value than Thome. I'm just trying to put into perspective the fact that Jim Thome is a historically elite run producer. The guy has a career OBP over .400, and is top 20 all time in SLG and OPS. Now, those numbers may be aided a bit by his era (though guys like Gehrig were too, but nobody seems to bring that up), but his 149 OPS+ isn't era-aided. That is a number relative to his league.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Thome's career OPS+ is 149.

Just off the top of my head:

Pete Rose topped that twice in his entire career.
Derek Jeter, once
Cal Ripken, once

Now, of course these players had much more defensive value than Thome. I'm just trying to put into perspective the fact that Jim Thome is a historically elite run producer. The guy has a career OBP over .400, and is top 20 all time in SLG and OPS. Now, those numbers may be aided a bit by his era (though guys like Gehrig were too, but nobody seems to bring that up), but his 149 OPS+ isn't era-aided. That is a number relative to his league.

So, what does that have to do with only having a couple of "great" seasons in his career? :confused::rolleyes:

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

How was Thome better hitter that year A-Rod had better stats then him in about every catagory.

Hits
A-rod 187
Thome 146

Home Runs
A-Rod 57
Thome 53

RBI
A-Rod 142
Thome 118

Runs
A-Rod 125
Thome 101

Hits are dependent on the number of at bats a player gets. Thome had fewer at bats than A-Rod in no small part because he drew more walks. Walks are productive. Despite having fewer total hits, Thome got hits more frequently than A-Rod as evidenced by his higher batting average.

The same concept applies to home runs. Jim Thome hit a home run every 9.2 at bats. A-Rod hit a home run every 10.9 at bats. That means Jim Thome hit home runs more frequently than A-Rod.

A player's RBI total is highly dependent on the guys who bat in front of that player and how often those guys get on base. A player's run total is highly dependent on the guys who bat after that player and how often those guys get hits, especially of the extra base variety.

OBP is a bad way to evulate players becasue Thome had better obp where the numbers show Rodriguez was the better hitter

Huh? If I may be so bold, I think I know what Ken Tremendous might say here. Isn't OBP considered one of "the numbers"? It's pretty easy to understand why OBP is a very good way to evaluate players. There is no complicated formula to calculate OBP. It is literally the percentage of the time that a player doesn't get out. Without going into specifics about different ways of getting out, getting out is the worst thing a hitter can do in baseball. Not getting out often is very productive. Jim Thome is good at not getting out often.

[Senor Octobre]

OBP is a bad way to evulate players becasue Thome had better obp where the numbers show Rodriguez was the better hitter

I....I'm speechless.... this baffles me...

[Brad Harris]

OBP is a bad way to evulate players becasue Thome had better obp where the numbers show Rodriguez was the better hitterI....I'm speechless.... this baffles me...
Apparently how good a player is at avoiding outs has nothing to do with how good he is as a hitter. :faint:

[Senor Octobre]

Has the world gone topsy-turvy? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Bravesfan1984]

Apparently how good a player is at avoiding outs has nothing to do with how good he is as a hitter. :faint:

If someone has more hits then another player how can they have a higher obp unless they have tons of more walks maybe. I guess I just do not understand that part of it. I would appreciate if someone could explain that to me.

[digglahhh]

If someone has more hits then another player how can they have a higher obp unless they have tons of more walks maybe. I guess I just do not understand that part of it. I would appreciate if someone could explain that to me.

OBP is calculated with plate appearances in the denominator. Batting average is calculated with At Bats in the denominator.

If I come to the plate 4 times in a game, and go 1-3 with a walk, my BA is .333 (1/3), and my OBP is .500 (2/4).

Jim Thome is known to have tremendous plate discipline, he draws a lot of walks. Every time he walks, he is succeeding at not making an out.

If I come to the plate 5 times, and go 1-3 with 2 walks, I have a BA of .333 and an OBP of .600. I made two outs all day.

If I come to the plate 5 times and go 2-5, I have a BA of .400 and an OBP of .400. I made 3 outs on the day.

Jim Thome, despite not hitting for a great average (though he's a respectable career .280-ish hitter) is very successful at not making outs.


Since, you like to use counting stats, let's flip those on their heads, shall we....

In 2002, A-Rod made approx 711 plate appearances (ABs+BBs), he made 447 outs.

That same year, Jim Thome made 602 plate appearances, and made 344 outs. that's basically 100 fewer outs than A-Rod.

Of course, A-Rod had 100 more PAs, so I guess if Jim Thome played the extra games and went 0-100 w/ 0 walks in them, they'd be even at the dish.


Here's a shocker for you, in 1998, A-Rod hit .310, but you know what? He made so many plate appearances, and walked so infrequently, that despite getting hits at a very nice rate, he made more outs than any other player in the league.

[Bravesfan1984]

OBP is calculated with plate appearances in the denominator. Batting average is calculated with At Bats in the denominator.

If I come to the plate 4 times in a game, and go 1-3 with a walk, my BA is .333 (1/3), and my OBP is .500 (2/4).

Jim Thome is known to have tremendous plate discipline, he draws a lot of walks. Every time he walks, he is succeeding at not making an out.

If I come to the plate 5 times, and go 1-3 with 2 walks, I have a BA of .333 and an OBP of .600. I made two outs all day.

If I come to the plate 5 times and go 2-5, I have a BA of .400 and an OBP of .400. I made 3 outs on the day.

Jim Thome, despite not hitting for a great average (though he's a respectable career .280-ish hitter) is very successful at not making outs.


Since, you like to use counting stats, let's flip those on their heads, shall we....

In 2002, A-Rod made approx 711 plate appearances (ABs+BBs), he made 447 outs.

That same year, Jim Thome made 602 plate appearances, and made 344 outs. that's basically 100 fewer outs than A-Rod.

Of course, A-Rod had 100 more PAs, so I guess if Jim Thome played the extra games and went 0-100 w/ 0 walks in them, they'd be even at the dish.


Here's a shocker for you, in 1998, A-Rod hit .310, but you know what? He made so many plate appearances, and walked so infrequently, that despite getting hits at a very nice rate, he made more outs than any other player in the league.

So this shows that Thome pretty much has a higher obp because he walks more not because he is a great hitter

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So this shows that Thome pretty much has a higher obp because he walks more not because he is a great hitter

Part of being a great hitter is NOT making outs. This is where Thome's walks come in.

Ok, Bravesfan, I have a challenge for you. Plese present a well thought out argument agianst Thome being a HoFer. By well thought out I mean an argument that is more than just one or two sentences. You have a habit giving any solid reasons for you not believing that Thome is a HoFer. Several of us have responde dwith quite lengthy and researched post. But you tend to respond with short one or two sentence responses. You need to give us more detailed information from your posts. So, please, show us why Thome is not a HoFer.

[Bravesfan1984]

Part of being a great hitter is NOT making outs. This is where Thome's walks come in.

Ok, Bravesfan, I have a challenge for you. Plese present a well thought out argument agianst Thome being a HoFer. By well thought out I mean an argument that is more than just one or two sentences. You have a habit giving any solid reasons for you not believing that Thome is a HoFer. Several of us have responde dwith quite lengthy and researched post. But you tend to respond with short one or two sentence responses. You need to give us more detailed information from your posts. So, please, show us why Thome is not a HoFer.

I have been posting reasons throuhout this whole thread but I can try to summerize. Thome was never the best player in the game. HIe highest mvp finish was 4th He only finished in the top 5 mvp once so he was only considedered one of the best players of baseball one year. Thome has played 18 seasons and only has around 2000 hits which is not alot and says he was not a great hitter. Thome also has had alot of strikouts in his career 2122. Having that many strikeouts hurt your team and again makes you a great hitter when he has more strikeouts then hits. Thome was pretty much just a home run hitter since he never hit alot of doubles or triples. Thome also was not a great defender through his career. I wouldn't say he was horrible but never really stood out. I am not the only one who thinks Thome right now is not a HOF.

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3023894&name=olney_buster&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3023894%26name%3dolne y_buster

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/tom_verducci/09/18/thome.hof/

So sure Thome was a good player but he never really was one of the best

[Senor Octobre]

Thome has played 18 seasons and only has around 2000 hits which is not alot and says he was not a great hitter.

So by your logic, Lou Brock is a better hitter than Thome... :confused:

[Bravesfan1984]

So by your logic, Lou Brock is a better hitter than Thome... :confused:

You do realize that in 19 seasons he had 3000 hits where Thome is at the same place with only 2000.

[Cowtipper]

You do realize that in 19 seasons he had 3000 hits where Thome is at the same place with only 2000.

That may be because in 19 seasons Lou Brock had 10332 at-bats and Thome has only 7108 at-bats, over 3,000 less than Brock?

Brock also walked 747 times less than Thome, giving him 747 more at-bats to add to his hit total.

Thome is a power hitter. Power hitters normally get less at-bats then speedsters (speedsters normally bat at the top of the lineup). This seems to be the case with Thome and Brock.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You do realize that in 19 seasons he had 3000 hits where Thome is at the same place with only 2000.

You do realize that in about 3,000 fewer ABs Thome has only about 200 fewer runs scored.

[Senor Octobre]

You do realize that in 19 seasons he had 3000 hits where Thome is at the same place with only 2000.

Alright, you can have Brock and his 109 OPS+, I'll take Thome and his 149 thanks.

[digglahhh]

So this shows that Thome pretty much has a higher obp because he walks more not because he is a great hitter

I'm going to try to be patient with you, maybe we can make some inroads.

So, please answer this question:

What is a hitter's most basic goal every time he steps to the plate, what is the common thread in all successful pate appearances?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'm going to try to be patient with you, maybe we can make some inroads.

So, please answer this question:

What is a hitter's most basic goal every time he steps to the plate, what is the common thread in all successful pate appearances?

Ohh, ohh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, I know! (raised hand up). :hyper:

[Bravesfan1984]

Ohh, ohh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, I know! (raised hand up). :hyper:

The overall goal is to drive in runs becuase that helps win games but for the moment to get on base. Hits thouugh have more power then walks because they have a better chance of driving in runs then walks. If a player is on second and you get a hit they can score but if you walk they do not move. Home runs hits are the best because they are instant runs. I am not diminishing walks importantce but I would rather have a player who hit more then walked.

[jalbright]

The overall goal is to drive in runs becuase that helps win games but for the moment to get on base. Hits thouugh have more power then walks because they have a better chance of driving in runs then walks. If a player is on second and you get a hit they can score but if you walk they do not move. Home runs hits are the best because they are instant runs. I am not diminishing walks importantce but I would rather have a player who hit more then walked.

You're getting there. If there's nobody on base, the only way to drive in a run is with a homer. You want to get on base not only to provide that opportunity, but to avoid making an out. I hope we can agree that avoiding an out, absent perhaps a sac bunt or sac fly, is a good thing.

[Brad Harris]

You're getting there. If there's nobody on base, the only way to drive in a run is with a homer. You want to get on base not only to provide that opportunity, but to avoid making an out. I hope we can agree that avoiding an out, absent perhaps a sac bunt or sac fly, is a good thing.

Outs
7823 Lou Brock
5337 Jim Thome

Thome could make an out in his next 2,484 trips to the plate, match Brock's career PA and still have made fewer career outs than Brock! That's about five full seasons worth of hitlessness, just to get approximately equal with Brock. This doesn't count the 287 more times Brock was thrown out trying to steal than Thome. ;)

[digglahhh]

The overall goal is to drive in runs becuase that helps win games but for the moment to get on base. Hits thouugh have more power then walks because they have a better chance of driving in runs then walks. If a player is on second and you get a hit they can score but if you walk they do not move. Home runs hits are the best because they are instant runs. I am not diminishing walks importantce but I would rather have a player who hit more then walked.

Would you be comfortable saying that the most basic goal is to avoid making an out, and then all events that meet this criterion can be ordered relative to eachother as degrees of success? I think that shouldn’t elicit any debate.

So, a BB is valuable in comparison to an out, but not in comparison to a double.

Since, outs are the most common occurrence of all Abs, they should be the standard which which outcomes are compared. Doubles are rare, comparatively, so they shouldn’t be the standard.

So, the player who succeeds most frequently is he makes out least often. That’s the basic premise we’ve established.

Of course, on player with an OBP of .400 who hits nothing but singles, may not be as valuable as player with an OBP of .375, but with .200 points of SLG. That’s the way one can make up for making more outs – getting a disproportionate amount of the more valuable kinds of hits on the occassions he doesn’t make out.

The two most important elements of hitting are hitting for power and not making out. These are the facets of offense at which Jim Thome has been historically elite.

And, yes, if Jim Thome is going to not make out 275 outs in a season, it stands to reason that you’d rather he have 200 hits and 75 walks, than 150 hits and 125 walks. But, if the choice is 200 hits and 40 walks (as in Thome vs. Brock or whatever), it’s a no brainer to take the extra 35 non-out-making events. It’s just way more valuable.

Also, try not the think of runs in terms of being driven in, but in terms of being produced. It’s a subtle shift, but important. Runs are created by the production of their components (baserunners, and then events that move them). Being the guy who gets up with a runner on 3rd is like being the last guy on an assembly line – just because you put the final touches on the project, that doesn’t mean your contribution was the most valuable – and further, it wouldn’t be possible without the work of the others involved in producing the run.

[Bravesfan1984]

The two most important elements of hitting are hitting for power and not making out. These are the facets of offense at which Jim Thome has been historically elite.

[B]I do not see hwo Thome has been elite at not making outs with so many strikeouts/ Are not strikeouts considered outs? /B]

[Bravesfan1984]

Thome is basically a puwer hitter with an average batting aveage who walks alot and stikeouts a lot. Thome was really a one diminsional hitter.

[jalbright]

The two most important elements of hitting are hitting for power and not making out. These are the facets of offense at which Jim Thome has been historically elite.

[B]I do not see hwo Thome has been elite at not making outs with so many strikeouts/ Are not strikeouts considered outs? /B]

Look at the percentage of his plate appearances in which he made an out, which is simply 1 minus his on base percentage. This is where walks are such a huge positive, and this is definitely an element of Thome's game, thus negating your contention he's a one-dimensional hitter.

[Brad Harris]

Thome is basically a puwer hitter with an average batting aveage who walks alot and stikeouts a lot. Thome was really a one diminsional hitter.
I wish you played in our fantasy league.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Thome is basically a puwer hitter with an average batting aveage who walks alot and stikeouts a lot. Thome was really a one diminsional hitter.

Again you are simply mistaken. How is Thome a one dimensional hitter?

1) BA above league average (.280 vs .272)
2) OBP well above league average (.407 vs .342)
3) Slugging percentage well above league average (.561 vs .433)

So we have a hitter whose BA is a tick above league average and with an OBP and slugging percentage well above league average. How is such a hitter "one dimensional"?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The two most important elements of hitting are hitting for power and not making out. These are the facets of offense at which Jim Thome has been historically elite.

[B]I do not see hwo Thome has been elite at not making outs with so many strikeouts/ Are not strikeouts considered outs? /B]

Yes, strikeouts are outs? And your point is? His low number of total outs is at an elite level. The key importance is the total outs.

[digglahhh]

Lou Brock, did his share of striking out as well. 14th all time, as a matter of fact.

As a matter of fact, 10 of the top 20 in career Ks are in the HOF (considering Biggio and Henderson as good as in)

Then you have Sosa, whose numbers would put him in, but is only kept out by steroids. Basically, a boatload of Ks hasn't kept dudes out of the HOF.

Interesting fact#1: Included in all the offensive records A-Rod is on pace to blow away is the all time K record.

Interesting fact#2: Jim Thome lead the league in Ks 3 times. Babe Ruth, 5 times.


Striking out a lot has never kept great players out of the HOF!

[Bravesfan1984]

[QUOTE=digglahhh;1242977]Lou Brock, did his share of striking out as well. 14th all time, as a matter of fact.

As a matter of fact, 10 of the top 20 in career Ks are in the HOF (considering Biggio and Henderson as good as in)

Then you have Sosa, whose numbers would put him in, but is only kept out by steroids. Basically, a boatload of Ks hasn't kept dudes out of the HOF.

Interesting fact#1: Included in all the offensive records A-Rod is on pace to blow away is the all time K record.

Interesting fact#2: Jim Thome lead the league in Ks 3 times. Babe Ruth, 5 times.

You do realize that Sosa had three 60+ home runs seasons and won an mvp?
A-Rod is one of if not the best players of this generation. They have other stuff going for them.

[Bravesfan1984]

Again you are simply mistaken. How is Thome a one dimensional hitter?

1) BA above league average (.280 vs .272)
2) OBP well above league average (.407 vs .342)
3) Slugging percentage well above league average (.561 vs .433)

So we have a hitter whose BA is a tick above league average and with an OBP and slugging percentage well above league average. How is such a hitter "one dimensional"?

Here are players with better career BA since you think he ba is so great.

Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell
Jeff Kent
Gary Sheffield
Johnny Damon
Derek Jeter
Nomar Garciaparra
Julio Franco
Alex Rodriguez
Chipper Jones
Juan Gonzalez

Just because a player is a little over average does not mean they are HOF worthy.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Here are players with better career BA since you think he ba is so great.

Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell
Jeff Kent
Gary Sheffield
Johnny Damon
Derek Jeter
Nomar Garciaparra
Julio Franco
Alex Rodriguez
Chipper Jones
Juan Gonzalez

Where did I say Thome's batting average was great? You need to reread my post. I say his BA was a tick above league average. As for the players listed this is how they rank in OBP, slugging percentage, and OPS+.

OBP
.420 Frank Thomas
.409 Jim Thome
.408 Jeff Bagwell
.406 Chipper Jones
.396 Gary Sheffield
.389 A-Rod
.387 Derek Jeter
.365 Julio Franco
.364 Nomar Garciaparra
.355 Jeff Kent
.354 Johnny Damon
.343 Juan Gonzales

SLG%
.579 A-Rod
.561 Jim Thome
.561 Juan Gonzales
.558 Frank Thomas
.549 Chipper Jones
.540 Jeff Bagwell
.525 Nomar Garciaparra
.518 Gary Sheffield
.501 Jeff Kent
.459 Derek Jeter
.434 Johnny Damon
.417 Julio Franco

OPS+
157 Frank Thomas
149 Jim Thome
149 Jeff Bagwell
148 A-Rod
145 Chipper Jones
142 Gary Sheffield
132 Juan Gonzales
125 Nomar Garciaparra
123 Jeff Kent
121 Derek Jeter
111 Julio Franco
103 Johnny Damon


It seems Thome looks really good when comparing these more important stats than BA.


Just because a player is a little over average does not mean they are HOF worthy.
I didn't say Thome was a little above average. I said his BA was a little over average. Plus I showed that his OBP, SLG%, and OPS+ stack up well against other contemporary hitters.

[digglahhh]

Plus:

Frank Thomas -HOFer
Jeff Bagwell - HOFer
Jeff Kent - HOFer
Gary Sheffield - HOFer
Johnny Damon
Derek Jeter - HOFer
Nomar Garciaparra
Julio Franco
Alex Rodriguez - HOFer
Chipper Jones - HOFer
Juan Gonzalez


So, what does that prove? He also wasn't as good as Babe Ruth or Ted Williams.

And...

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Plus:

Frank Thomas -HOFer
Jeff Bagwell - HOFer
Jeff Kent - HOFer
Gary Sheffield - HOFer
Johnny Damon
Derek Jeter - HOFer
Nomar Garciaparra
Julio Franco
Alex Rodriguez - HOFer
Chipper Jones - HOFer
Juan Gonzalez


So, what does that prove? He also wasn't as good as Babe Ruth or Ted Williams.

And...
Let's look at Offensive Winning Percentage

.736 Frank Thomas
.722 Jim Thome
.721 Jeff Bagwell
.720 Chipper Jones
.707 A-Rod
.684 Gary Sheffield
.638 Nomar Garciaparra
.623 Juan Gonzales
.616 Derek Jeter
.605 Jeff Kent
.558 Johnny Damon
.550 Julio Franco

Hmmm...Thome keeps finishing second on all these lists. what does it mean? It means that as an offensive player Thome is right there with Frank Thomas, Bagwell, Jones, and A-Rod, all no doubts HoFers. Perhaps he's a shade behind them but he's of their caliber. That to me clearly shows he's a HoFer.

[Bravesfan1984]

[QUOTE=digglahhh;1243174]Plus:

Frank Thomas -HOFer
Jeff Bagwell - HOFer
Jeff Kent - HOFer
Gary Sheffield - HOFer
Johnny Damon
Derek Jeter - HOFer
Nomar Garciaparra
Julio Franco
Alex Rodriguez - HOFer
Chipper Jones - HOFer
Juan Gonzalez

Kent and Sheffield are boderline I could name more non HOF players just took to much time. What I was saying his BA is not a good case for him being a HOFer.

[Bravesfan1984]

[QUOTE=Honus Wagner Rules;1243137]Where did I say Thome's batting average was great? You need to reread my post. I say his BA was a tick above league average. As for the players listed this is how they rank in OBP, slugging percentage, and OPS+.

OBP
.420 Frank Thomas
.409 Jim Thome
.408 Jeff Bagwell
.406 Chipper Jones
.396 Gary Sheffield
.389 A-Rod
.387 Derek Jeter
.365 Julio Franco
.364 Nomar Garciaparra
.355 Jeff Kent
.354 Johnny Damon
.343 Juan Gonzales
/QUOTE]

How can Thome have a better OBP then player who are clearly better then he was?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

[QUOTE=digglahhh;1243174]Plus:

Frank Thomas -HOFer
Jeff Bagwell - HOFer
Jeff Kent - HOFer
Gary Sheffield - HOFer
Johnny Damon
Derek Jeter - HOFer
Nomar Garciaparra
Julio Franco
Alex Rodriguez - HOFer
Chipper Jones - HOFer
Juan Gonzalez

Kent and Sheffield are boderline I could name more non HOF players just took to much time.
Kent is borderline? He has more HRs than any second baseman in history, a boat load of 100 RBI seasons, and an MVP award. I guarantee you Kent will easily get inducted. Kent is AT WORST on of the top 15 greatest second baseman in major league history.


What I was saying his BA is not a good case for him being a HOFer.
And not one poster in this thread has argued that Thome should be a HoFer because of his BA! I have no idea where you got that idea from? :shrug: Thome's HoF case is based on lots of power and a great ability to get on base. Please look at OBP, SLUG%, OPS+, and OWP lists I posted. He's at the top of all of those lists.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Where did I say Thome's batting average was great? You need to reread my post. I say his BA was a tick above league average. As for the players listed this is how they rank in OBP, slugging percentage, and OPS+.

OBP
.420 Frank Thomas
.409 Jim Thome
.408 Jeff Bagwell
.406 Chipper Jones
.396 Gary Sheffield
.389 A-Rod
.387 Derek Jeter
.365 Julio Franco
.364 Nomar Garciaparra
.355 Jeff Kent
.354 Johnny Damon
.343 Juan Gonzales



How can Thome have a better OBP then player who are clearly better then he was?
Are you serious? I don't what specific player you are referring to but Thome drew a huge number of walks in his career. Have you ever bothered to look at his career stats? Here take a look.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomeji01.shtml

Loko at Thomes' prime seasons. What do you see? You see OBPs like .450, .445, .438. Such high OBPs are incredible valuable to a team. Thome, a very slow runner, has scored over 100 runs in a season eight times plus a 97 run season and a 92 run season.

[henrich]

I have Thome at 27th all-time (since 1876) at 1B. He's in.

[willshad]

The only issue for Thome is the possibility that he used steroids. At age 30 he suddenly increased his home run production almost to the extent that guys like Mcgwire and Sosa did late in their careers. His career seemed to be following a pretty typical arc at that point...slowly improving in 1990-1995....peak in 1996-1998, and starting to decline in 1999-2000. Then, suddenly he became Mark Mcgwire. As recently as 2005-2006 he was getting a home run every 12 at bats or so (at age 35-36). Im not saying that cant be done without roids, but I just find it a bit unbelievable.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Im not saying that cant be done without roids, but I just find it a bit unbelievable.

You seem to imply that it can't be done without PEDs, though, especially with the "unusual spike" argument. It's true that there is a general upswing, peak and decline in performance, but it's not uniform, due to outside factors (other than PEDs, too) like the individual athlete, general competition and even the parks he plays in.

[Senor Octobre]

The only issue for Thome is the possibility that he used steroids. At age 30 he suddenly increased his home run production almost to the extent that guys like Mcgwire and Sosa did late in their careers. His career seemed to be following a pretty typical arc at that point...slowly improving in 1990-1995....peak in 1996-1998, and starting to decline in 1999-2000. Then, suddenly he became Mark Mcgwire. As recently as 2005-2006 he was getting a home run every 12 at bats or so (at age 35-36). Im not saying that cant be done without roids, but I just find it a bit unbelievable.

Sometimes these things just happen inexplicably. At age 26 Carl Yastrzemski hit 19 HRs. At age 27 he hit 44. At 29 and 30 he hit 40 both years. Then he never hit more than 28 for the rest of his career. Random spikes in numbers just happen sometimes. I mean, its not like Thome never hit 40 homeruns before 2001 and 2002 (he hit 40 in 1997), he probably just reached his prime those years or something. Besides that, he's always been a big guy, grew up on a farm, etc. I know lots of guys like Thome that are simple, country bumpkins from farms that are like 6-3/6-4 and 270 pounds of muscle.

[jalbright]

I have Thome at 27th all-time (since 1876) at 1B. He's in.

That leads to a rather large Hall, no? I see 8 position players and maybe 4 pitchers (starters and relievers) as a guide for a "team". Using that yardstick, if we went 27 deep, we'd be at 27 * 12=324. That's almost 100 more than we have right now--and I'm guessing you're not including Negro Leaguers. If I'm right, that's 350 or so--and I doubt very seriously you're saying there's 100 players active right now who belong in without doing more. Let's assume you've got the Negro Leaguers and 20 actives, which would take us to roughly speaking 250. You want to add 30% more players than are already in (324-250)? That's too many for me--and my assumptions put Thome on the edge, which doesn't seem to match the tone of your post.

[Bravesfan1984]

Are you serious? I don't what specific player you are referring to but Thome drew a huge number of walks in his career. Have you ever bothered to look at his career stats? Here take a look.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomeji01.shtml

Loko at Thomes' prime seasons. What do you see? You see OBPs like .450, .445, .438. Such high OBPs are incredible valuable to a team. Thome, a very slow runner, has scored over 100 runs in a season eight times plus a 97 run season and a 92 run season.

He had a lot of walks big deal that does not make you a great hitter. 7 times he has had over 100 walks and his batting average has been below 300.His has never had a season when he had more walks then strikeouts. Frank Thomas, Johnny Damon and Jason Giambi all have had a least 1 season where they had more walks then strikeouts. His OBP are high because he has a lot of walks which make him look like a better hitter then he really is.

[Cowtipper]

He had a lot of walks big deal that does not make you a great hitter. 7 times he has had over 100 walks and his batting average has been below 300.His has never had a season when he had more walks then strikeouts. Frank Thomas, Johnny Damon and Jason Giambi all have had a least 1 season where they had more walks then strikeouts. His OBP are high because he has a lot of walks which make him look like a better hitter then he really is.
But...he is a great hitter. At least according to the pitchers that face him. He's been intentionally walked 152 times in his career, which ranks him ninth on the active list. Who are the eight players ahead of him and the eight hitters behind him on the list?

1. Barry Bonds* (43) 688 L
2. Ken Griffey* (38) 243 L
3. Vladimir Guerrero (32) 233 R
4. Carlos Delgado* (36) 176 L
5. Manny Ramirez (36) 172 R
6. Todd Helton* (34) 170 L
7. Frank Thomas (40) 168 R
8. Sammy Sosa (39) 154 R
9. Jim Thome* (37) 152 L
10. Luis Gonzalez* (40) 150 L
11. Mike Piazza (39) 146 R
12. Albert Pujols (28) 142 R
13. Chipper Jones# (36) 130 B
14. Gary Sheffield (39) 124 R
Ichiro Suzuki* (34) 124 L
16. Lance Berkman# (32) 110 B
Brian Giles* (37)

Thome's among some pretty big names their too. Intentional walks often signify that a player is a feared hitter, and clearly, a feared hitter is normally a great one, according to this list.

[jalbright]

He had a lot of walks big deal that does not make you a great hitter. 7 times he has had over 100 walks and his batting average has been below 300.His has never had a season when he had more walks then strikeouts. Frank Thomas, Johnny Damon and Jason Giambi all have had a least 1 season where they had more walks then strikeouts. His OBP are high because he has a lot of walks which make him look like a better hitter then he really is.

Hello......drawing walks is a skill which helps teams win ballgames! Understand that basic point and you will have vastly improved your knowledge of the game.

[Bravesfan1984]

But...he is a great hitter. At least according to the pitchers that face him. He's been intentionally walked 152 times in his career, which ranks him ninth on the active list. Who are the eight players ahead of him and the eight hitters behind him on the list?

1. Barry Bonds* (43) 688 L
2. Ken Griffey* (38) 243 L
3. Vladimir Guerrero (32) 233 R
4. Carlos Delgado* (36) 176 L
5. Manny Ramirez (36) 172 R
6. Todd Helton* (34) 170 L
7. Frank Thomas (40) 168 R
8. Sammy Sosa (39) 154 R
9. Jim Thome* (37) 152 L
10. Luis Gonzalez* (40) 150 L
11. Mike Piazza (39) 146 R
12. Albert Pujols (28) 142 R
13. Chipper Jones# (36) 130 B
14. Gary Sheffield (39) 124 R
Ichiro Suzuki* (34) 124 L
16. Lance Berkman# (32) 110 B
Brian Giles* (37)

Thome's among some pretty big names their too. Intentional walks often signify that a player is a feared hitter, and clearly, a feared hitter is normally a great one, according to this list.


He gets intentiionally walked alot because he hits a lot of home runs and pitchers do not want to give up a lot of home runs. Delgado and Helton who are probably not HOFers are in front of him so not everyone ahead is HOF worthy. I would also say that some of the players behind him Jones, Pujols.Piazza were better hitter then he was.

[henrich]

Sorry no tone intended at all, just trying for brevity. I meant 27th all-time currently since 1876 to the present. That's over 130 years of history and currently there are 19 1B in the Hall of Fame with some slam dunks coming in the near future. I believe Thome to be one of them.

My 27 in order...Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Thomas, F., Anson, Mize, Palmeiro, Perez, Cepeda, Banks (SS too, I know), Killebrew, Bagwell, Garvey, Greenberg, McGriff, Carew, Sisler, Hodges, McCovey, Brouthers, McGwire, Connor, Hernandez K., Beckley, Galarraga, Martinez T., Thome (27th), and then Bill Terry. This isn't including George Kelly or Frank Chance who are in the Hall but in my opinion are undeserving.

This year, Thome already passed Terry who is in the Hall and he will catch Tino Martinez and Andres Galarraga and may reach 24th with Jake Beckley.

Of those listed not in are Frank Thomas (active, and a shoe-in), Palmeiro (steroids issues), Bagwell (I think another lock), Garvey (gross injustice now in the hands of the veterans committee), McGriff (should be a lock), Hodges (a major oversight one of 3 huge blunders by the writers in the eras before the DH and free agency), McGwire (see Palmeiro), Hernandez (fringe HOF), Galarraga (fringe HOF), Martinez T. (fringe HOF), and then we have Thome and he still has more balls to crush before his days are done. Of those 27, 17 are in the HOF, 3 will be when eligible, 2 would be if it weren't for steroids controversy. Two oversights in Garvey and Hodges, and that leaves Thome in the company of Galarraga and Martinez after this season. Those aren't definites, but Thome's time isn't done, therefore with a predicted pattern of performance over the next 3 seasons Thome's in. If there is a catastrophic injury then the Hall would consider that as well. Think of Kirby Puckett here or Ralph Kiner.

[STLCards2]

I think Thome is sitting somewhere between #11-#15 all-time at firstbase now. I am not including Carew or Banks either.

[Brad Harris]

Sorry no tone intended at all, just trying for brevity. I meant 27th all-time currently since 1876 to the present. That's over 130 years of history and currently there are 19 1B in the Hall of Fame with some slam dunks coming in the near future. I believe Thome to be one of them.

My 27 in order...Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Thomas, F., Anson, Mize, Palmeiro, Perez, Cepeda, Banks (SS too, I know), Killebrew, Bagwell, Garvey, Greenberg, McGriff, Carew, Sisler, Hodges, McCovey, Brouthers, McGwire, Connor, Hernandez K., Beckley, Galarraga, Martinez T., Thome (27th), and then Bill Terry. This isn't including George Kelly or Frank Chance who are in the Hall but in my opinion are undeserving.

This year, Thome already passed Terry who is in the Hall and he will catch Tino Martinez and Andres Galarraga and may reach 24th with Jake Beckley.

Of those listed not in are Frank Thomas (active, and a shoe-in), Palmeiro (steroids issues), Bagwell (I think another lock), Garvey (gross injustice now in the hands of the veterans committee), McGriff (should be a lock), Hodges (a major oversight one of 3 huge blunders by the writers in the eras before the DH and free agency), McGwire (see Palmeiro), Hernandez (fringe HOF), Galarraga (fringe HOF), Martinez T. (fringe HOF), and then we have Thome and he still has more balls to crush before his days are done. Of those 27, 17 are in the HOF, 3 will be when eligible, 2 would be if it weren't for steroids controversy. Two oversights in Garvey and Hodges, and that leaves Thome in the company of Galarraga and Martinez after this season. Those aren't definites, but Thome's time isn't done, therefore with a predicted pattern of performance over the next 3 seasons Thome's in. If there is a catastrophic injury then the Hall would consider that as well. Think of Kirby Puckett here or Ralph Kiner.

I love where this line of thinking is going, generally speaking, but I'm just salivating at the opportunity to play whack-a-mole with anyone who has the cajones to call Tino Martinez a "fringe" Hall-of-Famer. Sadly, it's 1am and I've already wasted too much time tonight sparring with a maroon in the McGwire thread. (Not implying that you're mentally challenged like our little friend who doesn't quite understand that drawing walks is positive asset for a hitter.)

I look forward to tossing around this list a little with you. Some very interesting names. You appear to place a heavy value on a player's career (as opposed to peak) value. I don't see many people rank Tony Perez better than Jeff Bagwell, Orlando Cepeda better than Hank Greenberg, or Steve Garvey and Gil Hodges better than Willie McCovey. Very interesting list. How did you arrive at it?

Personally, I have Thome in my top 20. And I agree with you, he is worthy.

[Bravesfan1984]

Hello......drawing walks is a skill which helps teams win ballgames! Understand that basic point and you will have vastly improved your knowledge of the game.

Walks barely ever win games. Hits win more often then not. You do not hear about walks leading to game winning runs where game running hits happen all the time. You may have a leadoff walk that leads to the game winning run but to get that walk in you need to hit. SUre walking is important but hits have more value.

[Brad Harris]

Every walk is a plate appearance where a 70% or greater chance of making an out has been removed. Batters don't trade hits for walks, they trade outs for them.

[1905 Giants]

Walks barely ever win games. Hits win more often then not. You do not hear about walks leading to game winning runs where game running hits happen all the time. You may have a leadoff walk that leads to the game winning run but to get that walk in you need to hit. SUre walking is important but hits have more value.

Barely ever wins games? In and of themselves maybe (i.e. walking in the winning run). As for your example, you need the hit to drive in the run, but you need the walk to create the runner, so you can take it either way.

Post - Ted Williams and Willie McCovey

[Bravesfan1984]

[QUOTE=1905 Giants;1244414]Barely ever wins games? In and of themselves maybe (i.e. walking in the winning run). As for your example, you need the hit to drive in the run, but you need the walk to create the runner, so you can take it either way.

Sure walks lead to runs but hits cause a greater amount of chance that you get a run in since hits consists of getting past first. Thome has not had a lot of hits over his career which will hurt him more then the fact that he has a lot of walks. You do know that walks also depend on the pitchers. A lot of walks are caused by hit by pitches and wild pitchers so they are not just the hitters that cause it.

[henrich]

The formula for me took me a long time to come up with, the better part of 3 years with research, which I know by reading these sites that I'm in good company. I think I've found a home to help solidify my stance as well as to grow in other areas. This playground of information is where dialogue can help those who are gut feeling guys to come up with their own formula for rating players or they can find a person's particular formula and adopt it.

Since you asked, and not to stump, the hitting formula for what I call the H-factor is Total Bases+Runs Scored+RBI's+(AVEx5)+SB for the career stats. I add league leading stats if you were in the top 10 in any of the following categories for a slice of dominance within the era (HR, RBI, SB, AVE). If you were in 10th place that year in HR then you would receive 10 points, 9th place 20 points, 1st place 100 points etc. That way if you led the league with 12 home runs or 60 it would count the same taking away some of the problems with smaller ballparks, larger ballparks, pitching mound/distance, different kind of ball etc. MVP voting is the same except if you win the MVP you get 500 points, and 2nd place is equal to 90 points on down to the 10 points for 10th place in voting. Also, leadership should count for something so world series wins equals 500 points, league championships equal 250 points, playoffs of any kind equals 100 points. Defense was only measured by number of gold gloves won x 100. This number without the bonuses of playoffs and leading the league should be around 8000. With bonuses should be around 10,000 points if worthy of discussion for a player's merits for the hall of fame. The era before free agency this formula works very well, with everyone receiving 10,000 or more points in the H-Factor being in the Hall of Fame with the exceptions of Gil Hodges, Joe Gordon, Graig Nettles and Willie Davis. See www.baseball-hall-of-fame.com for the complete list of stats for anyone over 4000 at bats (it's a little less than 1000 names all of which I'm sure you've heard of). That's 14 statistical measures which quantifies everyone with one number to compare by eras/position. Have fun if you wish to download the stats and sort them in which ever way you would like.

[jalbright]

The formula for me took me a long time to come up with, the better part of 3 years with research, which I know by reading these sites that I'm in good company. I think I've found a home to help solidify my stance as well as to grow in other areas. This playground of information is where dialogue can help those who are gut feeling guys to come up with their own formula for rating players or they can find a person's particular formula and adopt it.

Since you asked, and not to stump, the hitting formula for what I call the H-factor is Total Bases+Runs Scored+RBI's+(AVEx5)+SB for the career stats. I add league leading stats if you were in the top 10 in any of the following categories for a slice of dominance within the era (HR, RBI, SB, AVE). If you were in 10th place that year in HR then you would receive 10 points, 9th place 20 points, 1st place 100 points etc. That way if you led the league with 12 home runs or 60 it would count the same taking away some of the problems with smaller ballparks, larger ballparks, pitching mound/distance, different kind of ball etc. MVP voting is the same except if you win the MVP you get 500 points, and 2nd place is equal to 90 points on down to the 10 points for 10th place in voting. Also, leadership should count for something so world series wins equals 500 points, league championships equal 250 points, playoffs of any kind equals 100 points. Defense was only measured by number of gold gloves won x 100. This number without the bonuses of playoffs and leading the league should be around 8000. With bonuses should be around 10,000 points if worthy of discussion for a player's merits for the hall of fame. The era before free agency this formula works very well, with everyone receiving 10,000 or more points in the H-Factor being in the Hall of Fame with the exceptions of Gil Hodges, Joe Gordon, Graig Nettles and Willie Davis. See www.baseball-hall-of-fame.com for the complete list of stats for anyone over 4000 at bats (it's a little less than 1000 names all of which I'm sure you've heard of). That's 14 statistical measures which quantifies everyone with one number to compare by eras/position. Have fun if you wish to download the stats and sort them in which ever way you would like.

The #1 problem with this approach is the lack of adjustment for context. Was a guy doing this in the deadball era or the high octane 20's and 30's? Was he playing in a park which favors hitters or pitchers? The answers to those questions answers a great deal. Moreover, while I understand the bare-bones assessment of defense, it definitely leaves another large hole.

[jalbright]

If there's interest in discussing henrich's approach, I'd suggest we create a separate thread for that purpose.

[Brad Harris]

If there's interest in discussing henrich's approach, I'd suggest we create a separate thread for that purpose.
Please do. This ranking system is fascinating. :)

[Bravesfan1984]

[QUOTE=Honus Wagner Rules;1243455][QUOTE=Bravesfan1984;1243450]
Kent is borderline? He has more HRs than any second baseman in history, a boat load of 100 RBI seasons, and an MVP award. I guarantee you Kent will easily get inducted. Kent is AT WORST on of the top 15 greatest second baseman in major

Kent has a career OBP of 355 good not great and a career batting average of 289 also good not great. He benefited from playing with Barry Bonds which made his numbers looker better. You do know there have not been a lot of great second baseball in history compared to other postions. Being the leader in your postion in a catagory only works if you there were a lot of other great players at your position. The only other great second baseman that played during his career is craig biggio.

[STLCards2]

[QUOTE=Honus Wagner Rules;1243455][QUOTE=Bravesfan1984;1243450]
Kent is borderline? He has more HRs than any second baseman in history, a boat load of 100 RBI seasons, and an MVP award. I guarantee you Kent will easily get inducted. Kent is AT WORST on of the top 15 greatest second baseman in major

Kent has a career OBP of 355 good not great and a career batting average of 289 also good not great. He benefited from playing with Barry Bonds which made his numbers looker better. You do know there have not been a lot of great second baseball in history compared to other postions. Being the leader in your postion in a catagory only works if you there were a lot of other great players at your position. The only other great second baseman that played during his career is craig biggio.

There was a decent second baseman up in Toronto and Cleveland during Kent's time, if I am not mistaken.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Kent has a career OBP of 355 good not great and a career batting average of 289 also good not great.
Now you use OBP to argue your point? :rolleyes: Give me a break Bravesfan. You hammer on Thome because supposedly his OBP overrates him. So now you use it against, Kent. Sorry, but just won't fly here at BBF.


He benefited from playing with Barry Bonds which made his numbers looker better.
And? He still drove in all those RBI's. Isn't RBI your pet stat. I guess in the case of Kent it's not because you don't think he's a HoFer. Funny, Kent had two additional 100 RBI seasons after he left the Giants. Did Bonds help him get those 100 RBI seasons, too? In the end the HoF voters won't care about Bond's "influence". They will see the 380-390 HRs and the 1,500+ RBI. Kent has more HRs than any other second basemen ever. And how many second basemen have over 1,500 career RBI? Just two (Nap Lajoie and Rogers Hornsby). Plus, Kent's 5552 career doubles are the fourth most among second basemen.


You do know there have not been a lot of great second baseball in history compared to other positions. Being the leader in your position in a category only works if you there were a lot of other great players at your position. The only other great second baseman that played during his career is craig biggio.
And this makes Kent even more special. His power, and RBI, and HR from the second base position makes him one of the great 'run producing" second basemen in history.

I really don't see why you think Kent is borderline? He has an MVP, lots of HRs and RBI's.

[Bravesfan1984]

Now you use OBP to argue your point? :rolleyes: Give me a break Bravesfan. You hammer on Thome because supposedly his OBP overrates him. So now you use it against, Kent. Sorry, but just won't fly here at BBF.

I was saying that because people want to just use obp to show he was a great player.

And? He still drove in all those RBI's. Isn't RBI your pet stat. I guess in the case of Kent it's not because you don't think he's a HoFer. Funny, Kent had two additional 100 RBI seasons after he left the Giants. Did Bonds help him get those 100 RBI seasons, too? In the end the HoF voters won't care about Bond's "influence". They will see the 380-390 HRs and the 1,500+ RBI. Kent has more HRs than any other second basemen ever. And how many second basemen have over 1,500 career RBI? Just two (Nap Lajoie and Rogers Hornsby). Plus, Kent's 5552 career doubles are the fourth most among second basemen.

Not many because like I said before there has not been a lot of great second basemen.

And this makes Kent even more special. His power, and RBI, and HR from the second base position makes him one of the great 'run producing" second basemen in history.

Sure they are good for second basemen but conpared to the other players in the era they are not HOF numbers.

really don't see why you think Kent is borderline? He has an MVP, lots of HRs and RBI's.

Barry Bo
nds should have won that MVP. Bonds had more home runs better obp and a better slugging percentage all in less at bats. He only hit alot of homers for his position not for his era

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Barry Bo
nds should have won that MVP. Bonds had more home runs better obp and a better slugging percentage all in less at bats. He only hit alot of homers for his position not for his era

Doesn't matter if Bonds "deserved it". Kent won the 2001 MVP award. When it comes time for the HoF voters to cast their ballots do you think think they are going to think, "Well gee, Kent won the 2001 MVP but he didn't really deserve it". :rolleyes:

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Sure they are good for second basemen but conpared to the other players in the era they are not HOF numbers.
This statement pretty proves to me that you have not bothered to read much baseball history. Middle infielders get judged by a different standard compared to outfielders and first basemen when it cmes to the Hall of fame. When the HoF voters cast their votes they will NOT compare Kent to the outfielders of his era. They will compare Kent to the second baseman of his era and the historical second basemen. Do you think that Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandberg would have been inducted to the HoF if they had he same stats but were outfielders? Not a chance. If Roberto Alomar was an outfielder with the exact same stats he wouldn't come close to being inducted. either. Rogers Hornsby is probably the only second basemen who would get inducted if he were an outfielder. Second basemen get compared only to other second basemen. It's the same with shortstops, catchers, and to a lessor extent, third basemen.

[digglahhh]

Doesn't matter if Bonds "deserved it". Kent won the 2001 MVP award. When it comes time for the HoF voters to cast their ballots do you think think they are going to think, "Well gee, Kent won the 2001 MVP but he didn't really deserve it". :rolleyes:

So, when Jim Thome finishes 7th, it's indisputable that he wasn't among the best in the league - because he finished seventh.

But, when Kent wins an MVP, then we can go back and re-evaluate the merits of the cadidates, right?

I just want to make sure I have the rules down.

[Freakshow]

Kent has the 4th best careeer OPS+ among modern players who played 1000+ games at 2B and had at least 6060 PA in their career. Hall of famers are in red.

Cnt Player OPS+ PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+----+
1 Joe Morgan 132 11329 1963 1984
2 Rod Carew 131 10550 1967 1985
3 Bobby Grich 125 8220 1970 1986
4 Jeff Kent 123 9372 1992 2008
5 Joe Gordon 120 6536 1938 1950
6 Roberto Alomar 116 10400 1988 2004
7 Lou Whitaker 116 9967 1977 1995
8 Bobby Doerr 115 8028 1937 1951
9 Ryne Sandberg 114 9282 1981 1997
10 Craig Biggio 111 12503 1988 2007
11 Chuck Knoblauch 106 7385 1991 2002
12 Davey Lopes 106 7340 1972 1987
13 Ray Durham 104 8301 1995 2008
14 Willie Randolph 104 9462 1975 1992
15 Ron Hunt 104 6158 1963 1974
16 Bret Boone 101 7432 1992 2005
17 Juan Samuel 101 6664 1983 1998
18 Delino DeShields 97 6652 1990 2002
19 Steve Sax 95 7632 1981 1994
20 Tom Herr 95 6111 1979 1991
21 Luis Castillo 93 6527 1996 2008
22 Damion Easley 93 6065 1992 2008
23 Jim Gilliam 93 8321 1953 1966
24 Nellie Fox 93 10349 1947 1965
25 Red Schoendienst 93 9222 1945 1963

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So, when Jim Thome finishes 7th, it's indisputable that he wasn't among the best in the league - because he finished seventh.

But, when Kent wins an MVP, then we can go back and re-evaluate the merits of the cadidates, right?

I just want to make sure I have the rules down.

There are no set rules when it comes to the HoF voters. That's the whole point, diggs. Yes, we can all look back at the stat lines and conclude that Kent was probably not the best player in the 2000. However, by doing that you are separated yourself from the ins and outs of the season itself. There are several reasons Kent won the 2000 MVP. He got off to a hot start. He had 85 RBI in 85 games. Kent was white hot in the first half of the season. Kent was a match for Bonds in the first half.

Kent: .355/.436/.673, 23 HR, 85 RBI, 70 R
Bonds: .309/.436/.725. 28 HR, 57 RBI, 68 R

The 2000 season was the Year of the Giants. The Giant got off to a hot start and ended up with the best record in the major leagues. Kent was "seen" as the driving force. Also, historically MVP voters hate to give the award to the same player over and over. In 2000 Bonds already had three MVP awards and no one had ever won more than three up to that point. So many MVP voters picked Kent. Now that is a dumb reason to pick Kent but the voters did the same thing to Stan Musial and Mickey Mantle.

[Brad Harris]

Kent has the 4th best careeer OPS+ among modern players who played 1000+ games at 2B and had at least 6060 PA in their career. Hall of famers are in red.

Cnt Player OPS+ PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+----+
1 Joe Morgan 132 11329 1963 1984
2 Rod Carew 131 10550 1967 1985
3 Bobby Grich 125 8220 1970 1986
4 Jeff Kent 123 9372 1992 2008
5 Joe Gordon 120 6536 1938 1950
6 Roberto Alomar 116 10400 1988 2004
7 Lou Whitaker 116 9967 1977 1995
8 Bobby Doerr 115 8028 1937 1951
9 Ryne Sandberg 114 9282 1981 1997
10 Craig Biggio 111 12503 1988 2007
11 Chuck Knoblauch 106 7385 1991 2002
12 Davey Lopes 106 7340 1972 1987
13 Ray Durham 104 8301 1995 2008
14 Willie Randolph 104 9462 1975 1992
15 Ron Hunt 104 6158 1963 1974
16 Bret Boone 101 7432 1992 2005
17 Juan Samuel 101 6664 1983 1998
18 Delino DeShields 97 6652 1990 2002
19 Steve Sax 95 7632 1981 1994
20 Tom Herr 95 6111 1979 1991
21 Luis Castillo 93 6527 1996 2008
22 Damion Easley 93 6065 1992 2008
23 Jim Gilliam 93 8321 1953 1966
24 Nellie Fox 93 10349 1947 1965
25 Red Schoendienst 93 9222 1945 1963

The top ten on that list all belong in Cooperstown.

[digglahhh]

There are no set rules when it comes to the HoF voters.

HWR,

Sorry, I was piggybacking your quote in response to Bravesfan, not responding TO it. I should have quoted his original statement, looking back I can see how it was confusing.

I'm in total agreement with you; I wanted to point out the hypocrisy of Bravesfan saying that Thome's lack of MVPs is bulletproof evidence against his status as great, while Kent's selection should be taken with a grain of salt because the voters don't always get it right...

Basically, the voters get it right when they agree with Bravesfan.

[digglahhh]

Bravesfan,

I've been exceeding gracious and patient in the last few pages of this thread (something many would say is uncharacteristic of me...) in a sincere attempt to educate you on some fundamentals of statistical analysis as it relates to player performance, efficiency, and run production.

You have shown no interest in making a sincere attempt to learn. Frankly, you know comparatively little about baseball history and statistical analysis - you readily admitted you don't even know how to compute OBP. Objectively, should somebody's opinion about the merits of a given player's HOF case be taken seriously when that person doesn't even understand basic concepts like OBP?

You seem to disregard the well-articulated opinions of others in favor adherence to nebulous, undefined standards of "greatness." If you want to judge a player's candidacy by such vague and personal feelings, then that's your right, but don't expect it to resonate well in a debate, and don't expect to win many converts when pitted against contextual, empirical analysis.

Finally, a large percentage of your arguments involve circular logic.

You: Jim Thome isn't a HOFer.

Me: But, he has one of the best OBPs of his generation.

You: OBP isn't important, or it's overrated.

Me: Why?

You: Well, it's obviously flawed because it says Jim Thome is a HOFer.


The above is not a logical argument, not logical in the colloquial sense, nor in the P -> Q sense.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bravesfan,

I've been exceeding gracious and patient in the last few pages of this thread (something many would say is uncharacteristic of me...) in a sincere attempt to educate you on some fundamentals of statistical analysis as it relates to player performance, efficiency, and run production.

You have shown no interest in making a sincere attempt to learn. Frankly, you know comparatively little about baseball history and statistical analysis - you readily admitted you don't even know how to compute OBP. Objectively, should somebody's opinion about the merits of a given player's HOF case be taken seriously when that person doesn't even understand basic concepts like OBP?

You seem to disregard the well-articulated opinions of others in favor adherence to nebulous, undefined standards of "greatness." If you want to judge a player's candidacy by such vague and personal feelings, then that's your right, but don't expect it to resonate well in a debate, and don't expect to win many converts when pitted against contextual, empirical analysis.

Finally, a large percentage of your arguments involve circular logic.

You: Jim Thome isn't a HOFer.

Me: But, he has one of the best OBPs of his generation.

You: OBP isn't important, or it's overrated.

Me: Why?

You: Well, it's obviously flawed because it says Jim Thome is a HOFer.


The above is not a logical argument, not logical in the colloquial sense, nor in the P -> Q sense.
I'm having flashbacks to my college critical thinking class! :eek: The next thing I know you'll be talking about the antecedent...

[Bravesfan1984]

[QUOTE=digglahhh;1246978]Bravesfan,

I've been exceeding gracious and patient in the last few pages of this thread (something many would say is uncharacteristic of me...) in a sincere attempt to educate you on some fundamentals of statistical analysis as it relates to player performance, efficiency, and run production.

You have shown no interest in making a sincere attempt to learn. Frankly, you know comparatively little about baseball history and statistical analysis - you readily admitted you don't even know how to compute OBP. Objectively, should somebody's opinion about the merits of a given player's HOF case be taken seriously when that person doesn't even understand basic concepts like OBP?

I know little about baseball history really? Do you really know me. SO I don't know what obp is found who cares I know what it is. Keep putting me down to make yourself feel better and think that you know alot about baseball.

You seem to disregard the well-articulated opinions of others in favor adherence to nebulous, undefined standards of "greatness." If you want to judge a player's candidacy by such vague and personal feelings, then that's your right, but don't expect it to resonate well in a debate, and don't expect to win many converts when pitted against contextual, empirical analysis.

I don't disregard them I have a different standard.

Finally, a large percentage of your arguments involve circular logic.

You: Jim Thome isn't a HOFer.

Me: But, he has one of the best OBPs of his generation.

You: OBP isn't important, or it's overrated.

Me: Why?

You: Well, it's obviously flawed because it says Jim Thome is a HOFer.

I never said it is not imporant I said you can not just assume that the player with the best obp is automatically the best player. You have to look at other stats to.

\

[jalbright]

Bravesfan24 said:

I never said it is not imporant I said you can not just assume that the player with the best obp is automatically the best player. You have to look at other stats to.


Well, then, please enlighten us on what standards you actually do use. Until then, I think diggs' critique is more than reasonable. I do know this--I have no idea what standards you actually look at nor any idea how you would apply them from the discussions thus far.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I know little about baseball history really? Do you really know me. SO I don't know what obp is found who cares I know what it is. Keep putting me down to make yourself feel better and think that you know alot about baseball.
We don't know you. We can only go by what you post. You've stated that Frank Thomas is a "borderline" HoF candidate. That is, frankly, a ridicluous statement without much merit. We have a diverse group of folks here at BBF with diverse viewpoints and different ways of ranking ballplayers. Some lean heavily on first person accounts others more on stats. There are very few topics where there is general agreement. But one of those general agreements is that Frank Thomas is a no doubts HoFer. Thomas was dominant for over a decade, won two MVP awards and finished high in several other seasons. He does have his faults; bad defense, playing DH, and the injuries. But these things keep him from being the greatest first baseman ever, equal to Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx and not to be being a "borderline" HoFer. One of you main points was that Thomas doesn't have 3,000 hits nor 500 HRs. Thomas hit his 500th HR over a year ago. There is no excuse for not knowing that. It's not like we are talking about some player that played 90 years ago. Thomas is still active and his 500th HR was news.



I don't disregard them I have a different standard.

And what standard is that? You haven't really detailed what your HoF standard are.

[jalbright]

Just to amplify what I said before, BravesFan24: judging from your posts, which is all I have to go on, it seems at least plausible that you simply decide you like (or don't like) a candidate, and that determines whether they're great or not. I suggest the rest of us wait for him to enlighten us. If he's not willing to do so, perhaps he's pulling our legs for his enjoyment--and if so, I suggest denying him his jollies. Let's cooperate in making this put up or shut up time.

[Brad Harris]

But how else could we have got 340 posts on Jim Thome? :laugh

[Cowtipper]

Jim Thome's rankings among first basemen:

Games: 24th
At-Bats: 37th
Runs: 10th
Hits: 40th
2B: 33rd
3B: 146th
HR: 4th
RBI: 11th
BB: 1st
IBB: 11th
K: 1st
SB: 191st
BA: 75th
OBP: 9th
SLG: 7th
OPS: 7th
OPS+: 9th
ISO: 6th

AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ and ISO are all among first basemen with at least 4,000 plate appearances.

Thome ranks high on a lot of the important categories. He is very much a Hall of Famer.

[Bravesfan1984]

Just to amplify what I said before, BravesFan24: judging from your posts, which is all I have to go on, it seems at least plausible that you simply decide you like (or don't like) a candidate, and that determines whether they're great or not. I suggest the rest of us wait for him to enlighten us. If he's not willing to do so, perhaps he's pulling our legs for his enjoyment--and if so, I suggest denying him his jollies. Let's cooperate in making this put up or shut up time.

When did I ever say I did not like Thome? I have been posting stats for my arguments so it is not just like I am making stuff up. It is funny how this thread has turned into a bashing me thread but I guess people on here can not be civil. I am not the only one on here who does not think he is a Hall of Famer.

[Bravesfan1984]

[QUOTE=Cowtipper;1247702]Jim Thome's rankings among first basemen:

Games: 24th
At-Bats: 37th
Runs: 10th
Hits: 40th
2B: 33rd
3B: 146th
HR: 4th
RBI: 11th
BB: 1st
IBB: 11th
K: 1st
SB: 191st
BA: 75th
OBP: 9th
SLG: 7th
OPS: 7th
OPS+: 9th
ISO: 6th

AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ and ISO are all among first basemen with at least 4,000 plate appearances.

Sure he is great in those catagories but he is not so good in others. like strikeouts, batting average, stolen bases, hits Thome has finished in the top ten in runs only 3 times and his best finish was 5th. Thome career best for total bases 331 ranks 387th. Thome is a poor base runner with few doubles or triples.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

[QUOTE=Cowtipper;1247702]Jim Thome's rankings among first basemen:

Games: 24th
At-Bats: 37th
Runs: 10th
Hits: 40th
2B: 33rd
3B: 146th
HR: 4th
RBI: 11th
BB: 1st
IBB: 11th
K: 1st
SB: 191st
BA: 75th
OBP: 9th
SLG: 7th
OPS: 7th
OPS+: 9th
ISO: 6th

AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ and ISO are all among first basemen with at least 4,000 plate appearances.

Sure he is great in those catagories but he is not so good in others. like strikeouts, batting average, stolen bases, hits Thome has finished in the top ten in runs only 3 times and his best finish was 5th. Thome career best for total bases 331 ranks 387th. Thome is a poor base runner with few doubles or triples.Since we does anyone use SB to rate first basemen? Were Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey, Mize, good base stealers? Also, TB is a very flawed stats because it doesn't take into account walks. Amd triples please don't get me started. No one hits triples in today's game.

[BlueJayTime]

There is no doubt Thome gets in. He will have 550+ homers once he is done and he has a great on base percentage every year, pretty much a shoe in.

[Brad Harris]

Sure he is great in those catagories but he is not so good in others. like strikeouts, batting average, stolen bases, hits Thome has finished in the top ten in runs only 3 times and his best finish was 5th. Thome career best for total bases 331 ranks 387th. Thome is a poor base runner with few doubles or triples.

In your mind, does a Hall-of-Famer have to be great at every facet of the game? Thome is a slugging first basemen. Hardly any of those guys are also great baserunners. The man has 500 home runs. Must he also have 500 stolen bases to be a great player? And I have no idea what you mean by that last sentence unless you're trying to say that a lack of doubles and triples are not the sign of a "poor base runner"? For the record, Thome will hit his 400th double before the end of the season. I'd hardly call that a "few."

I guess I don't understand what your standard for the Hall of Fame is. How many existing Hall-of-Famers do you believe really ought to be there? Where/how do you draw the line?

[jalbright]

When did I ever say I did not like Thome? I have been posting stats for my arguments so it is not just like I am making stuff up. It is funny how this thread has turned into a bashing me thread but I guess people on here can not be civil. I am not the only one on here who does not think he is a Hall of Famer.

If you want to explain why Thome isn't a great, you could do a far better job of it. What I see is almost exclusively a rejection of the arguments of the other side with barely a hint of what you think makes a player great. I'm asking you to do that to demonstrate you are legitimately interested in discussion rather than diatribes. It's a lot easier to snipe at others than to put one's own beliefs up for examination and possible criticism. If you have the intestinal fortitude to rise to that challenge, we can talk about your standards. If you don't, we have ample reason to wonder if you are truly interested in discussion. Whichever way you choose will reveal a lot about you.

[Cowtipper]

[QUOTE=Cowtipper;1247702]Jim Thome's rankings among first basemen:

Games: 24th
At-Bats: 37th
Runs: 10th
Hits: 40th
2B: 33rd
3B: 146th
HR: 4th
RBI: 11th
BB: 1st
IBB: 11th
K: 1st
SB: 191st
BA: 75th
OBP: 9th
SLG: 7th
OPS: 7th
OPS+: 9th
ISO: 6th

AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ and ISO are all among first basemen with at least 4,000 plate appearances.

Sure he is great in those catagories but he is not so good in others. like strikeouts, batting average, stolen bases, hits Thome has finished in the top ten in runs only 3 times and his best finish was 5th. Thome career best for total bases 331 ranks 387th. Thome is a poor base runner with few doubles or triples.
Batting average is a very deceiving statistic, as proven here. First, it doesn't really mean anything if all you can hit is singles - because singles = walks basically, in that they get you to the same base when you get them. And, being on first, you are that much farther away from home, and you have a lesser chance to score.

Second, batting average determines only how often you hit the ball to get on base. Yeah, Thome is 75th in that category - not too great. But, OBP determines how often you get on base overall, and Thome is ninth among first basemen in that category - which means he gets on base a heck of a lot. The more a guy gets on base, the more he can score, and so forth.

And...stolen bases are now a way to judge first basemen? Next you're going to be using them to judge catchers and pitchers too.

I don't like your strikeouts argument. Sure, Jim Thome leads all first basemen in strikeouts and is third all time in that category. But you know what? Reggie Jackson struck out more than he did, as did Sammy Sosa. Sosa was one of the best power hitters of our era, whose legacy is tainted by the steroid cloud. Did you know that from 1926 until 1963 Babe Ruth held the record for most career strikeouts? Does that mean he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame because he struck out too much? And guess who broke the Babe's record? Mickey Mantle. He doesn't deserve to be in the Hall either? And Willie Stargell broke the Mick's record - so clearly he shouldn't be in the Hall because he struck out too much. Right?

[Bravesfan1984]

[QUOTE=Bravesfan1984;1247735]
Batting average is a very deceiving statistic, as proven here. First, it doesn't really mean anything if all you can hit is singles - because singles = walks basically, in that they get you to the same base when you get them. And, being on first, you are that much farther away from home, and you have a lesser chance to score.

Second, batting average determines only how often you hit the ball to get on base. Yeah, Thome is 75th in that category - not too great. But, OBP determines how often you get on base overall, and Thome is ninth among first basemen in that category - which means he gets on base a heck of a lot. The more a guy gets on base, the more he can score, and so forth.

The only reasoin his obp is high is he walks so much and hits singles. If you look at his stats he has never hit a lot of doubles or triples.

And...stolen bases are now a way to judge first basemen? Next you're going to be using them to judge catchers and pitchers too.

They are a stat arn't they are do you just have to use certain stats for certain positions. You can not just throw a stat out because of his postion.

I don't like your strikeouts argument. Sure, Jim Thome leads all first basemen in strikeouts and is third all time in that category. But you know what? Reggie Jackson struck out more than he did, as did Sammy Sosa. Sosa was one of the best power hitters of our era, whose legacy is tainted by the steroid cloud. Did you know that from 1926 until 1963 Babe Ruth held the record for most career strikeouts? Does that mean he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame because he struck out too much? And guess who broke the Babe's record? Mickey Mantle. He doesn't deserve to be in the Hall either? And Willie Stargell broke the Mick's record - so clearly he shouldn't be in the Hall because he struck out too much. Right?

These players have other things they did great though that counterbalances there high strikouts. Reggie Jackson has over 500 home runs and an mvp award. Sosa has hit 60 home runs in a season 3 times has over 600 career home runs and a mvp. What else does Thome do great hits no, doubles or triples no. He only hit home runs that was all he was good at htting. If THome has 2,400 or 2500 hits I can see strikeouts not being a factor but he does not have a lot of career hits. Carlos Delgado and Jason Giambi have almost the same amount of hits and they have played less seasons.

[Brad Harris]

[QUOTE=Cowtipper;1248538]

These players have other things they did great though that counterbalances there high strikouts. Reggie Jackson has over 500 home runs and an mvp award. Sosa has hit 60 home runs in a season 3 times has over 600 career home runs and a mvp. What else does Thome do great hits no, doubles or triples no. He only hit home runs that was all he was good at htting. If THome has 2,400 or 2500 hits I can see strikeouts not being a factor but he does not have a lot of career hits. Carlos Delgado and Jason Giambi have almost the same amount of hits and they have played less seasons.

Well my god...let's crucify the dumb schmuck. Nevermind that you're saying a man who's hit nearly 400 doubles in his career can't hit doubles. Nevermind that virtually no post-WWII player has been "great" at hitting triples. Nevermind that strikeouts have been a part of the modern game for decades and that a huge percentage of full-time players whiff 100+ times a year. Nevermind that Thome was probably the best player in his league one year (whether he won the award or not) and has over 500 home runs. Nevermind that career hits correlates to helping your team win far less than career home runs do. Gee golly whilakers...he only hit home runs? Well paint my little butt blue and call me a smurf, I wish all I'd ever hit were home runs. I'd have got a friggin college scholarship with a crappy resume like Thome's.

[jalbright]

I'm going to keep repeating the call to make BravesFan24 tell us his standards before we react any more to what he's said. We have ample reason to question his good faith--let him prove us wrong and if he does, go from there. Any other course of action means we may well continue feeding a troll. If he's not a troll, he should have no problem meeting this simple request.

[Bravesfan1984]

In your mind, does a Hall-of-Famer have to be great at every facet of the game? Thome is a slugging first basemen. Hardly any of those guys are also great baserunners. The man has 500 home runs. Must he also have 500 stolen bases to be a great player? And I have no idea what you mean by that last sentence unless you're trying to say that a lack of doubles and triples are not the sign of a "poor base runner"? For the record, Thome will hit his 400th double before the end of the season. I'd hardly call that a "few."

I guess I don't understand what your standard for the Hall of Fame is. How many existing Hall-of-Famers do you believe really ought to be there? Where/how do you draw the line?

No you do not have to be great at more then one area. I would expect though they are excellent in at least 2 or 3. Besides hitting home runs was was Thome great at? So what he had 500 home runs he was mainly a HOme Run hitter he should have 500 home runs. A great player has to be great at top 5 players at least 2-5 years and Thome was not.

[jalbright]

No you do not have to be great at more then one area. I would expect though they are excellent in at least 2 or 3. Besides hitting home runs was was Thome great at? So what he had 500 home runs he was mainly a HOme Run hitter he should have 500 home runs. A great player has to be great at top 5 players at least 2-5 years and Thome was not.

So, this begs a question: what makes a player one of the top 5? Please be specific. Take your time.

One other thing: how big a Hall do you espouse? It sure seems to be well short of the 225+ we currently have, using the standard set out above. In other words, that ship has already sailed and ain't comin' back.

[digglahhh]

So, this begs a question: what makes a player one of the top 5? Please be specific. Take your time.

One other thing: how big a Hall do you espouse?

I tried asking this question earlier, seems like an important thing to establish for somebody arguing against so many viable candidates.

That also brings up the question of whether BravesFan is responding in relation to whether a player is deserving based upon what he THINKS the standards for HOF SHOULD be vs. the general standards the existing HOF has established.

One can say, I don't think players like Jim Thome should be in the HOF, but caveat that by also saying that his case is as strong as many other guys who have been elected. Personally, I don't much point in debating on the basis of a personal idea of a utopian HOF, as opposed to the one that actually exists.

I'm also really hung up on why Bravesfan keeps saying all Thome does is hit homers (even though that statement is factually inaccurate), as if it is a bad thing. That's like me fanning out a spread of hundred dollar bills, and you asking me, "but how many quarters do you have?" The homer is single most productive thing any player can do, the fact that Thome does that a lot is a very, very good thing.

Complaining that Jim Thome doesn't steal bases is like complaining that Stephen Hawking doesn't know the lyrics to, Ice Ice Baby.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I tried asking this question earlier, seems like an important thing to establish for somebody arguing against so many viable candidates.
Frank Thomas a "borderline" HoFer?! :faint:


That also brings up the question of whether BravesFan is responding in relation to whether a player is deserving based upon what he THINKS the standards for HOF SHOULD be vs. the general standards the existing HOF has established.
I believe this is the case.


One can say, I don't think players like Jim Thome should be in the HOF, but caveat that by also saying that his case is as strong as many other guys who have been elected. Personally, I don't much point in debating on the basis of a personal idea of a utopian HOF, as opposed to the one that actually exists.
Yes, if we can't agree on an established common to debate t hen the debate will go nowhere.


I'm also really hung up on why Bravesfan keeps saying all Thome does is hit homers (even though that statement is factually inaccurate), as if it is a bad thing. That's like me fanning out a spread of hundred dollar bills, and you asking me, "but how many quarters do you have?" The homer is single most productive thing any player can do, the fact that Thome does that a lot is a very, very good thing.
Thome hits HRs, draws a huge number of walks and, in his best seasons hit for very good BAs.


Complaining that Jim Thome doesn't steal bases is like complaining that Stephen Hawking doesn't know the lyrics to, Ice Ice Baby.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

On the other hand Hawking can play some mean poker!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O31qRH3O6c

[Bravesfan1984]

So, this begs a question: what makes a player one of the top 5? Please be specific. Take your time.

One other thing: how big a Hall do you espouse? It sure seems to be well short of the 225+ we currently have, using the standard set out above. In other words, that ship has already sailed and ain't comin' back.

being in mvp top 5 2-5 times at least and career stats compared to other players at your position. I also use the do this person feel like a Hall of Famer

[Cowtipper]

The only reasoin his obp is high is he walks so much and hits singles. If you look at his stats he has never hit a lot of doubles or triples.



Umm...no. All he does is walk and hit singles? So those 938 career extra base hits of his (which, by the way, are eighth most among all first basemen, 10th most among active players, and 47th most all time, ahead of first basemen like Willie McCovey, Mark McGwire and Hank Greenberg) don't mean anything, and all he does is walk and hit singles? I see. So 400 doubles isn't a lot? And first basemen are now supposed to be triples hitters?

They are a stat arn't they are do you just have to use certain stats for certain positions. You can not just throw a stat out because of his postion.
And saves are a stat aren't they? Are we now supposed to judge all pitchers by that stat?

You don't throw stats out because of the position, but some positions are more oriented to certain stats than others. For example, first base is normally a "power position," whereas second base historically isn't.


These players have other things they did great though that counterbalances there high strikouts. Reggie Jackson has over 500 home runs and an mvp award. Sosa has hit 60 home runs in a season 3 times has over 600 career home runs and a mvp. What else does Thome do great hits no, doubles or triples no. He only hit home runs that was all he was good at htting. If THome has 2,400 or 2500 hits I can see strikeouts not being a factor but he does not have a lot of career hits. Carlos Delgado and Jason Giambi have almost the same amount of hits and they have played less seasons.

Yeah, and Jim Thome has done some pretty good stuff to counterbalance his strikeout total. Like, say, hit 500 home runs. And drive in over 100 runs nine times. And have an OPS+ of 149 (good for fifth among active players, and 36th all time, by the way). And lead all active first basemen (that is, players who played the majority of their career at that position) in the majority of major categories (he's third in triples and fifth in steals, which just goes to show that FIRST BASE IS NOT A SPEEDY POSITION - FAST PLAYERS DON'T PLAY AT FIRST, WHICH MEANS THEY DON'T HIT A LOT OF TRIPLES AND STEAL A LOT OF BASES.).

And your argument that Delgado and Giambi have almost the same amount of hits and that they have played less seasons doesn't hold any water - Thome has less hits because he walks more than them. And don't tell me that proves your argument, that walks are bad - it doesn't. Thome's slugging percentage is higher than both of theirs, which means he still gets more of the "better" types of hits than either of them.

[Cowtipper]

being in mvp top 5 2-5 times at least and career stats compared to other players at your position. I also use the do this person feel like a Hall of Famer

So, by that logic, Tony Gwynn shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? He did after all only finish in the top five in MVP voting once.

And you say you want to compare stats to other players at the position - that's what has been happening here, and more and more we are proving that Thome is ranking up there with Hall of Fame calibre players.

[jalbright]

This in a nutshell summarizes how serious BravesFan24 is in discussing the issues:

So, this begs a question: what makes a player one of the top 5? Please be specific. Take your time.

One other thing: how big a Hall do you espouse? It sure seems to be well short of the 225+ we currently have, using the standard set out above. In other words, that ship has already sailed and ain't comin' back.

His reply?
being in mvp top 5 2-5 times at least and career stats compared to other players at your position. I also use the do this person feel like a Hall of Famer

Tells me all I need to know. We've got somebody who just wants to act like a troll, folks! Please don't feed trolls--it only encourages them to stick around.

[Brad Harris]

I also use the do this person feel like a Hall of Famer
Which is fine when you're 14, your trips to the ballpark consist of turning on your Nintendo, and your baseball card collection is where you draw your statistics from.

[Cougar]

I totally learned about statistics from baseball cards! Around that time I start punching them into spreadsheets (remember VisiCalc, anyone?) and normalizing seasons for 600 AB.

Most kids loved their baseball cards for the front -- I loved the backs too.

I guess that explains how I ended up posting here.

[Bravesfan1984]

So, by that logic, Tony Gwynn shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? He did after all only finish in the top five in MVP voting once.

And you say you want to compare stats to other players at the position - that's what has been happening here, and more and more we are proving that Thome is ranking up there with Hall of Fame calibre players.

No Tony Gweyn was basically a singles hitter who played long enough to get 3000 hits. He did not walk alot or hit a lot of home runs. IF you just put people in who have been tin top 5 a couple times a year then you are going to have huge amounts of player in the HOF you are setting the bar low.

[Bravesfan1984]

Which is fine when you're 14, your trips to the ballpark consist of turning on your Nintendo, and your baseball card collection is where you draw your statistics from.

So what do you just stats. Stats can be decieving on how good or bad a player was.

[Cowtipper]

No Tony Gweyn was basically a singles hitter who played long enough to get 3000 hits. He did not walk alot or hit a lot of home runs. IF you just put people in who have been tin top 5 a couple times a year then you are going to have huge amounts of player in the HOF you are setting the bar low.

So Tony Gwynn shouldn't in the Hall of Fame? Who else shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, according to your standards?

[Senor Octobre]

I think we're being baited here gents... he's had his fun, I'm just going to ignore him from here on out.

[jjpm74]

Please do, guys. This guy either doesn't get it or is just here to push buttons. Either way, this thread and a few other similar threads left the original topics many posts ago and have been pushing legitimate projects and topics right off the page.

[Cougar]

Just for the record, I called "false flag" two weeks ago.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1234563&postcount=66

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So what do you just stats. Stats can be decieving on how good or bad a player was.

Without stats it would be impossible to determine how good a player is .

[Cougar]

Without stats it would be impossible to determine how good a player is .

More to the point, if we didn't have the statistics we have, people would invent new ones.

[Bravesfan1984]

More to the point, if we didn't have the statistics we have, people would invent new ones.

I am not saying that they are not important what I am saying is sometimes stats can make a player look better then they really are like Thome and 500 home runs. No one thought of him as a HOFer until he hit 500 home runs.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I am not saying that they are not important what I am saying is sometimes stats can make a player look better then they really are like Thome and 500 home runs.

And how do you know stats make Thome better than he is? Merely asserting doesn't mean it's true. Thome offers more t han just 500 HRs. He offers a an above average batting average, huge number of walks, a high OBP and slugging percentage.


No one thought of him as a HOFer until he hit 500 home runs.
That's not true. It's not like at 499 no one ever thought of Thome as a HoFer then, presto, at 500 HRs he's a legit HoFer.

[Bravesfan1984]

And how do you know stats make Thome better than he is? Merely asserting doesn't mean it's true. Thome offers more t han just 500 HRs. He offers a an above average batting average, huge number of walks, a high OBP and slugging percentage.

It is actually average to below average mos greatt players these days are at least posting 290 batting averages

That's not true. It's not like at 499 no one ever thought of Thome as a HoFer then, presto, at 500 HRs he's a legit HoFer.

Really who? I have never heard anyone mention him as a HOF until he hit 500 home runs

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Thome's BA have been above the league average. He has a .280 BA duing which time the league average has been .272. So that makes Thome above average.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Really who? I have never heard anyone mention him as a HOF until he hit 500 home runs
Are you serious? This thread was started in January 2005, two years and nine months before Thome hit his 500th HR. When thome hit his 500th HR this thread already had 109 posts. And if you look at the poll it's 82-22 in favor of Thome's HoF induction. You ask who? These 82 BBF members who.

1905 Giants, 538280, abolishthedh, Afterglow, baseball junkie, BlueJayTime, bob, BoofBonser26, brett, BSmile, cavalier1968, cbenson5, Charger567, ChicagoStateCougars, Chickazoola, Classic, closer28, Cougar, Cowtipper, CROM, D3SBP, DaClyde, Dalkowski110, DaveKingman, dgarza, dl4060, Dogdaze, duckydps, Erik Bedard, footfoot99, Freakshow, Fuzzy Bear, go_royals, Great One, henrich, Honus Wagner Rules, honus14, jjpm74, John Shoemaker, KCGHOST, KevinWI, Knick9, LGehrigFan, lollar, Los Bravos, Manny = Foxx, MyDogSparty, NewYork NewYork, NineWorldSeries, nyykan_t, OleMissCub, partydude1377, Paul Wendt, penneyAA, Pesky, philipthegreat, philkid3, Pine Tar, PleaseWinAWorldSeriesCubs, psbaseballfan27, ReignInBlood, rsuriyop, runningshoes, Senor Octobre, sgrosm2, SixFourThree, Skin & Bones, Sockeye, Solair Wright, steelcurtain76, Steve Mac, steveironcity, Texas Rangers, The Commissioner, TheKingofKings, TheSlaff, tony67, UTforever22, wardawg, Wee Willie, Westlake, zemtech

[Bravesfan1984]

Thome's BA have been above the league average. He has a .280 BA duing which time the league average has been .272. So that makes Thome above average.

Here are some non-HoFers(at least not to this date) who have higher career BA

Johnny Damon
Julio Franco
Jim Edmonds
Larry Walker
Bernie Willams
Mark Grace
John Olerud
Gary Sheffield
Paul O Neil

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Here are some non-HoFers(at least not to this date) who have higher career BA

Johnny Damon
Julio Franco
Jim Edmonds
Larry Walker
Bernie Willams
Mark Grace
John Olerud
Gary Sheffield
Paul O Neil

Ok and? Thome has more HRs and walks than all of those players. Thomas has a higher OBP and slugging percentage than all of those players. You don't seem to realize that a player can be a great player with a average-good but not great batting average. When I look at a hitter BA is way down the line for me. I look at slugging% and OBP first. Now I look at BA to see if its not too low. But Thome is at .280 for his career plus he hit over .300 several times in his career so BA is not some millstone for Thome.

[Bravesfan1984]

Ok and? Thome has more HRs and walks than all of those players. Thomas has a higher OBP and slugging percentage than all of those players. You don't seem to realize that a player can be a great player with a average-good but not great batting average. When I look at a hitter BA is way down the line for me. I look at slugging% and OBP first. Now I look at BA to see if its not too low. But Thome is at .280 for his career plus he hit over .300 several times in his career so BA is not some millstone for Thome.

So is Ba important or not? You seem to keep contradicting yourself about. No they can't be great because BA is a good indicator of how good a player is along with Slugging percentage and obp. If he had a low Obp and slugging would you say that a player can be great? You keep using this excuse that all these stats can be low and the player can be great but that is not the case.

[Brad Harris]

So is Ba important or not? You seem to keep contradicting yourself about. No they can't be great because BA is a good indicator of how good a player is along with Slugging percentage and obp. If he had a low Obp and slugging would you say that a player can be great? You keep using this excuse that all these stats can be low and the player can be great but that is not the case.
Trippity-trop, trippity-trop. I think I hear the three billy goats gruff! Back under the bridge for you!

[Freakshow]

[Non-baseball but very on-topic post]
Ailen #2: The Claw chooses who will go and who will stay.
Woody: Oh, this is ludicrous.
[/Non-baseball but very on-topic post]

[Brad Harris]

[Non-baseball but very on-topic post]
Ailen #2: The Claw chooses who will go and who will stay.
Woody: Oh, this is ludicrous.
[/Non-baseball but very on-topic post]
http://www.spideysenses.com/wp-content/Picture%2071.png
Oooooooohhhh....the Claw!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So is Ba important or not? You seem to keep contradicting yourself about.
BA is not as important as OBP and slug%. It's simple fact that OBP and slug% have a much stronger correlation to creating runs that batting average.


No they can't be great because BA is a good indicator of how good a player is along with Slugging percentage and obp. If he had a low Obp and slugging would you say that a player can be great?
I'll say this one more time. BATTING AVERAGE IS NOT AS GOOD AN INDICATOR AS OBP and SLUG%. A player can be great without a great batting average. Here are a list of great ballplayer, all HoFers, that didn't have "great" batting averages.

Mike Schmidt (.267)
Eddie Mathews (.267)
Harmon Killibrew (.256)
Eddie Murray (.287)
Willie McCovey (.287)
Reggie Jackson (.262)
Willie Stargell (.282)
Dave Winfield (.283)
Carl Yastrzemski (.285)



You keep using this excuse that all these stats can be low and the player can be great but that is not the case.
What excuse? And that is he case. Thome's batting average is NOT low. You are simply wrong on is. Thome has a carer .280 batting league during which time his leagues hit .272. That puts his relative BA at 103. Thome is above the league average THEREFORE Thome DOES NOT have a "low" batting average.

[Captain Cold Nose]

http://www.spideysenses.com/wp-content/Picture%2071.png
Oooooooohhhh....the Claw!

Is that what that's from? I thought it was Annie Hall.

[Bravesfan1984]

That's an argument. If a player was never among the best in his league at his position then it stands to reason that player doesn't deserve to be considered at all, regardless of what kind of career totals he ended up with. Fortunately very few players indeed amass noteworthy career totals without having been that good at some point in their career. Personally, I look for a guy who was among the best for 10+ years or who was the best for a shorter amount of time.
For me, Garciaparra just doesn't cut it. I doubt very seriously he can play even average defense at shortstop. He doesn't have the gold gloves. He doesn't have power or a great batting eye. He doesn't have speed. He has the batting average. And the more at bats between now and the end of his career, the more that will plummet. Frankly, I'm surprised that Garciaparra still has a job in the big leagues.
And yes, there was a time when he was a better shortstop than Derek Jeter, but those days are long gone; as is a realistic possibility of being elected to Cooperstown.

Classic here is something that you posted on the Nomar Garrciaparra thread. I find it interesting you feel that way about him when you Thome was among the best in the league barely ever

[jalbright]

Ah, there goes BravesFan once again tearing down an argument without doing much to support his own. Show some intestinal fortitude and communicate that there's a thinking process beyond tearing down what others have to say, and maybe then you won't catch such heat here.

[Bravesfan1984]

Ah, there goes BravesFan once again tearing down an argument without doing much to support his own. Show some intestinal fortitude and communicate that there's a thinking process beyond tearing down what others have to say, and maybe then you won't catch such heat here.

What have I not explained. I was saying how Classic used double standards for different players. Is all you do to talk to me is keep repeating this same old argument that I am not supporting my words.

[jjpm74]

What have I not explained. I was saying how Classic used double standards for different players. Is all you do to talk to me is keep repeating this same old argument that I am not supporting my words.

Well, you're not supporting your words. you are simply contradicting everyone. That is not the same thing. :rolleyes:

[jalbright]

I've tried to tell him what he needs to do to get some respect, and he doesn't want to listen. We've made the good faith effort, folks. He doesn't want to join us in that. Therefore, don't feed the troll.

[Bravesfan1984]

You obviously for some reason do not like me and there is nothing i can say to change it but that is okay it is not like any of you all know anything about baseball anyway.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You obviously for some reason do not like me and there is nothing i can say to change it but that is okay it is not like any of you all know anything about baseball anyway.

And you do? Please tell us what you have learned in your 24 years. So you know more than people who have studied the game 35-40 years. We've addressed you points over and over and you keep going back to the same old points. Look at the poll results. Far more people support Thome's HoF candidacy than oppose it. Why do you think that is?

[digglahhh]

Are you serious? This thread was started in January 2005, two years and nine months before Thome hit his 500th HR. When thome hit his 500th HR this thread already had 109 posts. And if you look at the poll it's 82-22 in favor of Thome's HoF induction. You ask who? These 82 BBF members who.

1905 Giants, 538280, abolishthedh, Afterglow, baseball junkie, BlueJayTime, bob, BoofBonser26, brett, BSmile, cavalier1968, cbenson5, Charger567, ChicagoStateCougars, Chickazoola, Classic, closer28, Cougar, Cowtipper, CROM, D3SBP, DaClyde, Dalkowski110, DaveKingman, dgarza, dl4060, Dogdaze, duckydps, Erik Bedard, footfoot99, Freakshow, Fuzzy Bear, go_royals, Great One, henrich, Honus Wagner Rules, honus14, jjpm74, John Shoemaker, KCGHOST, KevinWI, Knick9, LGehrigFan, lollar, Los Bravos, Manny = Foxx, MyDogSparty, NewYork NewYork, NineWorldSeries, nyykan_t, OleMissCub, partydude1377, Paul Wendt, penneyAA, Pesky, philipthegreat, philkid3, Pine Tar, PleaseWinAWorldSeriesCubs, psbaseballfan27, ReignInBlood, rsuriyop, runningshoes, Senor Octobre, sgrosm2, SixFourThree, Skin & Bones, Sockeye, Solair Wright, steelcurtain76, Steve Mac, steveironcity, Texas Rangers, The Commissioner, TheKingofKings, TheSlaff, tony67, UTforever22, wardawg, Wee Willie, Westlake, zemtech

Thanks for reminding me, I never bothered to vote. :rofl:

Just did! :highfive:

[digglahhh]

it is not like any of you all know anything about baseball anyway.

Yet somehow, the bills get paid. :noidea

I think it's time you go off to tell hiddengem what he's been doing wrong with his front shoulder...

[STLCards2]

Thanks for reminding me, I never bothered to vote. :rofl:

Just did! :highfive:

Thanks for reminding me too! I thought I voted in this poll - must have been a different Thome poll.

[Brad Harris]

Classic here is something that you posted on the Nomar Garrciaparra thread. I find it interesting you feel that way about him when you Thome was among the best in the league barely ever
I'm going to leave your grammar alone and simply ask the obvious question: is English your first language?

As for contradicting myself (:laugh), that certainly isn't the case if you'd bothered to read what I've written about either of these players for any length of time. In my opinion Thome has been among the five best hitters (regardless of position) in the game throughout his career. Nomar had a couple of seasons where he was either the 2nd or 3rd best shortstop in his league. Thome's got 10-12 years of excellence compared to Nomar's 2-3. And I'm comparing Thome to other offensive players at any position while I'm only comparing Nomar to other players at his own position. You tell me how those contradict each other.

While I'm very favorable of peak performance as an indicator of greatness, that doesn't mean I think every player who had a pair of all-star seasons belongs in Cooperstown. Nomar has virtually nothing of value as a ballplayer outside his 4-5 best seasons. Very similar to a candidate like Al Rosen. Great for a couple years, but not a Hall of Famer (in my book.) Thome, on the other hand, has been better than just "very good" for a long time indeed.

Don't put words in my mouth, especially when you can't be bothered to take the time or effort to spell/type them correctly. If you want to point out some inconsistencies in someone else's line of thinking, I suggest you find actual examples where that occurred.

[jalbright]

bumped because someone else wants to discuss Thome.

[Bravesfan1984]

Thome has been among the five best hitters (regardless of position) in the game throughout his career.

So if he is such a great hitter why does he only have about 2000 hits? He has only finished in the top ten in runs 3 times. In career total bases he ranks 387th.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Oh brother here we go again...:banghead:

[philkid3]

Thome has been among the five best hitters (regardless of position) in the game throughout his career.

So if he is such a great hitter why does he only have about 2000 hits?
Probably in part because he never had a significantly high number of at-bats thanks to being top ten in the league in walks 13 times (including this year), ranking in the top five 10 times, the top three 8 times, and led the league twice.

And also partly because his hits produced for his team more via quality than by quantity, with 13 consecutive seasons slugging over .500, three times over .600.


He has only finished in the top ten in runs 3 times.
Guess he never had a whole lot of offense behind him. Too bad Jim Thome couldn't bat in front of Jim Thome.

[Brad Harris]

...if [Thome] is such a great hitter why does he only have about 2000 hits?
Because hits are far from the best, much less the only, measure of how great a hitter is. During Thome's career (1991-2008), Craig Biggio leads all major leaguers in hits. I don't know anyone who would say Biggio was the best hitter in baseball during the past two decades. Here's the top five in hits for those years:
2,767 Craig Biggio
2,598 Ivan Rodriguez
2,582 Luis Gonzalez
2,511 Derek Jeter
2,488 Omar Vizquel

Some of those guys are fine hitters (especially for their position), but I don't think any of them are going to be mentioned as one of the top hitters in the game over the past 18 years.

Consider that Thome's 2,030 hits are only 453 shy of #5 here. It's not as though Thome hasn't been collecting plenty of hits. You don't need 3,000 hits to be a great hitter.

In fact, excluding pitchers and hitters elected for non-MLB playing accomplishments (i.e. negro leaguers, executives, managers, etc.), Thome has more hits than 37 Hall of Famers, including great hitters like Hank Greenberg and Johnny Mize. Another 100 hits and he'll pass guys like Harmon Killebrew and Duke Snider. Another 200 hits, he passes Joe DiMaggio and Willie McCovey in career hits. There are well over 200 players enshrined in the Hall of Fame; Jim Thome has more career hits than all but 101 of them.

If we look at how many times Thome has reached base, he catapults up the list of players from his era, ahead of hitters like Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Mike Piazza and Chipper Jones. That's because Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas are the only players since 1991 to draw more walks than Thome (and Thome will almost certainly pass Thomas if he plays another full season.) Had Thome never drawn a walk in his life, he'd have added 430 career hits to his total (given his career average of .280).

Only 8 Hall of Famers drew more walks than Thome. Only 44 Hall of Famers reached base more times than Thome. Reaching base is far more revealing about how good a hitter was than merely hits.

He has only finished in the top ten in runs 3 times.
Thome's scored 1,415 runs in his career. Here are the Hall-eligible players from the 20th century who have more:
1,571 Tim Raines
1,528 Kenny Lofton
1,470 Dwight Evans

Thome is 12th in career runs scored, behind only Bonds, Biggio, A-Rod, Lofton, Bagwell, Sheffield, Jeter, Thomas, Junior and Man Ram, for the past 18 years. That's pretty good for a guy who's been a #4 hitter in the lineup most of his career.

Furthermore, I don't see how runs scored are a good measure of hitting greatness since (a) they are heavily dependent on the teammates batting behind you, (b) a home run is the only hit the player in question can get to ensure he scores. As pointed out earlier, Thome's done plenty of that. In fact, for a player who's reached base more than 4,000 times in his career, he's scored fewer than 1,000 of those times when his teammates have had to drive him in. That has absolutely nothing to do with how well Thome, himself, hit when he was at the plate.

In career total bases he ranks 387th.
This is blatantly untrue. I strongly suggest you check your facts more closely. Thome's 4,081 career total bases is 71st all-time and climbing.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

During Thome's career (1991-2008), Craig Biggio leads all major leaguers in hits. I don't know anyone who would say Biggio was the best hitter in baseball during the past two decades. Here's the top five in hits for those years:
2,767 Craig Biggio
2,598 Ivan Rodriguez
2,582 Luis Gonzalez
2,511 Derek Jeter
2,488 Omar Vizquel

Thome's scored 1,415 runs in his career. Here are the Hall-eligible players from the 20th century who have more:
1,571 Tim Raines
1,528 Kenny Lofton
1,470 Dwight Evans

I know that Biggio, Pudge, Jeter, and Tim Raines had/have other advantages that make them strong HOF candidates, but we are talking strictly hitting right now, and Thome is a much, much better hitter than anyone on either of those lists. Bravesfan, do you not intuitively know that? Can you honestly say that Luis Gonzalez was better than Jim Thome because he has more hits? I read a quote in one of Bill James' books, and I don't know who the original source is, but it goes something like this:

"We should use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination."

[Walt Zink]

Thome has been among the five best hitters (regardless of position) in the game throughout his career.

So if he is such a great hitter why does he only have about 2000 hits? He has only finished in the top ten in runs 3 times. In career total bases he ranks 387th.

ted williams only had 2654 hits. so i guess that means since he didn't get to 3000, he wasn't that great? williams never once reached 200 hits in a season. but he walked 2000+ times. thome is just over 2000 hits and has over 1500 BBs. he's honestly still a guy who can hit.

and i have to repeat this. considering how jaded the HOF voters will be about the "steroids era", thome has gotten himself extra votes for being a guy who you know just doesn't do that stuff. i've met him where i work on several occasions, and he's just a big boy.

also, the reputation he has as a nice guy will also help him. this past saturday, i had one of the chicago sportswriters at the bar for some lunch, and i remembered him from last year. he laughed that people didn't think thome was a HOFer (he also hates the Vets Comm., and had a good note about jay mariotti, as well as some not-so-nice stuff to say about joe morgan lol).

he's definitely a HOFer, and i took a lot of pleasure in having repeated chances just to briefly talk with him. i've worked in restaurants for 15 years, and i can say with the utmost honesty that i don't think i've EVER had a more polite person to serve. tips like a champ, also lol :D

[Brad Harris]

ted williams only had 2654 hits. so i guess that means since he didn't get to 3000, he wasn't that great? williams never once reached 200 hits in a season. but he walked 2000+ times. thome is just over 2000 hits and has over 1500 BBs. he's honestly still a guy who can hit.

and i have to repeat this. considering how jaded the HOF voters will be about the "steroids era", thome has gotten himself extra votes for being a guy who you know just doesn't do that stuff. i've met him where i work on several occasions, and he's just a big boy.

also, the reputation he has as a nice guy will also help him. this past saturday, i had one of the chicago sportswriters at the bar for some lunch, and i remembered him from last year. he laughed that people didn't think thome was a HOFer (he also hates the Vets Comm., and had a good note about jay mariotti, as well as some not-so-nice stuff to say about joe morgan lol).

he's definitely a HOFer, and i took a lot of pleasure in having repeated chances just to briefly talk with him. i've worked in restaurants for 15 years, and i can say with the utmost honesty that i don't think i've EVER had a more polite person to serve. tips like a champ, also lol :D

:laugh Sounds like my kind of sportswriter!

I know what you mean about impressions. I used to work in the restaurant industry and had several friends who worked at gyms, YMCAs and United Way who all bumped into any number of local sports (and other celebrities). Always interesting when we traded stories which were jerks and which were genuinely nice people, particularly with regards to how they treat the "little" people. Great story, Walt! Thanks. :)

[Bravesfan1984]

Consider that Thome's 2,030 hits are only 453 shy of #5 here. It's not as though Thome hasn't been collecting plenty of hits. You don't need 3,000 hits to be a great hitter.

Thome has had that much in 18 years though. Ted Williams played 1 more season and had 500 more hits. Some of those years Thome has had the highest obp of his career he also has had the worst batting average and high strikeouts.

[Cougar]

Consider that Thome's 2,030 hits are only 453 shy of #5 here. It's not as though Thome hasn't been collecting plenty of hits. You don't need 3,000 hits to be a great hitter.

Thome has had that much in 18 years though. Ted Williams played 1 more season and had 500 more hits. Some of those years Thome has had the highest obp of his career he also has had the worst batting average and high strikeouts.

Yep, Jim Thome is no Ted Williams. You've got us there!

[Brad Harris]

Thome has had that much in 18 years though.
So? What's your point? Thome's averaged 154 hits per 162 games played. That's very nearly a hit per game. Below average hitters don't do that.

Ted Williams played 1 more season and had 500 more hits.
And John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison. What do either have to do with Jim Thome being a great hitter?

Some of those years Thome has had the highest obp of his career he also has had the worst batting average and high strikeouts.
Thome's five highest OBP seasons:
1996 .450 .311 141
2002 .445 .304 139
1995 .438 .314 118
1999 .426 .277 171
1997 .423 .286 146

Again, this simply isn't true. Above are Thome's five highest OBP seasons. He batted .300+ in three of them and hit above his .280 career average in another. The worst of those seasons, in which he batted .277, is the 8th highest single season BA Thome's had in 18 years. As to the strikeouts, 1999 was tied for Thome's 3rd highest SO total in a season but Thome had 11 seasons of 139+ strikeouts so these seasons in particular are no better or worse than any other in that regard.
Besides getting your facts wrong, you seem to be missing the obvious. Thome isn't a great hitter because he struck out a lot, he's a great hitter in spite of the strikeouts. Thome was a fabulous hitter because he did both things hitters should do well - get on base often and drive in runners.
You're continuing to grasp at straws, none of which appear to be helping you craft your argument any better. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's apparently some threshhold here that Thome's crossed beyond which you're unwilling to consider he could still be a great hitter, having done (or not done) whatever it is you find so distasteful. More than anything, I'm curious to hear you state precisely what it is - in the most simple terms possible - that dissuades you from considering Thome more strongly.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Ted Williams played 1 more season and had 500 more hits.

Check your standard for comparison please. If the HOF only inducted hitters as good as Ted Williams, it would have exactly two members. While Williams, Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Mays, etc. are HOFers, they are not the standard to which HOF candidates should be held. Thome compares very well to McCovey, Stargell, Killebrew, and many other deserving HOFers who aren't among the top ten players of all-time.

[Bravesfan1984]

So? What's your point? Thome's averaged 154 hits per 162 games played. That's very nearly a hit per game. Below average hitters don't do that.


And John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison. What do either have to do with Jim Thome being a great hitter?


Thome's five highest OBP seasons:
1996 .450 .311 141
2002 .445 .304 139
1995 .438 .314 118
1999 .426 .277 171
1997 .423 .286 146

Again, this simply isn't true. Above are Thome's five highest OBP seasons. He batted .300+ in three of them and hit above his .280 career average in another. The worst of those seasons, in which he batted .277, is the 8th highest single season BA Thome's had in 18 years. As to the strikeouts, 1999 was tied for Thome's 3rd highest SO total in a season but Thome had 11 seasons of 139+ strikeouts so these seasons in particular are no better or worse than any other in that regard.
Besides getting your facts wrong, you seem to be missing the obvious. Thome isn't a great hitter because he struck out a lot, he's a great hitter in spite of the strikeouts. Thome was a fabulous hitter because he did both things hitters should do well - get on base often and drive in runners.
You're continuing to grasp at straws, none of which appear to be helping you craft your argument any better. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's apparently some threshhold here that Thome's crossed beyond which you're unwilling to consider he could still be a great hitter, having done (or not done) whatever it is you find so distasteful. More than anything, I'm curious to hear you state precisely what it is - in the most simple terms possible - that dissuades you from considering Thome more strongly.


THome had 13 out of 18 years where he had 100 or more strikeouts. That is more then average. How can you be a great hitter if you strike out alot? You are making a lot of outs. Thome really had 1 maybe 2 years that you could say where Hall of Fame years.

[Captain Cold Nose]

THome had 13 out of 18 years where he had 100 or more strikeouts. That is more then average. How can you be a great hitter if you strike out alot? You are making a lot of outs. Thome really had 1 maybe 2 years that you could say where Hall of Fame years.

Poor Mickey Mantle. Poor Willie Stargell. Poor Reggie Jackson. Poor Babe Ruth. he was, at one point, the all-time leader in getting struck out.

Really, what's next. Thome finished 8th in OPS in a certain year, so he shouldn't make it. Are you just arguing like this to see what will happen?

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

How can you be a great hitter if you strike out alot?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SO_career.shtml

I'll refer you to Reggie Jackson, Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt, Mickey Mantle, Harmon Killebrew, Dave Winfield, Ken Griffey Jr., Manny Ramirez, and Alex Rodriguez. All of those Hall of Famers are in the top 25 for career strikeouts. At the rate he's going, when A-Rod retires, he will have struck out more than anyone ever.

Furthermore, it can be statistically shown that strikeouts, on average, are no worse than other types of outs. While grounders or fly balls can advance runners, they can also result in double plays. Strikeouts don't advance runners, but they also don't result in double plays. These factors have been shown to cancel each other out. A sabermetrician might even like Jim Rice better if he'd struck out more often and not hit into so many double plays.

Thome really had 1 maybe 2 years that you could say where Hall of Fame years.

I would say that each of the following years were "Hall of Fame years" by Jim Thome: 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006. Cases could be made for some others as well. By your standard, how many "Hall of Fame years" did Reggie Jackson, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt, or any other guy without a .320 career average have?

[Brad Harris]

How can you be a great hitter if you strike out alot? You are making a lot of outs.
This seems to be the big hang up here. I would say that Thome is a great hitter in spite of the strikeouts. Many great hitters struck out a lot. It almost seems as if you're mentally counting strikeouts as an additional out over and above the total number of outs Thome made.

From 1991-present, Jim Thome is only 23rd in outs made. Future Hall-of-Famers Craig Biggio, Ivan Rodriguez, Jeff Kent, Ken Griffey Jr., Gary Sheffield, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez have all made more outs than Jim Thome. Are they not great hitters? Thome has made only 109 more outs than Chipper Jones in three more seasons. Is Jones not a good hitter either? If you remove 2008 (since he didn't play), Barry Bonds has more outs (5,226 to 5,056) than Jim Thome over that same period! Is Bonds not a great hitter? All of these players are "making a lot of outs"; the same or, in many cases, far more than Thome.

So what if Thome struck out more than most of these players? Know what? Almost all of them grounded into more double plays than Thome did! How the out was made isn't as important as the fact that one, indeed, was made.

Nevermind that according to your concept that strikeouts are these horrible things that cripple a hitter and prevent him from being great leaves the inverse open for inquiry: I guess only the high strikeout pitchers are truly great since pitchers who can't strike guys out as often aren't getting outs some other way. I guess greats like Ted Lyons (2.32 strikeouts per 9 innings) or Grover Cleveland Alexander (3.81 K/9) or Carl Hubbell (4.20 K/9) just weren't that good because they couldn't get enough hitters out. Let's tell Warren Spahn (4.43 K/9) and Cy Young (4.25 K/9) to pack their bags because they're just not great. Nope. Not enough strikeouts on their resume. Clear out your plaques, pally oh pals o' mine. It's time to hit the road.

Clearly all the great hitters in baseball history were around before the expansion era. Clearly there can't be any great hitters in the modern game because they all strike out way too much. They're making too many outs! Quick, somebody call the BBWAA! We've got to keep these jerks off the ballot! Griffey and A-Rod, Man-Ram and Sheff are a bunch of big whiffers. We'll take the legendary hitting prowess of another Joe Sewell, Lloyd Waner or Joe Tinker, thank you very much. Maybe a call to Clyde Milan's grandchildren is in order? Anyone know the number for the Stuffy McInnis family? How about that Larry Bowa? Now there's a modern marvel! Only 569 strikeouts in 9,000 plate appearances! And he's a shortstop. Just don't make 'em like that anymore. Doc Cramer had less than 350 strikeouts in damn near 10,000 PA. Now there's a helluva hitter!

:disbelief: :choke: :shrug:

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SO_career.shtml
Furthermore, it can be statistically shown that strikeouts, on average, are no worse than other types of outs. While grounders or fly balls can advance runners, they can also result in double plays. Strikeouts don't advance runners, but they also don't result in double plays. These factors have been shown to cancel each other out. A sabermetrician might even like Jim Rice better if he'd struck out more often and not hit into so many double plays.

Not entirely true. Striking out almost guarentees that you will be a relatively poor situational hitter. If its the bottom of the ninth, runner on third and 1 out, you probably don't want Jim Thome or Ryan Howard at the dish. The lower rate of putting a ball in play decreases the odds of a sacrifice fly or run scoring ground ball in the hole (or error). However, in the context of how valuable these run producers are in almost any other situation, this consideration is extremely minimal.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Not entirely true. Striking out almost guarentees that you will be a relatively poor situational hitter. If its the bottom of the ninth, runner on third and 1 out, you probably don't want Jim Thome or Ryan Howard at the dish. The lower rate of putting a ball in play decreases the odds of a sacrifice fly or run scoring ground ball in the hole (or error). However, in the context of how valuable these run producers are in almost any other situation, this consideration is extremely minimal.

I would want Jim Thome up in that situation. When you only have two outs left to make before losing the game, the last thing you want to do is make an out. Based on his OBP, Jim Thome has less of a chance of making an out than all but 44 players ever to play baseball. Ryan Howard on the other hand...

I do understand your point, but I'd rather play the odds with the OBP thing. Of course, if I had a low strikeout/high OBP guy like Pujols on the bench, he'd be a better choice than Thome, but guys like that are few and far between.

[Mike90]

Nevermind that according to your concept that strikeouts are these horrible things that cripple a hitter and prevent him from being great leaves the inverse open for inquiry: I guess only the high strikeout pitchers are truly great since pitchers who can't strike guys out as often aren't getting outs some other way. I guess greats like Ted Lyons (2.32 strikeouts per 9 innings) or Grover Cleveland Alexander (3.81 K/9) or Carl Hubbell (4.20 K/9) just weren't that good because they couldn't get enough hitters out. Let's tell Warren Spahn (4.43 K/9) and Cy Young (4.25 K/9) to pack their bags because they're just not great. Nope. Not enough strikeouts on their resume. Clear out your plaques, pally oh pals o' mine. It's time to hit the road.

Spahn led the league in strikeouts 4 times, and Young led the league in strikeouts 2 times. I don't think those two are the best examples.

It's harder for pitchers to get away with a low strikeout rates, especially in today's game (Chien-Ming Wang is the exception), than it is for hitters to be great with high strikeout rates. Thome is a great hitter, as you said, in spite of his enormous amount of strikeouts.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I would want Jim Thome up in that situation. When you only have two outs left to make before losing the game, the last thing you want to do is make an out. Based on his OBP, Jim Thome has less of a chance of making an out than all but 44 players ever to play baseball. Ryan Howard on the other hand...

I do understand your point, but I'd rather play the odds with the OBP thing. Of course, if I had a low strikeout/high OBP guy like Pujols on the bench, he'd be a better choice than Thome, but guys like that are few and far between.

The OPS guy in those specific 'situational' at bats can do more harm than good. Afterall, it sets up the double play possibility. The point is, the good situational hitter is a guy who makes good contact & good bat control. In the scenario I mentioned, the winning run can be driven in with a fly ball. A big strikeout guy like Thome will not be as good a situational hitter as a Pujols or Utley because of the propensity to strike out; and the lower rate of contact lessens the chance for a productive out.

The ultimate point is the more one strikes out, the worse of a situational hitter they are. In times where the team needs a productive out like a sacrifice fly, Jim Thome is not your man to have up there.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

There are a ton of guys I would want ahead of Thome with the wiining run on third and less than 2 outs. Jimmy Rollins, Johnny Damon, Dustin Pedroia, Vladimir Guerrero just to name a few. That doesnt mean Thome isnt a Fantastic hitter, just means in this very narrow instance where situational hitting matters, Thome isn't the best.

Paul Molitor was probably the best at these situations i ever saw.

[Brad Harris]

The ultimate point is the more one strikes out, the worse of a situational hitter they are. In times where the team needs a productive out like a sacrifice fly, Jim Thome is not your man to have up there.
Firstly, the frequency of events calling for a "situational hitter" are uncommon enough that they don't merit a reduction in the assessment if Thome's value as a hitter. Secondly, a hitter like Thome is far more likely to drive the ball for a sac fly than a player like Rollins. If a manager wants to play for one run, then he's free to pinch hit for Thome, but that's an in-game strategic choice made based on those particular circumstances and in no way detracts from Thome's value as a run producer.
Typically, hitters who make a lot of "productive" outs are the kind that simply make a lot of outs period. To me, the ideal guy in the situation you described is a speedy player who can lay down the bunt perfectly. But that's only working under the assumption that you're willing to trade that out in exchange for the run. In all other respects, there's no need to pinch hit for Thome unless you have Albert Pujols riding the bench (which, in itself, would be a silly waste of resources.)
Regardless, it's a moot point.
Thome's strikeouts don't diminish his hitting prowess to a degree substantial enough to dimish his status as a great hitter or, for that matter, to hamstring his merit for the Hall of Fame.

[Bravesfan1984]

From 1991-present, Jim Thome is only 23rd in outs made. Future Hall-of-Famers Craig Biggio, Ivan Rodriguez, Jeff Kent, Ken Griffey Jr., Gary Sheffield, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez have all made more outs than Jim Thome. Are they not great hitters? Thome has made only 109 more outs than Chipper Jones in three more seasons. Is Jones not a good hitter either? If you remove 2008 (since he didn't play), Barry Bonds has more outs (5,226 to 5,056) than Jim Thome over that same period! Is Bonds not a great hitter? All of these players are "making a lot of outs"; the same or, in many cases, far more than Thome.

The problem with this is that they all make outs but most of them make an out on the field which can move runners up or score runners while Thome striking out does not.

[Bravesfan1984]

I would say that each of the following years were "Hall of Fame years" by Jim Thome: 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006. Cases could be made for some others as well. By your standard, how many "Hall of Fame years" did Reggie Jackson, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt, or any other guy without a .320 career average have?[/QUOTE]

What is your criteria for Hall of Fame season. hitting over 300 with 100 rbi's. If so that means tons fo players have had Hall of Fame years each year.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I would say that each of the following years were "Hall of Fame years" by Jim Thome: 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006. Cases could be made for some others as well. By your standard, how many "Hall of Fame years" did Reggie Jackson, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt, or any other guy without a .320 career average have?

What is your criteria for Hall of Fame season. hitting over 300 with 100 rbi's. If so that means tons fo players have had Hall of Fame years each year.[/QUOTE]


Bravesfan, can you please simply hit the quote button after the post you're quoting as opposed to doing whatever you're doing to try to answer someone's post? It's a bit confusing.


As for what a Hall of Fame year is (which really doesn't make sense. You get in the Hall of Fame for your career, not because of any particular year) and what you're assuming Otis is saying a HOF year is, I'd go back and look at what he has actually posted. I don't think you're even close to what he has in mind.

[Brad Harris]

The problem with this is that they all make outs but most of them make an out on the field which can move runners up or score runners while Thome striking out does not.
As I demonstrated in the same post, Thome hits into fewer GIDPs than most of the other hitters on that list. You don't seem willing or able to get past the strikeouts so that's just an area where we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for clarifying your objections. :) I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Bravesfan1984 and Captain Cold Nose,
I do not know exactly what a "Hall of Fame year" is. Bravesfan1984, you used the term first, so I put it in quotation marks. I take it to mean a typical year that one would expect a HOF caliber player to have. While a .300 batting average and 100 RBIs are usually indicative of such a year, they are not what defines one. You have to look at the whole picture. Example: In 1996, Thome batted .311 with 116 RBIs. I called this a Hall of Fame year. In 1999, Magglio Ordonez batted .301 with 117 RBIs. I would not call that a Hall of Fame year, even though his average and RBI total were almost the same as Thome's were in '96. Some differences (Thome's stats are listed first):

On-base percentage: .450 to .349
Slugging percentage: .612 to .510
OPS+: 167 to 115
Walks: 123 to 47

Even if you look at less sabermetric categories, you'll see the same result. Thome scored 122 runs to Magglio's 100. Thome finished 15th in the MVP race and Magglio didn't get any votes at all. If you want to get even more technical, Thome played third base in 1996. The offensive standards for third basemen are lower than they are for corner outfielders like Magglio. Thome's not a great example because he ended up as a first baseman/designated hitter, but he was a third baseman in '96 and the concept of positional adjustment holds true (otherwise there would be no middle infielders in the HOF).

Finally, Bravesfan1984, you never answered the question I posed to you (that's becoming a theme on this thread). If, as you say, Jim Thome only had only one or two "Hall of Fame years", how many "Hall of Fame years" would you say each of the following players had: Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, and Willie Stargell? If you want to see their career stats, I recommend using baseball-reference.com. You can either google their names and click on the link to their baseball-reference page (it's usually among the top three search results) or you can go to www.baseball-reference.com and search their names on the site. I would like to get an idea of what your standards for HOFers are, because I think one of two things is true (or both):

1. Your standards for HOFers are way too high, thus excluding deserving players like Jim Thome.

2. You are misguided as to how to appropriately evaluate statistics.

And please, should you choose to respond, give a well though out (and hopefully somewhat lengthy) response, not just a sentence.

[Bravesfan1984]

Thome still only finished 15th in 1996 in mvp voting. He was not even near the top 5 that year. I will give you some of the people ahead of him that year should have not been so high(like Kenny Loften, Brady Anderson) but still he was not one of the top 5 players that year. My standards are high because I believe the Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best. I know that players who have not fit this criteria have made it but that just means that voting needs to be reworked. IF the standard is not high then why have a Hall of Fame if you just letting anyone in.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Thome still only finished 15th in 1996 in mvp voting. He was not even near the top 5 that year. I will give you some of the people ahead of him that year should have not been so high(like Kenny Loften, Brady Anderson) but still he was not one of the top 5 players that year. My standards are high because I believe the Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best. I know that players who have not fit this criteria have made it but that just means that voting needs to be reworked. IF the standard is not high then why have a Hall of Fame if you just letting anyone in.

Perhaps the voters don't realize that yours is the correct view, the "perfect" view.

Sorry, guys, you've been doing this all this time for nothing.

[Bravesfan1984]

Perhaps the voters don't realize that yours is the correct view, the "perfect" view.

Sorry, guys, you've been doing this all this time for nothing.

I never said I had the perfect view stop putting words in my mouth.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I never said I had the perfect view stop putting words in my mouth.

Your words:

My standards are high because I believe the Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best. I know that players who have not fit this criteria have made it but that just means that voting needs to be reworked.



Since the "best of the best" is a personal criteria and not really qualifiable or even quantifiable, and somehoe the HOF hasn't met your own personal standards of such and needs to have its voting reworked, I would only say I'm interpretting what you said.

BTW, you should stop putting words in the mouths of others, yourself, like you did when you told ONB what his criteria for a HOF season (which you're the only one acting as if a single season is significant) was.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

My standards are high because I believe the Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best. I know that players who have not fit this criteria have made it but that just means that voting needs to be reworked.
And this is where you are way off. It doesn't matter what your HoF criteria is. It only matters what the historical HoF criteria is because that is what Thome will be judged on, not your personal HoF criteria.

IF the standard is not high then why have a Hall of Fame if you just letting anyone in.

That is utter nonsense. I believe over 16,000 men have played major league baseball. As of January 2008 there were 228 players in the HoF including 20 Negro Leaguers. So about 209 were major leaguers. It's seem obvious that ~209 major leaguers out of 16,000+ total major leaguers is a very very small percentage.

[Brad Harris]

My standards are high because I believe the Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best.
I don't know of anyone - including the Hall of Fame - who doesn't feel the same way, by and large.

Everything in that post is pretty much spot on. I think the differences of opinion boil down to two things, perhaps. Firstly, you obviously apply a much higher negative weight to the value of Thome's strikeouts than do most people here. Which is fine. But perhaps you're unaware that Thome doesn't just exceed the "mistake" selections of the Hall, but has the kind of career that places him right in the middle of Hall of Fame selections? He's not barely crossing the threshold; he's surpassed that. You could make an argument that Thome is as good as some of the top 100 position players in the Hall of Fame. That's pretty hefty company.

He doesn't have to be Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig. He can be as good as Willie McCovey or Harmon Killebrew and be qualified enough.

Everybody draws their line in a different place, even if only slightly. The line for the Hall of Fame is certainly higher (or in any case should be higher) than the worst players in there. Perhaps above the worst 10% of inductees?

It's my opinion, at least, that Thome crosses that line quite comfortably. That's all.

I just don't want you to misunderstand that I think the Hall's standards are - or ought to be - lower than they actually are. Electing Thome wouldn't be like electing Tony Perez, for example.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Thome still only finished 15th in 1996 in mvp voting. He was not even near the top 5 that year. I will give you some of the people ahead of him that year should have not been so high(like Kenny Loften, Brady Anderson) but still he was not one of the top 5 players that year. My standards are high because I believe the Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best. I know that players who have not fit this criteria have made it but that just means that voting needs to be reworked. IF the standard is not high then why have a Hall of Fame if you just letting anyone in.

That's your response??? Look at the content and the length of my post that you were responding to. I asked you two things:

1. To tell me how many "Hall of Fame seasons" you think several Hall of Famers (who I specifically named) had

2. To put some thought into your response

You did neither of those things. I somehow doubt you even read the majority of my post. It seems like you attach yourself to details and go off on futile tangents with them rather than looking at the whole picture when it comes to Thome's HOF candidacy. The HOF is for "the best of the best", and Jim Thome is clearly in that group. There have been some mistakes, but Thome would not be one. He is a much, much better player than anyone who's ever been considered a HOF mistake. Since you can't be reasoned with, hopefully I'll be able to refrain from debating you any more.

[jalbright]

Since you can't be reasoned with, hopefully I'll be able to refrain from debating you any more.

That seems to be the best method of dealing with him. There is a feature at BBF called the ignore feature, which means you never have to see the posts of certain users you select. As a mod, I can't take advantage of that feature, but I heartily recommend it to the rest of you.

[Brad Harris]

When was the last time we had any poll on an individual in here that had 116 responses, much less where > 80% were favorable? Hadn't looked at the poll responses in a long time. Geesh.

[Bravesfan1984]

You did neither of those things. I somehow doubt you even read the majority of my post. It seems like you attach yourself to details and go off on futile tangents with them rather than looking at the whole picture when it comes to Thome's HOF candidacy. The HOF is for "the best of the best", and Jim Thome is clearly in that group. There have been some mistakes, but Thome would not be one. He is a much, much better player than anyone who's ever been considered a HOF mistake. Since you can't be reasoned with, hopefully I'll be able to refrain from debating you any more.[/QUOTE]

I can name at least 5-10 players who have been better the Thome in this era so he is not the best of the best.

[Bravesfan1984]

I don't know of anyone - including the Hall of Fame - who doesn't feel the same way, by and large.

Everything in that post is pretty much spot on. I think the differences of opinion boil down to two things, perhaps. Firstly, you obviously apply a much higher negative weight to the value of Thome's strikeouts than do most people here. Which is fine. But perhaps you're unaware that Thome doesn't just exceed the "mistake" selections of the Hall, but has the kind of career that places him right in the middle of Hall of Fame selections? He's not barely crossing the threshold; he's surpassed that. You could make an argument that Thome is as good as some of the top 100 position players in the Hall of Fame. That's pretty hefty company.

He doesn't have to be Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig. He can be as good as Willie McCovey or Harmon Killebrew and be qualified enough.

Everybody draws their line in a different place, even if only slightly. The line for the Hall of Fame is certainly higher (or in any case should be higher) than the worst players in there. Perhaps above the worst 10% of inductees?

It's my opinion, at least, that Thome crosses that line quite comfortably. That's all.

I just don't want you to misunderstand that I think the Hall's standards are - or ought to be - lower than they actually are. Electing Thome wouldn't be like electing Tony Perez, for example.

I agree he does not have to Babe Ruth very few player could ever get near him. I just have a problem when comparing them to players who barely made the Hall and saying because they made then Thome should. You are not setting a high standard by doing this.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree he does not have to Babe Ruth very few player could ever get near him. I just have a problem when comparing them to players who barely made the Hall and saying because they made then Thome should. You are not setting a high standard by doing this.

Thome compares well to the MIDDLE of the HOF; indeed, I cannot think of a single player who has accomplished what Thome has accomplished that is NOT in the HOF.

Thome is in the range of career OWP where EVERYONE goes in, regardless of their defensive standing. (And Thome has played 3/4 of his games at either first or third.) His counting stats are well within the MIDDLE of the HOF; indeed are in the upper middle, but CLEARLY not anywhere near the bottom.

Thome has met the standard for the HOF that dates back to the forties. It's not that there are a few guys that did what Thome has done to date that re in the HOF; that's the argument for Jim Edmonds (for example). Thome is clearly a HIGHEST COMMON DENOMINATOR HOFer, in that everyone who does what he did is in the HOF.

I defy ANYONE to name a player truly comparable to Jim Thome that is NOT in the HOF. I don't see how someone can be described as marginal or borderline when everyone who does what he does is enshrined in the HOF.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I can name at least 5-10 players who have been better the Thome in this era so he is not the best of the best.
Name 10 players. And pitchers don't count.

[willshad]

-Griffey
-Bagwell
-Thomas
-Bonds
-Piazza
-Mcgwire
-A-rod
-Pujols
-Vlad
-Ramirez
-Chipper

That was easy.
I think that Thome will be put in the second 'tier' of stars, no matter what career totals he ends up with. He is no better than mcgwire (in fact you can call him a 'poor man's Mark Mcgwire'), who is NOT in the hall of fame. Steroids? Sure, but Thome has had his share of accusations as well. No 'proof', but neither does Sosa, who will likely feel the wrath of the steroid-bashers. His suspiciousness is nearly equal to that of Sosa (look at how he starter hitting homers after age 29).
I dont think he has any better a case than guys like Sheffield, Sosa, Palmeiro, Giambi, and Delgado..guys who are questionable candidates in most people's minds. What hurts him, I think ,is that he was never considered one of the best players in the game. Also, much of his value comes from his walks, which some people dont really care about that much. If he was a career .300 hitter, but walked less and had the same OBP, it would have helped him a lot.
That said, I think he deserves it, unless you penalize for probable roids.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I can name at least 5-10 players who have been better the Thome in this era so he is not the best of the best.

1. Learn how to quote previous posters. It's not difficult - just click on the "quote" button and start typing below the text that is automatically generated. The way you've been doing it makes it hard to seperate the posts you are quoting from your replies.

2. You still didn't answer my question. Tell me how many "Hall of Fame seasons" you think the following players had: Willie Stargell, Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schmidt, and Willie McCovey.

3. I agree that Thome is not one of the five or ten best players from this era. If that means that he's not one of the "best of the best", then so be it. You said yourself that the Hall of Fame is only for the "best of the best". Does that mean that you think only five to ten players from this era deserve to be inducted? Well then congratulations to Greg Maddux, A-Rod, Manny, Pujols, and Frank Thomas, you've been elected to the Hall of Fame! Our condolences to Chipper Jones, Derek Jeter, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Vladimir Guerrero, Pudge Rodriguez, Ichiro Suzuki, and Mike Piazza - you guys just weren't the "best of the best".

[Brad Harris]

Sure, but Thome has had his share of accusations as well.
Never heard Thome accused of steroids in the press. In fact, his name is conscipuous for not coming up in discussions of probably PED users.

I dont think he has any better a case than guys like Sheffield, Sosa, Palmeiro, Giambi and Delgado..guys who are questionable candidates in most people's minds.
Thome's already better than Giambi and Delgado, probably better than Palmeiro and no worse than Sosa. Of course at least four of those players you named have been prominent PED suspects; something that can't be said of Thome.

What hurts him, I think ,is that he was never considered one of the best players in the game.
Which is an indictment against the perceptions of contemporary observers moreso than Thome's performance.

Also, much of his value comes from his walks, which some people dont really care about that much.
Not caring about it doesn't mean it's not important. Roughly half of Americans don't care about presidential elections enough to go vote, but that doesn't mean their outcome isn't significant.

If he was a career .300 hitter, but walked less and had the same OBP, it would have helped him a lot.
If anyone was a .300 hitter - regardless of their walk levels - it will help them a lot in terms of gaining support for the Hall of Fame because batting average remains the "sexy" stat when it comes to voter appeal. Batting average is the blonde bombshell of Hall qualifications. It's appealing on the surface but void of much substance and doesn't really merit the attention it receives.

That said, I think he deserves it, unless you penalize for probable roids.
In which case, I think, Thome stacks up even better against his contemporaries.

[Brad Harris]

Name 10 players. And pitchers don't count.
I think there's a good argument to be made that Thome is one of the five best hitters of his generation. Possibly one of the 10 best position players.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

-Griffey
-Bagwell
-Thomas
-Bonds
-Piazza
-Mcgwire
-A-rod
-Pujols
-Vlad
-Ramirez
-Chipper

That was easy.
Sorry, I was looking for guys who careers are mostly over. Also, though Thomas had the better peak, I'd take Thome's career any day over Thomas' career. While Thome was still blasting 40-45 HR in his mid 30s Thomas was on the DL. Piazza, though a great hitter, was a lousy defensive catcher and his career isn't close to be as as long as Thome's by the time Thome is done. Vlad is only 32 and already showing signs of decline. I suspect if this is the beginning of his decline he'll peter out quickly and his career will be less than Thome's. McGwire? Do we have to even have to go there?

[willshad]

Sorry, I was looking for guys who careers are mostly over. Also, though Thomas had the better peak, I'd take Thome's career any day over Thomas' career. While Thome was still blasting 40-45 HR in his mid 30s Thomas was on the DL. Piazza, though a great hitter, was a lousy defensive catcher and his career isn't close to be as as long as Thome's by the time Thome is done. Vlad is only 32 and already showing signs of decline. I suspect if this is the beginning of his decline he'll peter out quickly and his career will be less than Thome's. McGwire? Do we have to even have to go there?

Whoa, hold on a minute. Thomas career-wise has a higher OPS+ than Thome, and significantly more plate appearances. He had about 7 or 8 seasons equal to Thome's best couple of seasons. All JIm has on him is slightly more home run power. As overall hitters, Thomas is clearly better, and its not like either one has any value outside of their hitting. True, Thome has been much better in his 30s than Thomas, but that doesnt really matter when evaluating a career. Ive honestly never seen them being put in the same class as players before.

[Cougar]

One might fairly say that Thome's career has been more consistent than Thomas'. I think that's what Honus was getting at. Frank's career is better because of the super high peaks, but his valleys have been a lot lower than Thome's, generally speaking.

[Brad Harris]

-Griffey
-Bagwell
-Thomas
-Bonds
-Piazza
-Mcgwire
-A-rod
-Pujols
-Vlad
-Ramirez
-Chipper

Only Bonds, Thomas and Rodriguez have more plate appearances and a better Equivalent Average, according to BP.

Thome's a better hitter than Piazza, Guerrero and Jones. His career to-date is much better than Pujols' or McGwire's and only just below Bagwell's. The only guys on here who really exceed Thome on prime, peak and career are A-Rod, Bonds, Thomas and maybe Ramirez.

I'll stick to my contention that Thome is one of the five best hitters of the past 20 years.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

True, Thome has been much better in his 30s than Thomas, but that doesnt really matter when evaluating a career. Ive honestly never seen them being put in the same class as players before.


One might fairly say that Thome's career has been more consistent than Thomas'. I think that's what Honus was getting at. Frank's career is better because of the super high peaks, but his valleys have been a lot lower than Thome's, generally speaking.

Couger stated the point I was trying to make. I do think it is important to differentiate how they did in their careers. Thomas in his peak seasons was a monster hitter, significantly better than Thome. However, those gaudy stats don't career over into his very poor seasons. Even though Thome's per season average maybe better than Thome's that is somewhat of an illusion IMO. Here are their splits.

Thomas:
<30 .321/.443/.584, 174 OPS+
>30 .267/.390/.521, 135 OPS+
Thome:
<30 .285/.411/.555, 147 OPS+
>30 .272/.401/.571, 150 OPS+

What the heck happened to Thomas? Through age 30 he was one of the greatest hitters ever. Then he fell off significantly. I'm not saying that Thome was equal to Thomas career-wise but the gap is much closer than many realize. And the smallness of that gap makes Thome a HoFer.

[willshad]

Only Bonds, Thomas and Rodriguez have more plate appearances and a better Equivalent Average, according to BP.

Thome's a better hitter than Piazza, Guerrero and Jones. His career to-date is much better than Pujols' or McGwire's and only just below Bagwell's. The only guys on here who really exceed Thome on prime, peak and career are A-Rod, Bonds, Thomas and maybe Ramirez.

I'll stick to my contention that Thome is one of the five best hitters of the past 20 years.


I thought you were saying he is one of the 5 or 10 best PLAYERS of his generation, which you cannot possibly justify. The fact that he has more lonegvity than someone like Piazza (who in his prime was a better hitter than Thome ever was) who is a catcher, or someone like Chipper (who is arguably a better hitter) a THIRD BASEMAN, doesnt help Thome's case much. Both players exceed him in hall of fame qualifications rather handily, due to position. And how is his career better than Mcgwire's? he is at best a poor man's Mark Mcgwire. Vlad is just as good a hitter, with much more value outside his hitting. Ramirez IS a beter hitter, and its not even that close.
And I dont see how he is any better than Gary Shefflield. Gary has him beat in career value, has a peak at least as good, and more great seasons. Thats not even counting his advantages in the field and on the bases. At best, Thome is in the same class as Shefflied as far as hall of fame cases go. People arent knocking down the doors for Sheffield. Both CAN be argued to be among the 5 or 10 best hitters of their generation, all things considered. Yet, you have a great deal of players who were just a tad below them , who had more positional/fielding/baserunning value . Heck, even at his own position, you can say Thome is only the 6th or 7th best of his generation. Im not saying keep him out of the hall, but to call him a first ballot lock is a bit of an overstatement. He is clearly in the second tier of players of his generation.

[Brad Harris]

I thought you were saying he is one of the 5 or 10 best PLAYERS of his generation, which you cannot possibly justify. The fact that he has more lonegvity than someone like Piazza (who in his prime was a better hitter than Thome ever was) who is a catcher, or someone like Chipper (who is arguably a better hitter) a THIRD BASEMAN, doesnt help Thome's case much. Both players exceed him in hall of fame qualifications rather handily, due to position. And how is his career better than Mcgwire's? he is at best a poor man's Mark Mcgwire. Vlad is just as good a hitter, with much more value outside his hitting. Ramirez IS a beter hitter, and its not even that close.
And I dont see how he is any better than Gary Shefflield. Gary has him beat in career value, has a peak at least as good, and more great seasons. Thats not even counting his advantages in the field and on the bases. At best, Thome is in the same class as Shefflied as far as hall of fame cases go. People arent knocking down the doors for Sheffield. Both CAN be argued to be among the 5 or 10 best hitters of their generation, all things considered. Yet, you have a great deal of players who were just a tad below them , who had more positional/fielding/baserunning value . Heck, even at his own position, you can say Thome is only the 6th or 7th best of his generation. Im not saying keep him out of the hall, but to call him a first ballot lock is a bit of an overstatement. He is clearly in the second tier of players of his generation.
I said Thome's career value is higher than McGwire's, not that Thome was a better hitter than McGwire. (At least I think that's what I said.) And it wasn't me that made the original statement re: "players." At the point where a guy has had an 18-year career and, throughout that time, has been (approximately) one of the five best hitters of his day, I think it's incumbent on us to look for reasons to keep him out.
I'm not buying the strikeout argument advanced by our friend in this thread as sufficient evidence to weigh Thome's case down below the "Merits Induction" Line.
You're right. Thome isn't the best of the best of his era, but he's certainly a "gray ink" candidate. And the Hall is chock full of plenty of those kinds of guys. When a guy is over the line - especially as far over the line as Thome is - he's a "no brainer" to me. I don't distinguish between "first ballot locks" and other Hall-of-Famers. A guy is either worthy or he's not. He doesn't have to be Willie Mays or Johnny Bench to get in. He can be Kirby Puckett or Carlton Fisk. I'm not even convinced myself that Thome belongs in the top 10 all-time at his position, but I think he's a top 20 or top 25 guy there pretty handily and that, to my way of thinking, is another sign of Hall-worthiness.
I'll also say that I was just using BP's numbers because they were handy at the time. I don't have my win shares, or other data, in front of me. Not that big a deal to me anyway.
Just been debating whether or not Thome was a "great" hitter (primarily over the strikeouts and the lack of an MVP) in this thread. I don't think the argument is all that contested now about his Hall of Fame credentials.

[willshad]

I said Thome's career value is higher than McGwire's, not that Thome was a better hitter than McGwire. (At least I think that's what I said.) And it wasn't me that made the original statement re: "players." At the point where a guy has had an 18-year career and, throughout that time, has been (approximately) one of the five best hitters of his day, I think it's incumbent on us to look for reasons to keep him out.
I'm not buying the strikeout argument advanced by our friend in this thread as sufficient evidence to weigh Thome's case down below the "Merits Induction" Line.
You're right. Thome isn't the best of the best of his era, but he's certainly a "gray ink" candidate. And the Hall is chock full of plenty of those kinds of guys. When a guy is over the line - especially as far over the line as Thome is - he's a "no brainer" to me. I don't distinguish between "first ballot locks" and other Hall-of-Famers. A guy is either worthy or he's not. He doesn't have to be Willie Mays or Johnny Bench to get in. He can be Kirby Puckett or Carlton Fisk. I'm not even convinced myself that Thome belongs in the top 10 all-time at his position, but I think he's a top 20 or top 25 guy there pretty handily and that, to my way of thinking, is another sign of Hall-worthiness.
I'll also say that I was just using BP's numbers because they were handy at the time. I don't have my win shares, or other data, in front of me. Not that big a deal to me anyway.
Just been debating whether or not Thome was a "great" hitter (primarily over the strikeouts and the lack of an MVP) in this thread. I don't think the argument is all that contested now about his Hall of Fame credentials.



I think the question becomes' how many players from a single era is too many to elect into the hall of fame?' That's the problem with an era such as the 1990s and the 1930s, there were a great deal of players who were at one time one of the top hitters in the game, putting up great numbers; many of whom also had very productive careers. The steroid era had just TOO MANY 'Kirby Pucketts and Carlton Fisks' to realistically allow them all in. Jim Edmonds and Bernie Williams both probably had as good careers as Puckett, but theres no way they will make the hall. Why? Because of the era they played in. You have to really ask yourself who were the guys who separated themselves from the pack. Thome's only case in this regard is his home run hitting.. He has over 500 home runs, and continues to pile them on. He has I think the 4th best home run to at bat ratio of all time. This , i think is his key to making the hall of fame. If he had all the same other numbers, but only 450 homers Id say he has very little shot. But as it stands, he is a historically significant player, due to his ability to hit home runs.

[jalbright]

I think the question becomes' how many players from a single era is too many to elect into the hall of fame?' That's the problem with an era such as the 1990s and the 1930s, there were a great deal of players who were at one time one of the top hitters in the game, putting up great numbers; many of whom also had very productive careers. The steroid era had just TOO MANY 'Kirby Pucketts and Carlton Fisks' to realistically allow them all in. Jim Edmonds and Bernie Williams both probably had as good careers as Puckett, but theres no way they will make the hall. Why? Because of the era they played in. You have to really ask yourself who were the guys who separated themselves from the pack. Thome's only case in this regard is his home run hitting.. He has over 500 home runs, and continues to pile them on. He has I think the 4th best home run to at bat ratio of all time. This , i think is his key to making the hall of fame. If he had all the same other numbers, but only 450 homers Id say he has very little shot. But as it stands, he is a historically significant player, due to his ability to hit home runs.

I'd say to answer that question that I'd estimate we should elect about 2 a year, maybe a few less. We've got 228 or so in the Hall, and if we start at about 1880, when the first group of players who played enough to make a HOF case retired, it's close to 2 a year. We're likely to add more than that this year, but that's a decent guide. Another way to look at it is to pick a 25-30 man All-Star roster from each era. I think Thome should make it either way, but at least that gives us a realistic guidepost.

[Bravesfan1984]

1. Learn how to quote previous posters. It's not difficult - just click on the "quote" button and start typing below the text that is automatically generated. The way you've been doing it makes it hard to seperate the posts you are quoting from your replies.

2. You still didn't answer my question. Tell me how many "Hall of Fame seasons" you think the following players had: Willie Stargell, Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schmidt, and Willie McCovey.

3. I agree that Thome is not one of the five or ten best players from this era. If that means that he's not one of the "best of the best", then so be it. You said yourself that the Hall of Fame is only for the "best of the best". Does that mean that you think only five to ten players from this era deserve to be inducted? Well then congratulations to Greg Maddux, A-Rod, Manny, Pujols, and Frank Thomas, you've been elected to the Hall of Fame! Our condolences to Chipper Jones, Derek Jeter, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Vladimir Guerrero, Pudge Rodriguez, Ichiro Suzuki, and Mike Piazza - you guys just weren't the "best of the best".

Is Thome even in the top 15? I would take all the players you mentioned and a few before him. Willie Stargell, Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schmidt,Willie McCovey all won mvps meaning they were the best in baseball Thome has never done that.

[Cougar]

Is Thome even in the top 15? I would take all the players you mentioned and a few before him. Willie Stargell, Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schmidt,Willie McCovey all won mvps meaning they were the best in baseball Thome has never done that.

Other players who never won MVP:

Mel Ott
Eddie Mathews
Al Kaline
Dave Winfield
Eddie Murray

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Is Thome even in the top 15? I would take all the players you mentioned and a few before him. Willie Stargell, Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schmidt,Willie McCovey all won mvps meaning they were the best in baseball Thome has never done that.

That's it, I've had enough. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. If you think Willie Stargell was the best player in National League in 1979 because he won the MVP then you are seriously lacking baseball history knowledge . I guess you must think Andre Dawson was the best player in 1987 because he won the MVP award. Go back and read some history. Stargell wasn't even one the top 20 players in 1979.

In 1979 Stargell hit .281/.353/.552, 139 OPS+. He didn't even play enough to qualify for the leader boards. He played 126 games and had 480 plate appearances. His BA and OBP were no where near the leaders. His .552 slugging was only 8th in the NL after adding the outs necessary to get him to 502 PAs. He finished 5th in strikeouts while playing far fewer games than the other strikeout leaders. The only other stat he finished in the top 10 was HR (5th with 32 HRs). He had 82 RBI and 60 runs scored. Plus he was a 38 year old stiff at first base with no baserunning skills left anymore. You think that makes Willie Stargell the best player in 1979?

His teammate in 1979 Dave Parker hit:

.310/.380/.526, 141 OPS+, 25 HR, 94 RBI, 109 R, 193 hits, 45 doubles, 7 triples, 20 SB, 7 CS

Plus Parker played Gold Gove defense in RF and was the 1979 All-Star Game MVP as well.

Bravesfan, please tell you don't really think because Stargell was the gawd-awful choice for the 1979 MVP that makes him the best player? :rolleyes:

[Bravesfan1984]

That's it, I've had enough. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. If you think Willie Stargell was the best player in National League in 1979 because he won the MVP then you are seriously lacking baseball history knowledge . I guess you must think Andre Dawson was the best player in 1987 because he won the MVP award. Go back and read some history. Stargell wasn't even one the top 20 players in 1979.

In 1979 Stargell hit .281/.353/.552, 139 OPS+. He didn't even play enough to qualify for the leader boards. He played 126 games and had 480 plate appearances. His BA and OBP were no where near the leaders. His .552 slugging was only 8th in the NL after adding the outs necessary to get him to 502 PAs. He finished 5th in strikeouts while playing far fewer games than the other strikeout leaders. The only other stat he finished in the top 10 was HR (5th with 32 HRs). He had 82 RBI and 60 runs scored. Plus he was a 38 year old stiff at first base with no baserunning skills left anymore. You think that makes Willie Stargell the best player in 1979?

His teammate in 1979 Dave Parker hit:

.310/.380/.526, 141 OPS+, 25 HR, 94 RBI, 109 R, 193 hits, 45 doubles, 7 triples, 20 SB, 7 CS

Plus Parker played Gold Gove defense in RF and was the 1979 All-Star Game MVP as well.

Bravesfan, please tell you don't really think because Stargell was the gawd-awful choice for the 1979 MVP that makes him the best player? :rolleyes:

Even if that was a mistake you also have to see that he also finished in the top 2 mvp twice and third once. Thome only made the top 5 mvp once when he finished fourth.

[Brad Harris]

http://www.zagura.ro/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/god-kills-kitten-troll.jpg

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Even if that was a mistake you also have to see that he also finished in the top 2 mvp twice and third once. Thome only made the top 5 mvp once when he finished fourth.

Wait a minute! You said that since Stargell won the MVP in 1979 he was the best player in 1979. I proved otherwise. So do you at least admit that a player winning the MVP doesn't really prove he's the best player just like Thome not winning the MVP in his best seasons doesn't prove he wasn't the best player?


Also, Manny Ramirez has never won an MVP Award, never come close. His best finish are two third place finishes. I guess he's not that good either.

[fenrir]

i'd vote for him.

[Bravesfan1984]

Wait a minute! You said that since Stargell won the MVP in 1979 he was the best player in 1979. I proved otherwise. So do you at least admit that a player winning the MVP doesn't really prove he's the best player just like Thome not winning the MVP in his best seasons doesn't prove he wasn't the best player?


Show me the seaons that Thome did not win it he was the best player

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Wait a minute! You said that since Stargell won the MVP in 1979 he was the best player in 1979. I proved otherwise. So do you at least admit that a player winning the MVP doesn't really prove he's the best player just like Thome not winning the MVP in his best seasons doesn't prove he wasn't the best player?


Show me the seaons that Thome did not win it he was the best player

Are we really going to go in circles again? You know the answer to that. An excellent case for in 2002 for Thome can made.

Also, do you admit that your argujemtn than a player winning the MVP is thebest player is a false argument?

[Bravesfan1984]

Are we really going to go in circles again? You know the answer to that. An excellent case for in 2002 for Thome can made.

Also, do you admit that your argujemtn than a player winning the MVP is thebest player is a false argument?

Thome was not better then Alex Rodriguez that year who had more hits, runs and rbi's and less strikeouts. Your second statement does not make sense how you wrote it but I get it. MVP has been used to determine the best player for a while. Has it always been acutrate.NO. But more times then not it has been given to the best player.If you have your own personal mvp voting standards that is fine but that is not how mlb does it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Thome was not better then Alex Rodriguez that year who had more hits, runs and rbi's and less strikeouts.

Oh let's see, Thome had a higher batting average, higher OBP, higher slugging percentage, more walks, higher OPS, higher OPS+. And A-Rod made 459 outs, Thome made 347 outs.


Your second statement does not make sense how you wrote it but I get it.
MVP has been used to determine the best player for a while.
Throughout history there have been many many bad choices for MVPs. Ever hear of Hank Sauer, Dick Groat, Willie Hernandez, Willie Stargell, Andre Dawson, Mugel Tejada, and Terry Pendleton?


Has it always been acutrate.NO. But more times then not it has been given to the best player.If you have your own personal mvp voting standards that is fine but that is not how mlb does it.
My whole point is that you argument that because someone wins the MVP they are the best player is SIMPLY WRONG. I showed how ridiculous the Willie Stargell selection was. How you ever thought using Stargell as a example the MVP Awards picks the best player is beyond me.

[Bravesfan1984]

Oh let's see, Thomas had a higher batting average, higher OBP, higher slugging percentage, more walks, higher OPS, higher OPS+. And A-Rod made 459 outs, Thome made 347 outs.


Throughout history there have been many many bad choices for MVPs. Ever hear of Hank Sauer, Dick Groat, Willie Hernandez, Willie Stargell, Andre Dawson, Mugel Tejada, and Terry Pendleton?


My whole point is that you argument that because someone wins the MVP they are the best player is SIMPLY WRONG. I showed how ridiculous the Willie Stargell selection was. How you ever thought using Stargell as a example the MVP Awards picks the best player is beyond me.

Batting average and obp are great but the main goal of a hitter is to score runs. You can not win games if you do not score runs or hit a lot of rbi's.

[Walt Zink]

:laugh Sounds like my kind of sportswriter!

I know what you mean about impressions. I used to work in the restaurant industry and had several friends who worked at gyms, YMCAs and United Way who all bumped into any number of local sports (and other celebrities). Always interesting when we traded stories which were jerks and which were genuinely nice people, particularly with regards to how they treat the "little" people. Great story, Walt! Thanks. :)

caught onto this late, but the story i got is funny.

the guy said jay mariotti would be in a bar in chicago and ozzie's son would see him and mariotti - no doubt scared a bit - would tell his son, "hey, tell your dad it's nothing personal." i got a kick out of that.

he raves about thome as a person, and so do i. every run-in i've had with the guy has been beyond pleasant.

off topic, but another incredibly congenial guy i've had several times over the years having lunch at my bar is vernon wells. can't say enough nice stuff about the guy.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Batting average and obp are great but the main goal of a hitter is to score runs. You can not win games if you do not score runs or hit a lot of rbi's.

Oh let's see so now your argument is a player with more runs and RBI is a better hitter a player with slightly fewer RBIs and runs? Do you any idea about how context driven RBI and runs can be? Looking at RBI and runs without looking at the context of which they generated their RBIs and runs scored is foolish. Let's look at this example.

Player A (right fielder)
120 RBI, 112 Runs

Player B (left fielder)
114 RBI, 104 Runs

These two players were teammates and player A played the more demanding defensive position. Who is the better player?

[Brad Harris]

Batting average and obp are great but the main goal of a hitter is to score runs.
Um....no, that would be the main goal of the baserunner. The main job of the hitter is to not make an out and drive any existing baserunners (when applicable). In both these regards, Thome has been excellent for a sustained period of time.

[Walt Zink]

Um....no, that would be the main goal of the baserunner. The main job of the hitter is to not make an out and drive any existing baserunners (when applicable). In both these regards, Thome has been excellent for a sustained period of time.

or if he does make an out, to make it a productive one :) SF, SH, etc :)

[jalbright]

Batting average and obp are great but the main goal of a hitter is to score runs.

To which Classic replied:
Um....no, that would be the main goal of the baserunner. The main job of the hitter is to not make an out and drive any existing baserunners (when applicable). In both these regards, Thome has been excellent for a sustained period of time.

In the larger sense, I agree with Classic. But, however you cut it, players aim to help tally runs (avoiding outs helps greatly in this). Scoring them and batting them in are, though imperfect because they rely on one's teammates, measures of that. That said, Thome excelled at both due to his ability to get on base and his power. In eight of his seasons, he both scored and batted in more than 100 runs. In career terms, as I write he's 77th among all hitters in scoring and 50th in RBI. As the Hall has well over 100 hitters, why shouldn't he belong?

[Brad Harris]

To which Classic replied:


In the larger sense, I agree with Classic. But, however you cut it, players aim to help tally runs (avoiding outs helps greatly in this). Scoring them and batting them in are, though imperfect because they rely on one's teammates, measures of that. That said, Thome excelled at both due to his ability to get on base and his power. In eight of his seasons, he both scored and batted in more than 100 runs. In career terms, as I write he's 77th among all hitters in scoring and 50th in RBI. As the Hall has well over 100 hitters, why shouldn't he belong?

So help me God, if I hear "he never won the MVP" one more time... :rant:

[Cougar]

Oh let's see so now your argument is a player with more runs and RBI is a better hitter a player with slightly fewer RBIs and runs? Do you any idea about how context driven RBI and runs can be? Looking at RBI and runs without looking at the context of which they generated their RBIs and runs scored is foolish. Let's look at this example.

Player A (right fielder)
120 RBI, 112 Runs

Player B (left fielder)
114 RBI, 104 Runs

These two players were teammates and player A played the more demanding defensive position. Who is the better player?

Bobby Bonilla and Barry Bonds, 1990 Pirates.

Wow, who'd have thought Bobby Bonilla would create more runs than Barry Bonds? Reputations do lie, don't they?

Boy, it does make you wonder about the legitimacy of the MVP voters, though. Bonds won the MVP with 23 first place votes to Bonilla's 1, even though Bonilla was a clearly superior player - quantifiably even!

Oh, wait, I get it...Bonilla struck out 20 more times than Bonds. That's a major demerit. The voters are more subtle and discerning than we give them credit for, wouldn't you say?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So help me God, if I hear "he never won the MVP" one more time... :rant:

Jim Thome never won an MVP award. Therefore he's not that good! :happy:

[Brad Harris]

Jim Thome never won an MVP award. Therefore he's not that good! :happy:
http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif

[Brad Harris]

Thome certainly added an impressive bullet to his resume yesterday (http://video.aol.com/video-detail/thome-danks-lead-white-sox-past-twins-and-into-playoffs/2634567295/?icid=VIDLRVSPR02). :cap:

[Bravesfan1984]

If you say obp shows who is the better player. In 2002 Alex Rodriguez had a lower obp then Adam Dunn. But Rodriguez had more hits, runs, rbi, homers, and slg. You can not seriously say Dunn was better that year.

[STLCards2]

If you say obp shows who is the better player. In 2002 Alex Rodriguez had a lower obp then Adam Dunn. But Rodriguez had more hits, runs, rbi, homers, and slg. You can not seriously say Dunn was better that year.

Who has ever said the obp by itself shows who is better? A-Rod is better than Dunn at everything besides obp. Nobody is denying that. However, obp is important, because a player with a .310 average and a .350 obp is making far more outs than a guy with a .250 average and a .400 obp. Getting on base is the substitute for the worst thing a player can do - making an out. It stands to reason that if a guy like Thome, is one of the best in baseaball every year at not getting out, he must be a top player. Thome hasn't exactly stuggled in many of the areas which you cited for A-Rod (run, RBI, homers, Slugg%) either.

[Cougar]

If you say obp shows who is the better player. In 2002 Alex Rodriguez had a lower obp then Adam Dunn. But Rodriguez had more hits, runs, rbi, homers, and slg. You can not seriously say Dunn was better that year.

That's totally why Dunn has never won the MVP!

[ol' aches and pains]

If he wasn't before, he is now...

[Brad Harris]

While I know that people have the right to be idiots, I am nevertheless amazed how many of them have to flaunt it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

If you say obp shows who is the better player. In 2002 Alex Rodriguez had a lower obp then Adam Dunn. But Rodriguez had more hits, runs, rbi, homers, and slg. You can not seriously say Dunn was better that year.

Considering how you yourself has said to "not put words in your mouth", what you're doing here by taking one of the many points you've been given in regards to Thome's candidacy (the value of OBP) and completely twisting it like you just did is just beyond reason. I don't want to see you telling anyone to "not put words in your mouth" again.

[Bravesfan1984]

Who has ever said the obp by itself shows who is better? A-Rod is better than Dunn at everything besides obp. Nobody is denying that. However, obp is important, because a player with a .310 average and a .350 obp is making far more outs than a guy with a .250 average and a .400 obp. Getting on base is the substitute for the worst thing a player can do - making an out. It stands to reason that if a guy like Thome, is one of the best in baseaball every year at not getting out, he must be a top player. Thome hasn't exactly stuggled in many of the areas which you cited for A-Rod (run, RBI, homers, Slugg%) either.

I was just showing how flawed the thinking was that Thome was a better player then other players certain years because he had a better obp. How is Thome been the best at not getting out when he strikeouts so much?

[SamtheBravesFan]

How is Thome been the best at not getting out when he strikeouts so much?

Strikeouts are only a type of out. OBP measures how much a player doesn't get an out.

[highpockets]

I was just showing how flawed the thinking was that Thome was a better player then other players certain years because he had a better obp. How is Thome been the best at not getting out when he strikeouts so much?
Having a high OBP = good at not getting out. That's essentially the definition of OBP: The rate of not making outs.

Thome does strike out a lot.

How do you resolve this? You should be able to figure it out yourself.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I was just showing how flawed the thinking was that Thome was a better player then other players certain years because he had a better obp. How is Thome been the best at not getting out when he strikeouts so much?

I suppose we should encourage Thome to trade Ks for GIDPs. :pray:

[Bravesfan1984]

Here is how many times Thome has been the best in different stats

OBP 0 ( i guess he is not so great obp as people say he does I mean Giambi led 3 times in obp
Slugging 1
OPS 1
Runs 0
Hits 0
Total bases 0
Home Runs 1 (for being called a home run hitter he only lead it once.)
RBI 0
Bases on Ball 3 He did well here
Strikeouts 3
Singles 0
Runs Created 1
Extra Base hits 0

[willshad]

Here is how many times Thome has been the best in different stats

OBP 0 ( i guess he is not so great obp as people say he does I mean Giambi led 3 times in obp
Slugging 1
OPS 1
Runs 0
Hits 0
Total bases 0
Home Runs 1 (for being called a home run hitter he only lead it once.)
RBI 0
Bases on Ball 3 He did well here
Strikeouts 3
Singles 0
Runs Created 1
Extra Base hits 0


I ddont think Id hold this against him too much. The era Thome played in was the most competitive ever as far as top level hitters went...not to mention an ever expanding major league roster. Not many players from this era have many black ink points. You dont have to lead the league a lot in things to be a great hitter..Mike Piazza has ZERO black ink. The Giambi fact is pretty much useless since Giambi is a definite steroid user. If indeed Thome was clean, one can only imagine what his stats would have been like if he was on the juice.

Nobody is saying Thome is an inner circle hall of famer. But there is precdent for his type to be elected into the hall...Killebrew, Mccovey, Murray, Perez. These guys didnt dominate the leader boards, and none were top tier hall of famers; but they were great power hitters for a long career.

[STLCards2]

Here is how many times Thome has been the best in different stats

OBP 0 ( i guess he is not so great obp as people say he does I mean Giambi led 3 times in obp
Slugging 1
OPS 1
Runs 0
Hits 0
Total bases 0
Home Runs 1 (for being called a home run hitter he only lead it once.)
RBI 0
Bases on Ball 3 He did well here
Strikeouts 3
Singles 0
Runs Created 1
Extra Base hits 0

You have spent a lot of time talking about who you don't support for the Hall of Fame: Thome, Delgado, Kent Mussina, Blyleven, O.Smith, Marichal, etc. You are obviously a "Small Hall" guy - and I respect that and have stuck up for you and others who wish there was a "Small Hall" even though I personaly do not.

I think many of us would love to see who you do think should be in the HOF - to help us understand where your cuttoff line is. Do you have a list? Could we see it if you do? You might defelct a lot of critisism by showing us a "Small Hall". What will get you into trouble is if your "Hall" excludes Marichal, Ozzie, Mussina, etc. but includes Catfish Hunter, Chick Klein, Lou Brock, or Heinie Manush, for example.

[Francoeurstein]

Maybe when this thread was created there were some doubts but now he is a lock even if he did retire today. I've always loved Jim Thome as a player and a person.

[Bravesfan1984]

You have spent a lot of time talking about who you don't support for the Hall of Fame: Thome, Delgado, Kent Mussina, Blyleven, O.Smith, Marichal, etc. You are obviously a "Small Hall" guy - and I respect that and have stuck up for you and others who wish there was a "Small Hall" even though I personaly do not.

I think many of us would love to see who you do think should be in the HOF - to help us understand where your cuttoff line is. Do you have a list? Could we see it if you do? You might defelct a lot of critisism by showing us a "Small Hall". What will get you into trouble is if your "Hall" excludes Marichal, Ozzie, Mussina, etc. but includes Catfish Hunter, Chick Klein, Lou Brock, or Heinie Manush, for example.

Okay here are some

Alex Rodrigez
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Tom Glavine
Pedro Martinez
Ken Griffey Jr
Barry Bonds(of course this depends on if he used steriods)
Chipper Jones
Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
Frank Thomas
Marinano RIvera
Mark Mcgwire
Sammy Sosa( like Mcgwire and Bonds depends)
Derek Jeter
Jeff Bagwell

I may missed a few but that is pretty much it

[STLCards2]

Okay here are some

Alex Rodrigez
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Tom Glavine
Pedro Martinez
Ken Griffey Jr
Barry Bonds(of course this depends on if he used steriods)
Chipper Jones
Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
Frank Thomas
Marinano RIvera
Mark Mcgwire
Sammy Sosa( like Mcgwire and Bonds depends)
Derek Jeter
Jeff Bagwell

I may missed a few but that is pretty much it

That is a solid active "Small Hall" list. I would agree that these are better choices than Kent, Thome, Mussina (even though still deserving in my opinion), etc. - what about historicaly?

[Bravesfan1984]

I ddont think Id hold this against him too much. The era Thome played in was the most competitive ever as far as top level hitters went...not to mention an ever expanding major league roster. Not many players from this era have many black ink points. You dont have to lead the league a lot in things to be a great hitter..Mike Piazza has ZERO black ink. The Giambi fact is pretty much useless since Giambi is a definite steroid user. If indeed Thome was clean, one can only imagine what his stats would have been like if he was on the juice.

Nobody is saying Thome is an inner circle hall of famer. But there is precdent for his type to be elected into the hall...Killebrew, Mccovey, Murray, Perez. These guys didnt dominate the leader boards, and none were top tier hall of famers; but they were great power hitters for a long career.

Most of these guys had something else besides just being power hitters an mvp or something else. Just because you hit home runs for a long time does not make you a Hall of Famer

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Most of these guys had something else besides just being power hitters an mvp or something else. Just because you hit home runs for a long time does not make you a Hall of Famer.

Of course it does. Just because YOU don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true.

[Mike90]

Okay here are some

Alex Rodrigez
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Tom Glavine
Pedro Martinez
Ken Griffey Jr
Barry Bonds(of course this depends on if he used steriods)
Chipper Jones
Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
Frank Thomas
Marinano RIvera
Mark Mcgwire
Sammy Sosa( like Mcgwire and Bonds depends)
Derek Jeter
Jeff Bagwell

I may missed a few but that is pretty much it

This seems like a reasonable "Small Hall" list, which STLCards2 has already pointed out.

[four tool]

Most of these guys had something else besides just being power hitters an mvp or something else. Just because you hit home runs for a long time does not make you a Hall of Famer
Tell that to Harmon Killebrew.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Tell that to Harmon Killebrew.

But Killebrew won an MVP!!!!

[Bravesfan1984]

Of course it does. Just because YOU don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true.

Thome only once led the league in home runs. Even for a power hitter he is not great. Some of the players that have done it more are Ryan Howard, Cecil Fielder, Fred Mcgriff. If you are going to let Thome in then why not Juan Gonzalez? Gonzalez has less home runs but he has two mvp about the same amount of hits and less strikeouts. Juan Gonzalez also had a better Peak then Thome.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Thome only once led the league in home runs. Even for a power hitter he is not great. Some of the players that have done it more are Ryan Howard, Cecil Fielder, Fred Mcgriff. If you are going to let Thome in then why not Juan Gonzalez? Gonzalez has less home runs but he has two mvp about the same amount of hits and less strikeouts. Juan Gonzalez also had a better Peak then Thome.

Hahahahaha that's funny. I don't even know how to respond to that. Juan Gone? You serious?

Juan Gone had an OPS+ over 150 once. Thome with 9. Voters LOVE RBIs and Juan Gone is like Manny Ramirez in that department. Lets not even go to the MVPs that Juan won. '96 was A Rod's year or McGwire's or several others (Juan was 9th in OPS that year!!). I ranked that MVP as one of the worst ones. Juan was barely in the top 10 in any categories... I don't know he won it. '98 was alright, but a couple others were better.

As far as leading HRs goes... you know how hard is to lead something in the league nowadays? esp. HRs. Thome had 2 other years where he hit more HRs than he led in '03 and didn't led the league in those years.

BTW, your boy, Bagwell (who's in your HoF), led the league in HRs... ZERO times.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Thome only once led the league in home runs. Even for a power hitter he is not great. Some of the players that have done it more are Ryan Howard, Cecil Fielder, Fred Mcgriff. If you are going to let Thome in then why not Juan Gonzalez? Gonzalez has less home runs but he has two mvp about the same amount of hits and less strikeouts. Juan Gonzalez also had a better Peak then Thome.

Umm...maybe because Juan Gozales is a known PED user and he didn't deserve either of his MVPs. His 1996 MVP selection is especially ridiculous given the overall monster year A-Rod had as a 20 year old. And no, Gonzales doesn't not have a better peak than Thome. Gonzales had 457 career walks. Thome has 1,550 career walks so far. Thome has a career 148 OPS+. Gonzales has a 132 career OPS+.

[four tool]

But Killebrew won an MVP!!!!

As a HR hitter--the MVP is the only difference between Kill Thome. So if thome wins an MVP then he's in?

[dominik]

I don't know how there ist a discussion about Thome.
He will end up with 580 HRs in the worst case(over 600 likely) which will make him the all time 10 in this category.

His RBI, OBP and OPS is also very good.

Of course he didn't win MVP or black ink but this was because he competed against roided supermutants in his prime.

He has some shortcomings(only a dh) but this does not nearly justify neglecting his great hitting stats, esp. because he might be one of the few clean hitters of his era.

There is no possible scenario(exept roids) in which a 600 HR hitter doesn't make the hall.

[Mike Hoban]

As of the end of the 2008 season, Jim Thome had established obvious HOF numbers according to the CAWS Career Gauge (a score of 280 for a first baseman).

Based strictly on the numbers, the CAWS Career Gauge has these players as the top 25 first basemen. As you can see, Thome is #11. Only the top 12 plus Greenberg and Terry have HOF numbers. The first number is career win shares, the second is core value and the third is the CAWS score.

Note where Giambi, Delgado and Helton are at present. Frank Thomas would be very high on this list (#3) but he has spent more time at DH than 1B.

1. Lou Gehrig 489 384 410
2. Jimmie Foxx 435 325 353
3. Willie McCovey 408 285 316
4. Dick Allen 342 304 314
5. Eddie Murray 437 273 314
6. Jeff Bagwell 388 287 312
7. Johnny Mize 339 296 307
8. Harmon Killebrew 374 279 303
9. Mark McGwire 342 283 298
10. Rafael Palmeiro 387 257 290
11. Jim Thome 341 267 286
12. Will Clark 331 269 285
13. Jason Giambi 302 271 279
14. Tony Perez 349 249 274
15. Orlando Cepeda 310 251 266
16. Carlos Delgado 298 254 265
17. Keith Hernandez 311 248 264
18. Hank Greenberg* 267 262 263
19. Fred McGriff 326 240 262
20. Bill Terry* 278 255 261
21. Norm Cash 315 241 260
22. John Olerud 301 239 255
23. Todd Helton 261 252 254
24. George Sisler 292 239 252
25. Don Mattingly 263 241 247

* = HOF numbers - short but great career.

If anyone would like a free e-copy of the 100-page monograph, A HOF HANDBOOK: Who Belongs and Who Does Not, just e-mail me at mike_hoban@msn.com

[Captain Cold Nose]

I don't know how there ist a discussion about Thome.
He will end up with 580 HRs in the worst case(over 600 likely) which will make him the all time 10 in this category.

His RBI, OBP and OPS is also very good.

Of course he didn't win MVP or black ink but this was because he competed against roided supermutants in his prime.

He has some shortcomings(only a dh) but this does not nearly justify neglecting his great hitting stats, esp. because he might be one of the few clean hitters of his era.

There is no possible scenario(exept roids) in which a 600 HR hitter doesn't make the hall.

1. What makes him above suspicion?
2. He never had any HOF seasons.

[RuthMayBond]

2. He never had any HOF seasons.What the heck is a HOF "season"?

If being second in OPS+, third, and twice for 4th and 5th isn't
I guess if LEADING THE LEAGUE in SLG & OPS+ isn't a "HOF season"

[Captain Cold Nose]

What the heck is a HOF "season"?

If being second in OPS+, third, and twice for 4th and 5th isn't
I guess if LEADING THE LEAGUE in SLG & OPS+ isn't a "HOF season"

I don't know, it's not my term.

That sounds pretty good, though.

[Brad Harris]

2. He never had any HOF seasons.
Dear God....

Please don't get that started again. :shhh:

[RuthMayBond]

Dear God....

Please don't get that started again. :shhh:I'm beginning to doubt if Captain Cold Nose ever had any of, well, you know, THOSE seasons