Jim Thome (2009 edition) [Archive] - Page 3

RuthMayBond

04-29-2009, 04:59 PM

Bill James once defined a "HOF season" as 30 HR, 100 RBI, .300 BA in the same season. This was before the 1990s, of course.So every HOFer who finished pre-1920 (and several more after that, like Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Carew) never had a HOF season, but Danny Tartabull, George Bell, Rudy York & Hal Trosky had a couple. Even Mantle only had three :crazy

Honus Wagner Rules

04-29-2009, 07:51 PM

Bill James once defined a "HOF season" as 30 HR, 100 RBI, .300 BA in the same season. This was before the 1990s, of course.

FB,

Where did Bill James say this? I have most of his books and I don't recall this.

Honus Wagner Rules

04-29-2009, 07:53 PM

Not to open up another can of worms, but Jim Rice, who wasn't a very popular HOF candidate around here, had his share of those.

Rice had four such seasons ('77, '78, '79, '83). Thome has two such seasons ('96, '02).

Freakshow

04-29-2009, 09:21 PM

It's a "hall of fame" season in the sense that's what Hall voters like to see. Not in the sense that it's necessarily meaningful.

It's what James used to call a "freakshow" statistic, one which is fun to look at but really doesn't tell you anything meaningful. (Which is where my moniker comes from, BTW. In the 80's James used to feature my stuff in his bimonthly Baseball Analyst.)

Fuzzy Bear

04-30-2009, 04:10 AM

FB,

Where did Bill James say this? I have most of his books and I don't recall this.

I believe it was in one of his 1980s annual publications. I think it was his 1987 book, where he was discussing Don Mattingly, and the remarkable number of 30-100-.300 seasons he had racked up early in his career.

The concept, obviously, does not apply to the dead ball era, nor does it apply to all players. I think it was used to describe a player who has the total package in hitting. I'll say this: A player who posts 30-100-.300 is likely to be at .700 OWP, even now, so such a season is usually a mark of quality.

four tool

04-30-2009, 04:42 AM

James was looking at what the voters looked at when he said 30-300-100: he certainly never said it was a meaningful way to evaluate players. And HRS, e.g Killebrew often trumped everything else for non-pitchers with the voters.
That's not a knock on Kill, he deserves to be in the hall, and so dofor instance, Carew and Gwynn despite a lack of 30-100 seasons.

Captain Cold Nose

04-30-2009, 05:39 AM

I'm beginning to doubt if Captain Cold Nose ever had any of, well, you know, THOSE seasons

Read a few threads here and maybe you'll catch up someday.

ol' aches and pains

04-30-2009, 06:36 AM

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.

Heinie Manush deserves to be in the HOF just for his name.

As for Thome, with 545 home runs and counting, it's going to be hard to keep him out. It will be interesting to see how the voters weigh in on the guys who were mainly DH's for most of their careers.

Freakshow

04-30-2009, 06:56 AM

It will be interesting to see how the voters weigh in on the guys who were mainly DH's for most of their careers.Well, they had no problem electing Molitor. Still, he played less than half his career at DH. We have a better test case coming up in the next BBWAA election: Edgar Martinez.

I would bet that the voters fail to analyze fielding in a sabermetric light and end up casually dismissing Edgar. Despite the fact that Edgar has no less fielding value than many hitters in the Hall. He will get 5%, but not much more.

brett

04-30-2009, 09:10 AM

So every HOFer who finished pre-1920 (and several more after that, like Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Carew) never had a HOF season, but Danny Tartabull, George Bell, Rudy York & Hal Trosky had a couple. Even Mantle only had three :crazy

140 OPS+ for a corner outfielder
125 for centerfield, 2B
135 at third base
120 SS, C
155 first base.
(all else being equal).

Or 27 win-shares would be about twice that of an average full time player?

RuthMayBond

04-30-2009, 10:27 AM

Read a few threads here and maybe you'll catch up someday.I'm already caught up, and unfortunately you had to dredge that up again

Honus Wagner Rules

04-30-2009, 10:35 AM

Heinie Manush deserves to be in the HOF just for his name.

As for Thome, with 545 home runs and counting, it's going to be hard to keep him out. It will be interesting to see how the voters weigh in on the guys who were mainly DH's for most of their careers.

Are you referring to Thome as a DH? He's only DH'd just over 500 games amd almost all of those games have come since 2006.

Captain Cold Nose

04-30-2009, 10:53 AM

I'm already caught up, and unfortunately you had to dredge that up again

Fair enough. I apologize for that. Sorry folks, some jokes should be avoided.

Sockeye

06-01-2009, 11:25 AM

It has been about 3 years since the last series of potential HOFer polls I ran. Thought I would do another series of polls. Below is a list of the players stats to date. Unlike the last series of polls I'm not going to list any career projections.

Jim Thome at age 38

2200 games
7477 at-bats
1455 runs
2082 hits
404 doubles
24 triples
549 home runs
1517 RBI
19 stolen bases
1579 BB
.278 AVG
.406 OBP
.559 SLG
147 OPS+
4181 total bases
9192 PA's
1803 runs created
8.6 RC/G
.717 OWP
579.8 batting runs
53.0 batting wins
13 black ink
120 gray ink
145 HOF monitor
53 HOF standards
.321 EQA
80.0 WARP1
86.4 WARP3
911 BRAR
661 BRAA
104 FRAR
-33 FRAA
350 win shares

Captain Cold Nose

06-01-2009, 12:13 PM

Really hard to ignore those career numbers.

Honus Wagner Rules

06-01-2009, 12:13 PM

Thome has already cemented his HOF credentials. Just when I thought Thome was through this season he's now on pace for another 30+ HR, 100+ RBI, 100+ BB season.

mwiggins

06-01-2009, 12:40 PM

Really hard to ignore those career numbers.

I would guess he struggles to get in, though. It's really hard to ignore some of his season's either, yet he's only gotten MVP votes 8 times in his career and never finished higher than 4th. And his ink scores aren't great.

I'm guessing his HR's numbers will be dismissed by many as just a product of the era he played in, and he'll be dismissed as a one-dimensional player who did nothing but hit home runs. Heck, I just heard one of ESPN's baseball wonks say that Frank Thomas had no chance at being elected because he couldn't play defense or run. That he had great numbers, but wasn't a great player. If Thomas doesn't waltz in on his first ballot, which he should, I can't see Thome fairing too well. Unless he gets to 600 HR's. That would probably be too much for anyone to ignore.

jalbright

06-01-2009, 12:43 PM

Merged with another thread. The poll in that thread had 111 favoring his candidacy for the HOF, 24 against.

Milt on Tilt

06-01-2009, 12:50 PM

I'd have to say I'm voting yes. His career reminds me a lot of the Killer's.

Cougar

06-01-2009, 01:22 PM

No way in H-E-double hockey sticks that Thome doesn't get into the HOF.

mwiggins

06-01-2009, 01:25 PM

I'd have to say I'm voting yes. His career reminds me a lot of the Killer's.

The numbers do, but not his fame/recongnition/stardom. Killer won an MVP, got MVP votes 11 out of 12 years from age 23-35, and led the league in HR's 6 times (5 more times than Thome). Killer was a better slugger, while Thome was a better OBP guy.

And even Killebrew took 4 years to get into the Hall.

Milt on Tilt

06-01-2009, 03:47 PM

Yeah. I was thinking as much on the other side of the game too. Primary 1B/3B/DH player. Although Killer played a lot of games in Left instead of DH. But similar position movement and defensive liability.

Sockeye

06-02-2009, 03:33 PM

Sockeye

06-02-2009, 03:42 PM

mwiggins

06-02-2009, 04:10 PM

Looking at Thome's numbers again something caught my eye. He's a 5 time allstar. From 01-03 his OPS+ those three years was 170, 197, & 154. He was top 7 in MVP voting all three seasons. They were arguably his three best seasons yet he didn't make the allstar team one single time during those years. It just goes to prove yet again just how worthless a measure that number of allstar teams made is.

Hard to make it as a 1B in the AL back then when Sweeney had a guaranteed spot every year. :shrug:

2002 is the hard one to imagine, though, as he was hitting .350 with 30 dingers at the break and he was coming off a year in which he finished 7th in the MVP voting. But Giambi was coming off his MVP season and had a good first half - .318, 22 HR's, 71 RBI - and Sweeney was the token Royal.

But Konerko over Thome????

PVNICK

06-03-2009, 05:28 AM

An interesting comparison to Thome is Willie McCovey

Jim Thome: .718 OWP, 148 OPS+, 86.7 WARP3, 350 WS, -33 FRAA in 9196 PA's
Willie McCovey: .718 OWP, 147 OPS+, 74.0 WARP3, 408 WS, -127 FRAA in 9686 PA's

Almost identical OWP, OPS+ numbers. Thome with the higher WARP3, McCovey more WS. Thome's better with the glove. By season's end the PA's should be very close. I'd call it darn near close to even for these two. Pretty good company to be in. Stretch was a clear HOFer. Thome easily deserves to be as well.

That's pretty interesting. I think if Thome didn't DH his FRAA might be down where McCovey's is. Be that as it may, it's hard to believe you could fly under the radar and have a career that measures up to McCovey's but to a large degree Thome has.

mwiggins

06-03-2009, 07:24 AM

That's pretty interesting. I think if Thome didn't DH his FRAA might be down where McCovey's is. Be that as it may, it's hard to believe you could fly under the radar and have a career that measures up to McCovey's but to a large degree Thome has.

McCovey also had a more dominant peak, despite their similar career OPS+ numbers. McCovey was the best hitter in baseball for a 3 year stretch, leading the majors in OPS+ each year. And his Black Ink is much better - 31 to 13. Thome was the best hitter in baseball in 2002, but never for a lengthy stretch the way McCovey was.

And Thome also played in an era that made it easier for guys like he and McCovey to excel and seperate from the rest of the league, making a direct comparison of relative stats problematic.

And you are correct that using WARP to compare them is flawed due to Thome's time at DH. Looking at just BRAA McCovey has a 691 to 663 career edge. And his best years show clear superiority to Thome.

Best 5 BRAA:
McCovey - 91, 76, 70, 61, 59 (71.4 average)
Thome - 77, 61, 60, 56, 53 (61.4 average)

Sockeye

06-03-2009, 10:06 AM

McCovey also had a more dominant peak, despite their similar career OPS+ numbers. McCovey was the best hitter in baseball for a 3 year stretch, leading the majors in OPS+ each year. And his Black Ink is much better - 31 to 13. Thome was the best hitter in baseball in 2002, but never for a lengthy stretch the way McCovey was.

And Thome also played in an era that made it easier for guys like he and McCovey to excel and seperate from the rest of the league, making a direct comparison of relative stats problematic.

And you are correct that using WARP to compare them is flawed due to Thome's time at DH. Looking at just BRAA McCovey has a 691 to 663 career edge. And his best years show clear superiority to Thome.

Best 5 BRAA:
McCovey - 91, 76, 70, 61, 59 (71.4 average)
Thome - 77, 61, 60, 56, 53 (61.4 average)

McCovey had the better peak. Thome has been a little more consistant and seems to have aged better.

Seasons 6-10 BRAA:
Thome - 51, 51, 43, 43, 40 (45.6 average)
McCovey - 53, 49, 44, 41, 33 (44.0 average)

Seasons 11-15 BRAA:
Thome - 35, 33, 30, 15, 13 (25.2 average)
McCovey - 26, 23, 18, 16, 15 (19.6 average)

Thome will likely improve on this number as he is on pace for about 30 BRAA this season which will make his average 28.6.

Best 5 FRAA

Thome - 9, 7, 5, 4, 0 (5.0 average)
McCovey - 5, 3, 2, 2, 2 (2.8 average)

Neither was good with the glove. At their best Thome was slightly better defensively.

Best 5 WARP3

Thome - 9.2, 8.0, 7.9, 7.2, 6.3 (7.72 average)
McCovey - 9.2, 8.1, 7.7, 7.7, 7.0 (7.94 average)

Extremely close. Ever so slight edge to McCovey

Again though this backs up my point as to just how close McCovey and Thome are. McCovey is well above HOF borderline. Thome has to be as well.

mwiggins

06-03-2009, 10:31 AM

McCovey had the better peak. Thome has been a little more consistant and seems to have aged better.

Except that McCovey was a better hitter at ages 35 and 36 than Thome, while having to play the field instead of DH'ing. Both players had bad years at age 34, due to injuries, but McCovey was still better. McCovey was better in his early 30's as well.

Thome has been the better player after age 36, but he's also been a full time DH since age 35, something that wasn't available to McCovey. Who knows how well Thome's last few years would have gone if he'd been forced to play the field in order to be in the lineup. A reasonable assumption would be that he'd not have been in the lineup as much, and would have been much more likely to have been injured.

McCovey also lost significant playing time in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th seasons, despite hitting very well (144 OPS) and winning ROTK in 1959, due to the logjam of talent the Giants had at 1B and the corner OF spots. He probably lost 35-40 HR's during those 3 years.

redban

06-03-2009, 11:18 AM

Not too sure about Thome.

The biggest thing he obviously has is the homeruns. He actually has far more than I thought too - 550. He can get to 600 in a few years. He hit over 30 last year and has 9 so far this year.

But the batting average is too low, only finished in the top 5 MVP voting once, and he strikes out a ton.

His candicacy for the Hall of Fame actually reminds me a lot of Carlos Delgado.

Right now, I'm leaning to towards YES. He has a great attitude, and was the never source of any controversy (Unlike someone such as Sheffield). It seems extremely unlikely that a guy like him used steroids.

Again, by the time he retires he'll have around 600 homeruns. How can you keep a guy like that out?

Cougar

06-03-2009, 12:00 PM

Again, by the time he retires he'll have around 600 homeruns. How can you keep a guy like that out?

Exactly. :thumbsup:

Sockeye

06-03-2009, 12:48 PM

Except that McCovey was a better hitter at ages 35 and 36 than Thome, while having to play the field instead of DH'ing. Both players had bad years at age 34, due to injuries, but McCovey was still better. McCovey was better in his early 30's as well.

Thome has been the better player after age 36, but he's also been a full time DH since age 35, something that wasn't available to McCovey. Who knows how well Thome's last few years would have gone if he'd been forced to play the field in order to be in the lineup. A reasonable assumption would be that he'd not have been in the lineup as much, and would have been much more likely to have been injured.

McCovey also lost significant playing time in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th seasons, despite hitting very well (144 OPS) and winning ROTK in 1959, due to the logjam of talent the Giants had at 1B and the corner OF spots. He probably lost 35-40 HR's during those 3 years.

McCovey may have been more productive with the bat at age 35-36 than Thome but did not have better seasons.

Age 35

Thome: 155 OPS+ in 610 PA's
McCovey: 161 OPS+ in 495 PA's

Age 36

Thome: 150 OPS+ in 536 PA's
McCovey: 164 OPS+ in 442 PA's

Age 37

Thome: 123 OPS+ in 602 PA's
McCovey: 129 OPS+ in 475 PA's

I'll certainly take Thome's age 35 season over McCovey's. Give me 115 more PA's over 6 OPS+ points anyday. Age 36 in somewhat close. 96 PA's or 14 OPS+ points. I'll take Thome's age 37 season over McCovey's. 127 PA's are worth more than 6 OPS+ points. Thome also looks to be the much better player at age 38.

The DH point would only be valid if McCovey had actually been providing defensive value. But at age 36 he was -10 FRAR and -8 FRAR at age 37. Another reason that the DH needs to be added to the NL.

Sockeye

06-03-2009, 12:55 PM

But the batting average is too low, only finished in the top 5 MVP voting once, and he strikes out a ton.

He has a .278 lifetime batting average and has batted over .300 three times.

I'm guessing you must not be a big supporter of Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, Willie McCovey, Eddie Mathews, or Harmon Killebrew then either huh?

mwiggins

06-03-2009, 01:14 PM

The DH point would only be valid if McCovey had actually been providing defensive value. But at age 36 he was -10 FRAR and -8 FRAR at age 37. Another reason that the DH needs to be added to the NL.

The point is not his defensive value, but that McCovey had to go out and field every day. He was more likely to be nicked up, or not be in the lineup due to his defensive issues. If he had been a full time DH, I'm pretty confident that he'd have had more PA's in those seasons. And that the Sox wouldn't have given Thome that amount of PA's if the DH'ing him wasn't an option.

Take 1974...if the Padres were in a DH league, you know that McCovey would have started more than 104 games if he didn't have to compete with Nate Colbert for playing time at 1B and the Padres weren't forced to deal with his defensive issues when ever they started him. And he would have most likely been healthier if he hadn't have had to play first base for 841 innings that year.

And actually I'd say this comparision is a good example of why the DH should be gone. Who wants to watch an old guy like Thome, who can really do nothing but draw walks and hit home runs and strikeout, continue to be a full time player. If his defense is bad enough that he can't play full time any more, or if he's not durable enough to play full time in the field, then he should be a pinch hitter or retire.

Honus Wagner Rules

06-03-2009, 02:03 PM

We need to remeber the McCovey had serious knee and foot problems (so serious that McCovey cannot walk anymore today :dismay: ). Had he been able to DH in his mid 30's there is no doubt in my mind he would have been a more productive hitter.

Paul Wendt

06-03-2009, 03:55 PM

And actually I'd say this comparison is a good example of why the DH should be gone. Who wants to watch an old guy like Thome, who can really do nothing but draw walks and hit home runs and strikeout, continue to be a full time player. If his defense is bad enough that he can't play full time any more, or if he's not durable enough to play full time in the field, then he should be a pinch hitter or retire.
Think of him as a permanent pinch-hitter for the pitcher.

Neither bad defense nor low durability prevents him from playing firstbase. To field Konerko and dh Thome is a management decision made under the DH rule. If the AL would rescind the DH rule, he would probably have a firstbase job somewhere.

ol' aches and pains

06-03-2009, 04:46 PM

Think of him as a permanent pinch-hitter for the pitcher.

Neither bad defense nor low durability prevents him from playing firstbase. To field Konerko and dh Thome is a management decision made under the DH rule. If the AL would rescind the DH rule, he would probably have a firstbase job somewhere.

Thome is rather brittle at this stage of his career, and Konerko, while no Keith Hernandez, actually is a pretty decent first baseman, and about five years younger than Thome. It just makes sense to DH with Thome. If you get the chance to watch him "running" the bases, you know he wouldn't cover much ground at first.

Just to clarify, I voted yes. DH or no DH, you can't keep him out of the Hall.

Cougar

06-03-2009, 05:03 PM

Just for the record, McCovey briefly DHed in Oakland.

rsuriyop

06-03-2009, 05:30 PM

It used to be that a few years ago there was some debate as to whether or not he'd make in (to the HOF). Nowadays, I see no truly reasonable arguments against his chances.

He's in.

mwiggins

06-03-2009, 05:35 PM

Just for the record, McCovey briefly DHed in Oakland.

He also rejected a trade during the '73-'74 offseason that would have sent him to an AL team because he didn't want to DH.

Cougar

06-03-2009, 05:52 PM

He also rejected a trade during the '73-'74 offseason that would have sent him to an AL team because he didn't want to DH.

I didn't know that. What were the details? Which team?

mwiggins

06-03-2009, 07:57 PM

I didn't know that. What were the details? Which team?

It's from one of those little paperbacks that used to come out before every season. In this case, Major League Baseball 1974.

It doesn't give the team in question, or any of the details, but it does include a quote from McCovey himself discussing his desire to not be a DH.

Discussing the acquisition of McCovey by the Padres, the author states "Even more important is the fact that the former San Francisco slugger was happy with the deal that came after he rejected a trade that would have sent him to the American League as a designated hitter."

McCovey was then quoted..."I can become a designated hitter when I turn 40. I don't want to now. I can still play, most of the time. I've learned to live with the pain in my knees and I'm delighted to join this club. I know I can help it."

Who knows how much he meant that statement, though. I could have just been him trying to put a good spin on being shipped off to the lowly Padres.

Bravesfan1984

07-20-2009, 02:21 PM

Four times in the top seven in MVP voting

<Only 3 times in 18 years has he had over a 300 batting average.>

Ok, you just knocked Schmidt, Morgan, Mathews, Ripken out of the Hall, anyone else?

I think a lot of those votes were because he hit a lot of home runs and mvp voters like home runs. Look at 2003 he had no business being in the top ten mvp voting when he was batting 266 with a 385 obp and 182 strikeouts but he hit 47 home runs so I guess they thought he must be one of the top ten best players.

BigandUgly

07-20-2009, 03:03 PM

dominik

07-20-2009, 04:15 PM

He's in. Of course he is a DH and a somewhat limited slugger. But his walks compensate most of his low average. He has little black ink(not easy when you play your prime against bonds, Mcgwire....) but he is one of the best hitters of his time, period.

His OPS+ is 3rd among active players, only behind manny and pujols and in front of guys like Arod or griffey.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_plus_active.shtml

His OBP is actually 6th among all active players despite high whiff rates.
He might be the best DH ever or at least top 3.

Paul McCartney

07-20-2009, 04:35 PM

I accidentally voted no. I think he is more than deserving and will eventually get in, just not first ballot.

Brad Harris

07-21-2009, 09:08 PM

I think a lot of those votes were because he hit a lot of home runs and mvp voters like home runs. Look at 2003 he had no business being in the top ten mvp voting when he was batting 266 with a 385 obp and 182 strikeouts but he hit 47 home runs so I guess they thought he must be one of the top ten best players.

Once again, what you deem important or unimportant in valuating a ballplayer doesn't necessarily correlate the closest to winning ballgames. Jim Thome was absolutely one of the best players in the league in 2003. He did more than just hit home runs. Not that leading the league in home runs is something that should keep the guy out of the top ten in the league.

Bravesfan1984

07-23-2009, 08:40 PM

Once again, what you deem important or unimportant in valuating a ballplayer doesn't necessarily correlate the closest to winning ballgames. Jim Thome was absolutely one of the best players in the league in 2003. He did more than just hit home runs. Not that leading the league in home runs is something that should keep the guy out of the top ten in the league.

That year he did not do anything else but really hit home runs. If he did his obp would have been better. He had a lot of runs and rbis because he hit so many homeruns. Yes he was scoring a good amount of runs with homeruns but when he was not hitting home runs he was not helping his team much because he was not getting on base alot.

nerfan

07-23-2009, 08:43 PM

Senor Octobre

07-23-2009, 08:54 PM

That year he did not do anything else but really hit home runs. If he did his obp would have been better. He had a lot of runs and rbis because he hit so many homeruns. Yes he was scoring a good amount of runs with homeruns but when he was not hitting home runs he was not helping his team much because he was not getting on base alot.

30 doubles
47 home runs
111 runs
131 rbi
111 walks
331 total bases
.385
.573
.958
154 OPS+
8.3 runs created/game
.720 offensive winning %

Not the MVP, but I'll take that any day.

Cougar

07-23-2009, 09:01 PM

That year he did not do anything else but really hit home runs. If he did his obp would have been better. He had a lot of runs and rbis because he hit so many homeruns. Yes he was scoring a good amount of runs with homeruns but when he was not hitting home runs he was not helping his team much because he was not getting on base alot.

This post should have a warning label on it.

"Read at your own risk. Baseball Fever shall not be responsible if you become clinically insane trying to make sense of this post. People under 18 must read in the presence of a parent, guardian, licensed professional, or Dr. Phil."

Brad Harris

07-23-2009, 09:47 PM

This post should have a warning label on it.

"Read at your own risk. Baseball Fever shall not be responsible if you become clinically insane trying to make sense of this post. People under 18 must read in the presence of a parent, guardian, licensed professional, or Dr. Phil."
Dr. Phil? LOL Forget him. I'd pay to watch Judge Judy handle this case. ;)

I mean...after all, other than hitting home runs Babe Ruth didn't do much to help his team either.

Zoso

07-23-2009, 10:12 PM

I really like Thome. He's a solid blue-colar player. Show up, don't cause problems and hit the ball.

I read an interview with him a few years back. They asked him about getting bigger and using steroids. His response was something to the effect of unless steak, potatos and fried chicken are PEDs he's clean.

I don't even think he lifts weights. He's just a natural cornfed mofo who looks like he should've played in the 50s with the cutoff sleeves. He even wears an iron helmet and has never washed his socks.

The Gentleman Masher, Jim Thome drinks for free at my bar in the event I own a bar.

Cowtipper

10-25-2009, 01:11 AM

Does anyone think he has enough in him to make it to 600 home runs? Think teams will keep signing him long enough to get there?

Cougar

10-25-2009, 06:49 PM

Does anyone think he has enough in him to make it to 600 home runs? Think teams will keep signing him long enough to get there?

He certainly seems capable of manning a DH spot in the AL for at least a couple more seasons, which should be more than long enough to hit 600.

It wouldn't surprise me if he got deep enough into the 600's to make a run at Willie Mays for #4 all time.