Jim Thome (2009 edition)

[Aegis]

I'm just curious about the board member's feelings about Thome and the Hall. This isn't exactly meant to stump for him, but I like him and portray him probably through rose-tinted glasses.

Has 1625 H in 14 seasons. Has 3259 TB, earning 314 per 162 G. Has 423 HR. Has hit at least 30 HR in 9 seasons, including the last 8. Has hit at least 40 HR in 5 seasons, including the last 4. Has hit at least 50 HR once, in '02. The last three years he's hit 52, 47, and 42 HR. If he hits 5 fewer HR a year for the next five years, he'll wind up with 558, which would be ninth all-time, not considering what Griffey, Bagwell, McGriff, Thomas, and JuanGon (the active players in front of him) will do. His FP is about on par for course and his RF is above league average. He hits .284/.410/.569 with .979 OPS and 151 OPS+. Ink is 13/91. He turns 34 in August.

[RuthMayBond]

1) He's only a few OPS+ points behind Greenberg with about a thousand more plate apps
2) He's also a few OPS+ points behind (and will probably end up further behind) DAllen, with fewer PA

[mac195]

Thome will probably hit 550-600 HRs. I don't know how they could keep him out if he does that.

[Brad Harris]

Thome already has my vote. He'll probably convince the writers in the next 3-4 years. Too much there to overlook.

[julusnc]

In time Jim Thome will be recognized as one of the best sluggers of his era and a sure fire Hall of Famer with five more solid years under his belt.

I dont feel he has ever taken steriods.

How do the rest of you feel?

[Aegis]

Concerning steroids? I honestly don't think he's taken them. He's a big guy now, but he wasn't exactly a stick when he first came into the league.

Note: Thome's the youngest on the top 10 active HR leaders list, currently sitting ninth. Odds are he won't catch Bonds or Sosa. He may catch Palmeiro if Raffy hangs them up soon, and by soon I mean now. If Griffey can spackle his hamstring together, Thome probably won't pass him, but Griffey's health is nothing if not inconsistent. McGriff will be passed. Bagwell could easily be passed; depends on when he retires. Thomas and Gonzalez will probably be passed if for no other reason than they're older and only 10-15 HR up on him.

Out of those immediately behind him, Sheffield can keep things close but I don't think he'll overtake him. Galaragga won't pass him. Manny very easily could, and A-Rod almost certainly will. No one else in the top 20 has much of a shot.

[Senor Octobre]

i once read an article (i think it was sports illustrated) where it mentioned thome's lifelong aversion to weight training, therefore if he's telling the truth, roids wouldn't be that much good to him. I think he's naturally a big guy anyways, about 6-4 240. He's not overly huge or bulging with veins or anything. I think he was brought up on a farm or something...i know fellas like that... heck, my own brother is that big.

[Aegis]

Yeah, this isn't like Bonds and Sosa, where you can look at how they were as young'uns and see that they simply have different body types now. Thome is just big.

[zzazazz]

I saw Thome play when he was with the Charlotte Knights and he towered above all the other players there.

[The Commissioner]

Thome would already get my vote if he retird today, but within a couple of years he should be an obvious Hall of Famer to everyone.

[Edgartohof]

As of right now, I would have to say no. I just do not think of him as that kind of player. He has not been as dominant as other players of this time, some of whom I would also say no to.

Of course, he is only 33, and he should have plenty of time to add to his already very nice career.

pro's:

9 straight years of 30+ HR's
2 - .300/.400/.500 seasons
great at taking walks - good OBP
consistent
could easily reach 500+ HR's

con's:
strikes out A LOT
no speed on the basepaths
not very dominant

[W_Marone]

Do you guys think Jim Thome will make the hall, I guess I should rephrase, have an excellent chance at getting into Cooperstown. I mean he will have well over 500 homeruns, I'm just not sure if the strikeouts he has will hinder his chances, what are your guys thoughts, I mean he is what 30 something correct? Not too early to ask is it?:D

[Red Sox 521]

Depends on potential steroid beliefs by voters, and if they believe that he did use them whether McGwire and Sosa get in. If they get in however, I think he'll be a lock.

[digglahhh]

Thome's career is a lot better than people give him credit for. I was mulling over his candidacy a few months ago and was taken a back at how productive he had actually been throughout his career. This season's resurgence is a real good sign for him. The high K numbers, to me, are somewhat mitigated by his high BB totals. He is a real good OBP guy, a top level power guy and a .280 hitter.

Assuming he is clean and Mac was not. He seems like a left-handed and better version of McGwire.

A number of people think that even a clean Mac was Hall worthy, those people would HAVE TO support Thome. He turns 36 this summer, with two more productive, not even necessarily vintage, years, he'll finish with a pretty nice case.

[W_Marone]

yeah thats the only con I can really lay on Thome, the high K total.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Thome will get into the HOF if he makes it to 500 HRs. If he doesn't, they'll be a big debate.

[Whitesoxnut]

Frankly it disturbs me that defensive play is so unappreciated by HOF voters. Dont get me wrong, I think Thome should get in, but there have been great defensive players who just havnt gotten the respect. Ron Santo for one.

[csh19792001]

Not my style of player at all, but one hell of a power hitter, a much better baserunner in his prime than his stat sheet gives him credit for and a world class human being, to boot. It's great to see him back doing what he's paid to do this year.

Thome, like Abreu and Giambi, makes the pitcher throw a ton of pitches. In the long run, I think there's added value there (although it probably shows up partially in the performance of the guys who bat after guys like this). However, unlike the other two, Thome also strikes out a ridiculous amount (over 1 per game!!). That's a detractor, IMO. To me, the strikeouts are only mitigated if they're roughly commensurate with the walks (which is usally the case with truly great hitters). The best walk more than they strike out.

In the bottom of the ninth with the game tied and needing a hit to win, do you want a guy who strikes out about 1/3rd of his at bats?

As Windy City Fan so incisively noted awhile back here. (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=521243&postcount=34)

Committed Opinions:
Sabermetrics forgets you only need to win by one run.


Yes, Thome was a lousy third baseman, but isn't it to his credit that he was even able to play 300 games there, period? Can we see Jason Giambi or Manny Ramirez playing third base with any degree of deftness or alacrity? I think not. Versatility matters to me- I consider skills and adaptability, not just numbers in, numbers out.

That said, I'm not for debasing the HOF standards anymore than they already have been, and I see him as basically borderline at the moment. He's played in the best homerun era in history, so his totals have to be adjusted accordingly. He's also only played 1790 games. He needs at least three very good to great years to become a lock, IMO.

(And no, given the way homeruns fly today, I don't think 500 should be an automatic ticket to Cooperstown anymore).

[baseballPAP]

Not to quibble too much csh, but Giambi DID come up as a 3Bman, just like Thome. Manny wasn't always terrible in the OF, he just stopped trying to get any better...Manny being Manny :)

[jalbright]

The Bill James Handbook for 2006 has him at 279 WS, but that's very near HOF territory. His top three seasons and his best five consecutive would also place him on the very edge of HOF territory among first basemen. His HOF standards are good enough already, and will only likely improve. His performance in black ink could use a boost, but that's not a huge issue in my book. His performance in gray ink (252nd among position players) is a weakness which he either needs to improve directly or compensate for in another category. He's 196th in MVP award shares, which isn't too great, nor is being only a four time all-star. He needs two or three good years IMO to present a solid case (if he has two, he probably needs a couple of solid seasons as well), and right now it looks like 2006 will give him one of those. I think he's a classy guy and I'm rooting for him. His injury history is worrisome, though.

Jim Albright

[KCGHOST]

If he can get to 500 HR's (he has 450) he should have no problem getting in.

[csh19792001]

Not to quibble too much csh, but Giambi DID come up as a 3Bman, just like Thome.

Yeah, but Thome played almost 500 games at third base, and it was the only position he played his first 6 seasons in the big leagues. Giambi was moved all around, third was never his primary position, and he only played 70 games there total. He was probably often used there more out of necessity than anything else.

That's why I see the distinction in their skills/adaptability.

[d-backsfan01]

Jim Thome will make the hall if he hits 500 or more homers

[flash143817]

I'm really pulling for Thome to get in because he is my favorite active player. I don't think it is being a homer though to say he has a solid case. His 149 OPS+ for his career is outstanding, even for a 1B.


And regarding his high strikeout total, an out is an out. And if I needed a guy to bat in the bottom of the 9th in a key situation, I'd certainly have absolutely no trouble taking the guy who gets on base better than all but 41 guys throughout the history of the game and has the 4th best AB/HR ratio of all time. Sure he might strike out, but he stands a better shot than anybody on the team of either winning the game or extending it by getting aboard via BB.

I just took a quick glance at last year's top 10 leaderboard for toughest to strike out and there are only 2 guys on it out of 20 from either league that I'd possibly rather have up in that situation than Thome, Vlad Guerrero or Ichiro, and I'd still very likely take Thome over Ichiro there.

And it's not like we are talking about Rob Deer or Dave Kingman here. Thome still has a solid .280 career BA so he isn't a HR or nothing guy.

[Sockeye]

He's 35 and in his 16th season. I would like to get some thoughts on his career thus far and if possible some insight on where you think his career totals will end up? I know this calls for a lot of speculation. So I'll be the first to throw some projections out there.

I think he could very well end up with

Games 2433
At-Bats 8286
Runs 1611
Hits 2331
Doubles 453
Triples 33
Home Runs 601
RBI's 1670
Stolen Bases 25
Walks 1759
AVG .281
OBP .408
SLG .562

[Jake83]

I would like to get some thoughts on Sockeye as a poster. What do you guys think of the infamous Sockeye

[Sockeye]

I would like to get some thoughts on Sockeye as a poster. What do you guys think of the infamous Sockeye

Welcome to my ignore list

[Francoeurstein]

Ok, sockeye it's official, the first ten-thousand threads were fun. But now you really really need to quit.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

We all know that this one depends on something we don't yet know: how clean the dude is, and how much the public learns about it, if he's not clean.

And yeah, it's sickening to be talking about this crap with regard to Thome, Pujols and every other power-hitting star, but that's just the natural consequence of what Selig, the owners, the players and their union have wrought.

The above-projected numbers would, unquestionably, make him a Hall of Famer--with lots of room to spare--if they're legit.

BHN

[Fuzzy Bear]

Assuming the absence of damaging revelations, Jim Thome will go into the HOF.

I don't believe Thome will make it to 600 HRs, but I do believe he will make 500, and that, with a .400 OBP will get him in.

Thome has had a greater career, IMO, than Frank Thomas, although Thomas's batting peak is much, much higher.

[538280]

Sockeye, we just had a thread about this about two days ago. There is no conceivable reason for you to start another one. Please, this charade must stop.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

oopsy daisy

[Jake83]

Welcome to my ignore list


You really think I could care if you ignore me..... You have made a mockery out of this fourm with your polls and your outragerous projections. Hopefully sooner or later the mods will limit your thread starting ability.

[Sockeye]

500-600+ home runs and a OBP of .400+ isn't HOF worthy?

[rockin500]

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=44681

[Baseball Guru]

If he can get to 500 HR's (he has 450) he should have no problem getting in.


I agree!

It appears that Thome really is one of the good guys in baseball and I do hope he stays injury free!

He should definitely get to 500 barring injury...

[Mattingly]

500-600+ home runs and a OBP of .400+ isn't HOF worthy?
There's this thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=44920) under the Web Improvements forum about having a projections forum, which is related to your posting of these in the HoF forum. Care to post into this, please?

I'm also curious where you get your projections from. Care to elaborate? All I've seen so far are numbers but nothing supporting these.

As others have asked, why so many threads?

[Sockeye]

There's this thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=44920) under the Web Improvements forum about having a projections forum, which is related to your posting of these in the HoF forum. Care to post into this, please?

I'm also curious where you get your projections from. Care to elaborate? All I've seen so far are numbers but nothing supporting these.

As others have asked, why so many threads?

I just finished a new and much improved method for projections that is based on a study of retired players. I have figured out the average % of their career totals for each stat at each age from 17 through 43

For instance players on average through the age of 25 have reached

25.3% of their career games
25.6% of at-bats
26.1% of runs
26.2% of hits
27.0% of doubles
39.2% of triples
23.4% of home runs
24.6% of RBI's
32.4% of stolen bases
30.2% of caught stealing
22.6% of walks
25.5% of strikeouts
25.6% of total bases
46.5% of sacrifice hits
19.6% of sacrifice flies
14.3% of intentional walks
27.3% of hit by pitch
23.0% of grounded into double plays

The %'s get higher with each age of course. Certain stats have a definite tilt towards youth. triples, stolen bases, caught stealing, and sacrifice hits occur much more frequently at a young age. walks, home runs, sacrifice flies, intentional walks, and grounded into double plays are less frequent among young players. I can now plug any player of any age into this formula and get a more accurate projection that fully and accurately takes into account the aging process and how it effects players in each statistical catagory.

[Sockeye]

There's this thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=44920) under the Web Improvements forum about having a projections forum, which is related to your posting of these in the HoF forum. Care to post into this, please?

I'm also curious where you get your projections from. Care to elaborate? All I've seen so far are numbers but nothing supporting these.

As others have asked, why so many threads?

And to answer your last question. There were a total of 31 players whos career and current pace I wanted to bring to light. Thome was the 31st and last of these players. So my mission is now complete.

[Francoeurstein]

And to answer your last question. There were a total of 31 players whos career and current pace I wanted to bring to light. Thome was the 31st and last of these players. So my mission is now complete.

YAAYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mattingly]

And to answer your last question. There were a total of 31 players whos career and current pace I wanted to bring to light. Thome was the 31st and last of these players. So my mission is now complete.
From your earlier reply to me, I'm still unsure as to which calculation you're using for the players, as I don't see any kind of spreadsheet formula showing their career stats to date, as well as how many years you'd expect active players like Thome, Tejada, Thomas, etc, to last, including any falloff in their later years, so perhaps you'll need to expand upon this.

Now that the 31st version of this is complete, may I ask what your next contributions to this HoF forum would be?

If you get a chance, please reply to the thread I'd linked earlier in the Web Improvements forum.

Thanks.

[538280]

I just finished a new and much improved method for projections that is based on a study of retired players. I have figured out the average % of their career totals for each stat at each age from 17 through 43


This is all very nice and good, and interesting data, but it doesn't even begin to fix the problems that myself and the majority of others have with you. To sum up my feelings, these are the main problems I have with you:

1.You assume that all players will last until they are about 40 years old, and will continue to play at similar levels as they have already played through their 30s. This could not be more wrong. The vast majority of players either get hurt or just don't play nearly as well into their 30s, and are usually out of the game by at least age 35. The truly great HOF level players are the ones who can continue to be very effective through their 30s. You just assume everyone will continue to play at a high level until about age 40, and it produces very, very strange results and you projecting just about every halfway decent active player to end up being a HOFer. You need to incorporate into your system some sort of way to distinguish which players are likely to continue to produce through their 30s and those who aren't. That is not an easy task, but it is absolutely necessary if you want your projections and HOF predictions to be accurate.

2.You do not take into account the context under which a player performed. You act as if we can view baseball statistics through all eras to be on the same plane. That assumption could not be more wrong, certain eras have much higher offensive standards. 25 HRs today is nothing extremely special, in the 1910s you would have been knocking on an all time record with that number. Today teams average almost 5 runs a game. In 1968 they were averaging about 3. This makes each run contributed by each player to have a very large varying degree of value through the ages. You make no realization of these facts, and it leads to you thinking that players from big hitting eras are MUCH better than those from pitcher's eras, and again produces way out there results.

3.You seem to have no understanding of baseball statistics outside of cumulative "bubble gum card" type stats, without realizing that evaluating a baseball player includes so much more interpretation of stats. You need to focus on things that actually contribute runs and win the ballgame, not just cumulative career totals. Career totals show little but longevity, they make no mention of how good a player was at his peak, how his rates are, and don't even come close to giving an accurate evaluation of how good the player was. You need to get a much deeper understanding of what statistics actually equal value on the field.

4.You have cluttered the HOF Talk forum with FAR too many threads about active players, the majority of which are either no questions asked HOFers (Griffey, A-Rod, Sheffield, Thomas), or players who are far too young, have just started their careers, and it is WAY too early to even have a reasonable discussion about.

Those are my problems with you, and though I can't speak for others I'm sure the problems others have as well. If you could adress all those three things I think you'd find we'd be much more accepting of what you have to offer.

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

I just finished a new and much improved method for projections that is based on a study of retired players. I have figured out the average % of their career totals for each stat at each age from 17 through 43

For instance players on average through the age of 25 have reached

25.3% of their career games
25.6% of at-bats
26.1% of runs
26.2% of hits
27.0% of doubles
39.2% of triples
23.4% of home runs
24.6% of RBI's
32.4% of stolen bases
30.2% of caught stealing
22.6% of walks
25.5% of strikeouts
25.6% of total bases
46.5% of sacrifice hits
19.6% of sacrifice flies
14.3% of intentional walks
27.3% of hit by pitch
23.0% of grounded into double plays

The %'s get higher with each age of course. Certain stats have a definite tilt towards youth. triples, stolen bases, caught stealing, and sacrifice hits occur much more frequently at a young age. walks, home runs, sacrifice flies, intentional walks, and grounded into double plays are less frequent among young players. I can now plug any player of any age into this formula and get a more accurate projection that fully and accurately takes into account the aging process and how it effects players in each statistical catagory.

Seriously, what are Brandon Inges' numbers going to be?

[RBi]

Off the topic of this thread, may I please suggest something to everyone?

If at any time you have an issue with the posting style of another member, please do not "flood" the thread with rants about your dislikes.

Simply send a PM to ANY moderator, if you will, please start by contacting the section's mod. Don't know who a mod is?

Visit this link: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showgroups.php

That would be greatly appreciated.

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

I am sorry if I kind of encouraged him with my last post. Although, I find his projection system somewhat researched and was a little smitten with the idea of using it on mediocre players i.e. Brandon Inge. I was also unaware of his projections being overused on the HOF thread. That said, project the requested numbers on the Tigers page?

BTW, could you project Inges' numbers at the differing positions he might play? Rumor has it he follows Rodriguez as the Tigers catcher.

[DoubleX]

Sockeye, do players ever have a decline in your world? Jim Thome will almost certainly end with a lower batting average than .281 considering that his career average through 2005 was .281 and sluggers don't tend to age well in the BA department (look no further than Frank Thomas who is hitting a whopping .235 or Mike Piazza who is at .259).

[Sockeye]

This is all very nice and good, and interesting data, but it doesn't even begin to fix the problems that myself and the majority of others have with you. To sum up my feelings, these are the main problems I have with you:

1.You assume that all players will last until they are about 40 years old, and will continue to play at similar levels as they have already played through their 30s. This could not be more wrong. The vast majority of players either get hurt or just don't play nearly as well into their 30s, and are usually out of the game by at least age 35. The truly great HOF level players are the ones who can continue to be very effective through their 30s. You just assume everyone will continue to play at a high level until about age 40, and it produces very, very strange results and you projecting just about every halfway decent active player to end up being a HOFer. You need to incorporate into your system some sort of way to distinguish which players are likely to continue to produce through their 30s and those who aren't. That is not an easy task, but it is absolutely necessary if you want your projections and HOF predictions to be accurate.

2.You do not take into account the context under which a player performed. You act as if we can view baseball statistics through all eras to be on the same plane. That assumption could not be more wrong, certain eras have much higher offensive standards. 25 HRs today is nothing extremely special, in the 1910s you would have been knocking on an all time record with that number. Today teams average almost 5 runs a game. In 1968 they were averaging about 3. This makes each run contributed by each player to have a very large varying degree of value through the ages. You make no realization of these facts, and it leads to you thinking that players from big hitting eras are MUCH better than those from pitcher's eras, and again produces way out there results.

3.You seem to have no understanding of baseball statistics outside of cumulative "bubble gum card" type stats, without realizing that evaluating a baseball player includes so much more interpretation of stats. You need to focus on things that actually contribute runs and win the ballgame, not just cumulative career totals. Career totals show little but longevity, they make no mention of how good a player was at his peak, how his rates are, and don't even come close to giving an accurate evaluation of how good the player was. You need to get a much deeper understanding of what statistics actually equal value on the field.

4.You have cluttered the HOF Talk forum with FAR too many threads about active players, the majority of which are either no questions asked HOFers (Griffey, A-Rod, Sheffield, Thomas), or players who are far too young, have just started their careers, and it is WAY too early to even have a reasonable discussion about.

Those are my problems with you, and though I can't speak for others I'm sure the problems others have as well. If you could adress all those three things I think you'd find we'd be much more accepting of what you have to offer.


1. This system is "new" I haven't used it for any of the projections yet. The projections I used for the 31 players was quite a bit different and did have some flaws. This new system actually brings the numbers down a bit. It doesn't project a player playing to a certain age. Originally when I first did the research to create this new system I was hoping to use it to project yearly totals. Upon finishing the data and trying to apply it on a yearly basis I realized that wasn't going to work. The reason is since it is based on averages of a large sampling of players the decreases in production due to age from year to year are quite small. In other words to project yearly totals it makes every player look like the most consistant player in MLB history. Quite unrealistic. Since that was my original goal in creating this system and realizing it wasn't going to work for that I then put it away for 2 years before getting it back out, dusting it off, making a few updated changes to it. It works extremely well for projecting players career totals since the players in the sampling retired at a wide variety of ages. Players that retired at age 35 reached 100% of their career totals by age 35. That player would have likely reached 90% of his career totals by age 32-34 and 80% of his career totals by likely 30-32 thus the %'s are going to be higher across the board as a result of having players like that in the sampling of players. Not every player retires at age 35 (contrary to popular belief) not all players that play til age 40+ are all time greats. So there are players with longer careers included in the sampling as well. All and all it evens out to give very accurate %'s. On average a player 35 has acchieved between 78.9% and 92.9% of their career totals depending on the certain stat. So for a player aged 35 it projects the majority of their career behind them. Now the remaining 7.1% to 21.1% the players has left in them will vary according to the career numbers the player has put up to that time. In otherwords Albert Pujols production is much better than Adrian Beltre's so while the %'s will be the same at the same age the numbers will be a lot larger for Pujols so the projections will be much greater. Age will still effect Pujols and his numbers will drop but since he started at a much higher level the level he drop to will still be much higher than the level Beltre will drop to.

2. A absolutely do take into context the era a player plays in when evauating whether or not they should be HOF worthy. But that isn't what these projections are about.

3. People have differing opinions and put differing weights on "peak" performance vs "longevity". I am in the longevity camp. Not to say that peak performance isn't nice to have. But it is of my belief that it is harder to put up very good numbers over a 20 years career than it is to put up great numbers for 5 years while only playing 10.

4. The proof is in the pudding. Of the 31 player polls NONE had a unanimous result. Not one single poll. So obviously in every single case somebody disagreed that it was a cut and dry case. In some cases it's easier to predict the general consensus than others. In certain other polls the voting outcome I found to be quite surprising. But the fact is that you never know until it is posted and you see where the results lead. In most cases I found the voting to be based more on how well they liked the player instead of on the merit on the players numbers

I've never been a populist and I'm not about to start now.

[Sockeye]

Seriously, what are Brandon Inges' numbers going to be?

Games 1335
At-Bats 4285
Runs 419
Hits 997
Doubles 192
Triples 36
Home Runs 103
RBI's 475
Stolen Bases 30
Caught Stealing 39
Walks 372
Strikeouts 990
Total Bases 1592
Sacrifice Hits 32
Sacrifice Flies 46
Intentional Walks 3
Hit By Pitch 33
GDP 89
AVG .233
OBP .299
SLG .372

[Sockeye]

Sockeye, do players ever have a decline in your world? Jim Thome will almost certainly end with a lower batting average than .281 considering that his career average through 2005 was .281 and sluggers don't tend to age well in the BA department (look no further than Frank Thomas who is hitting a whopping .235 or Mike Piazza who is at .259).

With my new system yes there is most certainly a decline in averages. On average there was a 5 point drop between their average at age 35 and their final average. OBP saw a 4 point drop on average from age 35 and their final OBP. SLG dropped 13 points on average from age 35 to their final SLG %.

[GiambiJuice]

Sockeye, can you leave us alone now that you got through all 31???

Please? :hp

[Mattingly]

With my new system yes there is most certainly a decline in averages. On average there was a 5 point drop between their average at age 35 and their final average. OBP saw a 4 point drop on average from age 35 and their final OBP. SLG dropped 13 points on average from age 35 to their final SLG %.
Are you willing to share what the formula for this "new system" is? Or do we only see the result of these projections w/o knowing how they were established?

[Sockeye]

Sockeye, can you leave us alone now that you got through all 31???

Please? :hp

No, I'm here to stay

[Sockeye]

Are you willing to share what the formula for this "new system" is? Or do we only see the result of these projections w/o knowing how they were established?

I already laid out the formula. It deals which the % of career totals at each age in each statistical catagory. Every player that has ever played the game and retired began their career with 0% of their eventual career totals and ended their career with 100% of their career totals. So it was just a matter of figuring out what % of their eventual career total that each player was at at each age in each statistical catagory. Do this for many players and figure up the average % at each age in each statistical catagory. This is very important since certain statistics are obtained at different rates. The majority of triples and steals are obtained at a young age. So the % acchieved will be higher indicating that the players remaining career will totals in that catagory will be less than his current pace.

The key to accuracy in any study is to use a large sample. In this case the players in my study combined for 81076 games and 288807 at-bats. I think that to be more than a fair amount to give accurate %'s.

[Mattingly]

I already laid out the formula. It deals which the % of career totals at each age in each statistical catagory. Every player that has ever played the game and retired began their career with 0% of their eventual career totals and ended their career with 100% of their career totals. So it was just a matter of figuring out what % of their eventual career total that each player was at at each age in each statistical catagory. Do this for many players and figure up the average % at each age in each statistical catagory. This is very important since certain statistics are obtained at different rates. The majority of triples and steals are obtained at a young age. So the % acchieved will be higher indicating that the players remaining career will totals in that catagory will be less than his current pace.

The key to accuracy in any study is to use a large sample. In this case the players in my study combined for 81076 games and 288807 at-bats. I think that to be more than a fair amount to give accurate %'s.
I still have no idea what the spreadsheet formula that you're using is. Can you point to a post and a thread in which this formula is spelled out quite clearly?

So if a player is 32 years old, how do you know whether he'll retire at age 35 or at age 38?

Right now, I have no idea how the numbers you're providing here are actually established by yourself.
No, I'm here to stay
If you could avoid cluttering up the HoF forum with countless threads similar to this, that would be greatly appreciated. :)

[jalbright]

Just a follow up set of observations to those of Mattingly:

Sockeye:

You rather resolutely refuse to spell out much, but in what you have said, you:

1) haven't told us who you used in this study of various age groups (or at least the criteria for inclusion);
2) haven't specified if there are minimum criteria before you're willing to make a projection (you did Teixiera, with only 3 seasons in)
3) show no evidence of looking specifically at recent performance in your projections (some use multiple seasons e.g. 1/2 the most recent, 1/3 the year previous, and 1/6 2 years previous). It has to make some difference in our expectations if a guy came up three years ago and had three similar years versus a guy who came up five years ago, tore up the league for two, was beaned early in the third and missed most of that year and hasn't done diddly since, as one example.
4) seemingly don't put the data into any context to determine if a guy is still performing well and thereby cut/end his playing time.

With all those issues, even if the "new" method is more accurate, I find it hard to be impressed.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Two other things I think a projection system should look at, and from what you have said, I don't get the sense you have are:

1) Defensive position (a shortstop who hits like an average DH would, all other things being equal, be expected to have a longer career than a DH of the same age and offensive ability);

2) Quality of defense: a good fielding shortstop would be expected to have a longer career than a poor fielding one, even if they are the same age and have the same hitting ability.

Jim Albright

[yankillaz]

Yep, but not so easily.

[Brooklyn]

Sockeye-

I'm not as negative against your posts as others here. I think it is your prerogative to start threads when you like and do projections as you wish. People that disagree with your results are free to say so or ignore the threads entirely.

I do agree that a little more information on your formulas would be helpful. For example, how are you accounting for late / early starts to careers? Injury prone players? players that have already started their declines vs. players still putting together their best years? Positional adjustments (i.e. shorter careers for catchers)?

I'm also curious about how actual former players would have looked based on your projections. Can you run the following for me? I thought it would be interesting to see where the all time hit king and HR king would have been projected, mid-career, as well as a player that stated young and ended my his mid 30's.

Pete Rose through age 30. Where would he wind up on your predictions?

Games 1383
At-Bats 5582
Runs 885
Hits 1724
Doubles 282
Triples 65
Home Runs 103
RBI's 529
Stolen Bases 75
Walks 538
AVG .309
OBP .371
SLG .438

Hank Aaron through age 30. Where would he wind up on your predictions?

Games 1656
At-Bats 6510
Runs 1180
Hits 2085
Doubles 351
Triples 79
Home Runs 366
RBI's 1216
Stolen Bases 125
Walks 603
AVG .320
OBP .376
SLG .567

Mel Ott through age 30. Where would he wind up on your predictions?

Games 1864
At-Bats 6544
Runs 1332
Hits 2061
Doubles 359
Triples 63
Home Runs 369
RBI's 1386
Stolen Bases 62
Walks 1135
AVG .315
OBP .419
SLG .558

It is interesting after posting this how close Ott and Aaron were through their age 30 seasons, with Ott looking better. Unless you are making other adjustments, I'd think they'd project to be similar, when in fact their counting numbers are not all that similar, but I'm still interested in where you would have them wind up.

[jalbright]

Brooklyn,

The only time Sockeye has given us a glimpse of how his projections worked was on this page at post #40, and that apparently is his "old" system: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=43398&page=2 Later in that thread, I looked at how accurate those projections were at post #44. The discussion continued for a few posts (on to page three and into the high 50's in posts IIRC.

Jim Albright

[Brooklyn]

Brooklyn,

The only time Sockeye has given us a glimpse of how his projections worked was on this page at post #40, and that apparently is his "old" system: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=43398&page=2 Later in that thread, I looked at how accurate those projections were at post #44. The discussion continued for a few posts (on to page three and into the high 50's in posts IIRC.

Jim Albright

Jim,

thanks. I stop reading a lot of these posts early because they frequently turn into sockeye bashing, so I missed these posts Your conclusions are right on - he may be close in the totals (although he really wasn't that close), but if you pull out the totals to date (which are obviously known and not going to change), he was way off on the projection piece of it. There needs to be a subjective element to it as to how long the player will play and how bad the decline will be. Those two things just can't fit into a formula, they are different for everyone.

Sockeye's right - you are never going to get projections right, but that is the problem with looking at who will be HOF caliber based on a very early career. Anything can happen. koufax 7 years in, at age 25, and you would have thought no chance. Strawberry and Gooden into their mid 20's looks like can't misses. It is just too tough to tell, which is part of what makes this game great.

[RogersMaris]

If you could avoid cluttering up the HoF forum with countless threads similar to this, that would be greatly appreciated. :)

Sockeye, if you could avoid cluttering up Basebal Fever with countless other senseless threads and posts of yours, and could possibly instead find some other forum to pollute, that would be great appreciated. :) And yes, I speak for basically everybody here when I state this.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Sockeye, if you could avoid cluttering up Basebal Fever with countless other senseless threads and posts of yours, and could possibly instead find some other forum to pollute, that would be great appreciated. :) And yes, I speak for basically everybody here when I state this.
If he goes, perhaps you should follow. At least he contributes and generates discussion. :rolleyes:

[The Big C]

About the unanimity of your polls Sockeye, many (including myself, I think I was the lone no vote on the Ken Griffey Jr. poll) stopped taking you seriously, especially on many of the more obvious players (Mike Piazza, Ken Griffey Jr., etc.).

That being said, I think it goes against the spirit of this forum to tell Sockeye to leave. Many of us feel that he should use discretion when posting these polls, and maybe post them less frequently. But I know that, to me, as long as Sockeye wants to put up with all of the bashing of him, he is quite welcome here in my book. And I think he has been a very good sport about it.

[Mattingly]

Sockeye, if you could avoid cluttering up Basebal Fever with countless other senseless threads and posts of yours, and could possibly instead find some other forum to pollute, that would be great appreciated. :) And yes, I speak for basically everybody here when I state this.
You may try contacting one of the various Mods here if you have an issue with a forumer. Asking them to leave and pollute other forums isn't my idea of a socially-respectable request. However, that's just me.

Right now, I may not be too crazy about the number and content of some of these threads, especially lacking any kind of spreadsheet formula used so that we could at least say if a 25-year-old player will likely attain certain numbers by age 35, or whether a 32-year-old player will likely reach the numbers being projected by age 38, given that he's still playing. At least somewhere to start, then certain players being used as examples, so that other examples of players who are deemed "similar" (both active and retired) could have the same formulas used in their cases.

Given that many of us have some kind of spreadsheet or math program, I believe we could've had a quality discussion on a few players from various eras if this were done. Nevertheless, that's not the case. Still, I think it's very difficult to project whatever a player will do, since some, like Pedro Martinez, will have shorter careers, and similar quality pitchers in Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson, will have much lengthier careers.

Barring any formula to debate and discuss, while I'm still not overly enthused about Sockeye's various posts, I'm far from willing to disrespect him/her in the manner you're doing. Please consider this in future postings.

Thanks. :)

[digglahhh]

About the unanimity of your polls Sockeye, many (including myself, I think I was the lone no vote on the Ken Griffey Jr. poll) stopped taking you seriously, especially on many of the more obvious players (Mike Piazza, Ken Griffey Jr., etc.).

That being said, I think it goes against the spirit of this forum to tell Sockeye to leave. Many of us feel that he should use discretion when posting these polls, and maybe post them less frequently. But I know that, to me, as long as Sockeye wants to put up with all of the bashing of him, he is quite welcome here in my book. And I think he has been a very good sport about it.

I actually agree here.

Annoyance is not sufficent grounds for censorship. Perhaps Sockeye should concede a bit as well and show a little more discretion when choosing the subjects of his polls. There is a happy medium to be found if the parties involved have a genuine and mutual interest in finding it.

[jalbright]

My own sentiment about this situation is that this forum and board are here for a free and open exchange of ideas, provided no one crosses certain lines, such as threats, name calling, personal attacks, and hate-mongering. Say whatever you want about Sockeye, he has not crossed those lines. Yes, it would be nice if he were a little more respectful of the wishes of the large majority--but if we're to honor what this forum and board are supposed to be here to provide (that free and open exchange), we've got to tolerate certain things we may not like. Free speech isn't just for what we like--it really is empty words until we test the principle with some things we don't like. I intend to be true to the principle, though it causes me to grit my teeth sometimes, and would hope the vast majority of the group would do likewise.

Jim Albright

[Roy31]

I agree with Jailbait to a certain extent...

:dance

[jalbright]

I agree with Jailbait to a certain extent...

:dance

Alright, now you've had your fun with my screen name. Please use it properly in the future, as you are darned near some of the lines we do not permit to be crossed here. Thank you.

JIM ALBRIGHT

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

Hey there Sockeye,
I am on your side, but then again I have not been around long enough to see all 31 of your projections. I think you might have got Brandon Inges numbers, depending on where he goes in the field? I might think he might end up with more than 30 steals, but not too many more. You might be on to something, save these posts and see how close to right you were?

However, I would suggest a different thread? Besides the HOF thread to post you thoughts in, the folks in the HOF thread are somewhat serious, perhaps the current events?. It would be even better if you busted out your formula to the masses? You could project the numbers of the other Brandon Inges of the MLB world?

That said....Craig Monroe? whats his career #s?

1935,1945,1968,1984 <------curious about the non HOFers

The one caveat though, barring major injury, should precede your projections. You never know when a great player is going to crash his motorcycle into some doddering old lady.

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

Sockeye-

I'm not as negative against your posts as others here. I think it is your prerogative to start threads when you like and do projections as you wish. People that disagree with your results are free to say so or ignore the threads entirely.

I do agree that a little more information on your formulas would be helpful. For example, how are you accounting for late / early starts to careers? Injury prone players? players that have already started their declines vs. players still putting together their best years? Positional adjustments (i.e. shorter careers for catchers)?

I'm also curious about how actual former players would have looked based on your projections. Can you run the following for me? I thought it would be interesting to see where the all time hit king and HR king would have been projected, mid-career, as well as a player that stated young and ended my his mid 30's.

Pete Rose through age 30. Where would he wind up on your predictions?

Games 1383
At-Bats 5582
Runs 885
Hits 1724
Doubles 282
Triples 65
Home Runs 103
RBI's 529
Stolen Bases 75
Walks 538
AVG .309
OBP .371
SLG .438

Hank Aaron through age 30. Where would he wind up on your predictions?

Games 1656
At-Bats 6510
Runs 1180
Hits 2085
Doubles 351
Triples 79
Home Runs 366
RBI's 1216
Stolen Bases 125
Walks 603
AVG .320
OBP .376
SLG .567

Mel Ott through age 30. Where would he wind up on your predictions?

Games 1864
At-Bats 6544
Runs 1332
Hits 2061
Doubles 359
Triples 63
Home Runs 369
RBI's 1386
Stolen Bases 62
Walks 1135
AVG .315
OBP .419
SLG .558

It is interesting after posting this how close Ott and Aaron were through their age 30 seasons, with Ott looking better. Unless you are making other adjustments, I'd think they'd project to be similar, when in fact their counting numbers are not all that similar, but I'm still interested in where you would have them wind up.

I am interested in the Pete Rose projection, the Aaron v Ott not as much. I have to think the lowering of the mound in 69 made it easier on all hitters including the last 8yrs of Aarons career.

[Sockeye]

Hey there Sockeye,
I am on your side, but then again I have not been around long enough to see all 31 of your projections. I think you might have got Brandon Inges numbers, depending on where he goes in the field? I might think he might end up with more than 30 steals, but not too many more. You might be on to something, save these posts and see how close to right you were?

However, I would suggest a different thread? Besides the HOF thread to post you thoughts in, the folks in the HOF thread are somewhat serious, perhaps the current events?. It would be even better if you busted out your formula to the masses? You could project the numbers of the other Brandon Inges of the MLB world?

That said....Craig Monroe? whats his career #s?

1935,1945,1968,1984 <------curious about the non HOFers

The one caveat though, barring major injury, should precede your projections. You never know when a great player is going to crash his motorcycle into some doddering old lady.


I think you'll find that most projections using my new formula will be quite accurate. I hesitate to post the exact formula since it would only allow for pointed insultation and aimed attacks against. If there is one thing I've leaned in posting on baseball fever it is give any target no matter what it is you'll find certain people who will try to find any argument to dispute it no matter how solid the reasoning. Some people will even argue against the obvious if for no other reason than to disagree. Even if it means to contradict their previous point of view on the same issue.

So to be quite frank I really don't care what the vast majority think of my projection system. I'm am fully 100% comfident in it's accuracy. It serves my purpose. There is of course always going to be a certain % of error with any projection system. Some players may end up 10% above, some may end up 10% below. The secret is the be within 1-2% on the actual totals on average. For the many players used in the survey it is exactly 100% accurate on average. That is of course the exact point to the system it being the average of numorous players. No player is going to hit 100% on in every single catagory. Most likely you'll have a player off by 10-15 home runs, 10-15 doubles, 1-2 triples, 50-100 hits, 25-50 runs, 25-50 RBI's, 3-5 steals, 1-2 points average, 2-3 points OBP, 3-5 points SLG, etc. But when projecting a player 5-10-15 years from retirement that is quite good.

[Sockeye]

I will say this, The new projections takes into account every season stretching from 1914-2005. An assortment of HOFer and non-HOFers. Players with a career average as low as .236 up to .344. So it's a wide ranging array of players.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I am interested in the Pete Rose projection, the Aaron v Ott not as much. I have to think the lowering of the mound in 69 made it easier on all hitters including the last 8yrs of Aarons career.

I don't agree, at all, that Ott looked better at age 30.

Aaron played in County Stadium, where it was 362 to LF and RF, 392 to LCF and RCF, and 408 to CF. Ott had a very pull-oriented swing and played in what was, with all due disrespect to Baker Bowl, the most pro-pull-hitter park ever: the Polo Grounds. He hit 323 HR's at home and 188 on the road, which is ludicrous. And, long before Aaron was 30, it was obvious that graveyard was costing him, Mathews and Adcock a ton of HR's.

BHN

[Mattingly]

I will say this, The new projections takes into account every season stretching from 1914-2005. An assortment of HOFer and non-HOFers. Players with a career average as low as .236 up to .344. So it's a wide ranging array of players.
Yeah, all we'd need to know now is how in the world you've arrived at your stats, then we could see for ourselves how accurate these figures were, based upon the evaluation of the formulas themselves.

If in the future, you get the urge to post similar "projection" threads, be it on pitchers or anyone else, but don't wish to share how you've arrived at these figures, you may wish to reconsider doing so, as you'll only receive the same questions which you aren't interested in elaborating upon.

Thanks. :)

[baseballPAP]

If he goes, perhaps you should follow. At least he contributes and generates discussion. :rolleyes:
Agreed. At least Sockeye is showing a willingness to adapt, and to learn. He also has started some of the most lively discussions on this forum in the last 2 months.

Let the man be.

[baseballPAP]

I will say this, The new projections takes into account every season stretching from 1914-2005. An assortment of HOFer and non-HOFers. Players with a career average as low as .236 up to .344. So it's a wide ranging array of players.
Well...we know he used Dave Kingman and Ted Williams.... :)
1914 suggests Babe Ruth.....
I would think 50 players were probably used, which would mean they averaged 1622 games each, and 5776 ABs each.

I'm with you on the basic premise here Sockeye...I'm not sure about the total validity, even with 50 players (my guess). More is always better, but I realize the time that is probably involved. Still a great effort.... how about a finished product thread...ONE thread where you give all 31 of your players with their NEW projections?

[Brooklyn]

I don't agree, at all, that Ott looked better at age 30.

Aaron played in County Stadium, where it was 362 to LF and RF, 392 to LCF and RCF, and 408 to CF. Ott had a very pull-oriented swing and played in what was, with all due disrespect to Baker Bowl, the most pro-pull-hitter park ever: the Polo Grounds. He hit 323 HR's at home and 188 on the road, which is ludicrous. And, long before Aaron was 30, it was obvious that graveyard was costing him, Mathews and Adcock a ton of HR's.

BHN

I don't think he makes adjustments for park, era, etc., so with raw numbers, Ott does look better.

I am interested in the Pete Rose projection, the Aaron v Ott not as much. I have to think the lowering of the mound in 69 made it easier on all hitters including the last 8yrs of Aarons career.

Sockeye - any change of showing us what Rose, Aaron and Ott would have projected to?

[digglahhh]

you'll find certain people who will try to find any argument to dispute it no matter how solid the reasoning. Some people will even argue against the obvious if for no other reason than to disagree. Even if it means to contradict their previous point of view on the same issue.

"My how black you are," said the pot to the kettle

[yankillaz]

Yeah, all we'd need to know now is how in the world you've arrived at your stats, then we could see for ourselves how accurate these figures were, based upon the evaluation of the formulas themselves.

If in the future, you get the urge to post similar "projection" threads, be it on pitchers or anyone else, but don't wish to share how you've arrived at these figures, you may wish to reconsider doing so, as you'll only receive the same questions which you aren't interested in elaborating upon.

Thanks. :)

Thank U Mattingly. I really appreciate it...

[jalbright]

I think you'll find that most projections using my new formula will be quite accurate. I hesitate to post the exact formula since it would only allow for pointed insultation and aimed attacks against. If there is one thing I've leaned in posting on baseball fever it is give any target no matter what it is you'll find certain people who will try to find any argument to dispute it no matter how solid the reasoning. Some people will even argue against the obvious if for no other reason than to disagree. Even if it means to contradict their previous point of view on the same issue.

So to be quite frank I really don't care what the vast majority think of my projection system. I'm am fully 100% comfident in it's accuracy. It serves my purpose. There is of course always going to be a certain % of error with any projection system. Some players may end up 10% above, some may end up 10% below. The secret is the be within 1-2% on the actual totals on average. For the many players used in the survey it is exactly 100% accurate on average. That is of course the exact point to the system it being the average of numorous players. No player is going to hit 100% on in every single catagory. Most likely you'll have a player off by 10-15 home runs, 10-15 doubles, 1-2 triples, 50-100 hits, 25-50 runs, 25-50 RBI's, 3-5 steals, 1-2 points average, 2-3 points OBP, 3-5 points SLG, etc. But when projecting a player 5-10-15 years from retirement that is quite good.

We can only judge in the here and now, and you're telling us we have to accept your word on the accuracy of an approach you refuse to let us see? I've spelled out specific issues I think should be addressed in any projection system, and you won't even discuss the general issues I raise. You've done your arguing out of both sides in your mouth (see the Shawn Green thread, post #88 here: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=556198&postcount=88 )

I'm willing to discuss your projection system factually. Who knows, if you took the time to discuss the matter and listen, you might actually (gasp!) learn something which would improve your work. But if you want to live in a glass house, then it would be advisable not to throw stones.

Since you don't care about our opinions, perhaps our only recourse is to ignore your posts with these projections with the possible exception of posting to ask if you are actually willing to discuss this aspect of the issue. I'd recommend that anyone who would like to see a modification of how Sockeye does his thing proceed in this fashion.

I will say this, The new projections takes into account every season stretching from 1914-2005. An assortment of HOFer and non-HOFers. Players with a career average as low as .236 up to .344. So it's a wide ranging array of players.

Again, your answer is simply trust me, even though our gut reaction from the projections we've seen is that your projections don't deserve that trust. Trust is earned, in case you hadn't noticed. You detract further from your ability to earn our trust when you can't even admit that your method of reporting the results from the cases cited in the Shawn Green thread is seriously skewed in your favor by counting the known results in that reporting. My statistical analysis of the AB projections on those results is purely factual, and I submit the reasoning behind my overall assessment of those results is well-grounded in facts.

Sorry, but if you want my trust, it's on you to earn it. If you don't want to try to do so, that's your prerogative. If you want to attempt a true give and take over your projections, I promise that I will not criticize you personally, though your methods are fair game. I also acknowledge that no projection system is foolproof, as we can never have 20/20 vision of the future without a time machine, and even that might "change the timeline". I'm not terribly familiar with how accurate Bill James' projections or the PECOTA projections of the Baseball Prospectus are. It may be that all share similar issues, and maybe not.

The reason I'm relatively unfamiliar with projections is that I really don't find them terribly useful for my purposes, which I alluded to at least in the Shawn Green thread. Frankly, I think that projections can't get the margin of error low enough to give me a better picture of a player's prospects of making the HOF than a careful consideration of what he's already done, his age, and historical benchmarks will--and that's the one of only two places I can think of where I might find projections a useful tool, the other being in assembling a list of who we should discuss. Accurate projections might be more useful there because we'd only be assembling a list of candidates to examine, and it might not be a bad idea to use a method which actually overestimates candidates to ensure you don't miss anybody.

Jim Albright

[Mattingly]

Thank U Mattingly. I really appreciate it...
No problem. :) There's a separate thread under the "Web Improvements" forum about projections. In it, as I believe I've also said here, that if someone has some kind of stats that seem likely to be accurate, which could put together players deemed to be "similar" (such as Gehrig and Foxx), then you can examine how they'd done over their earlier years (ie, ages 21-30), and at least use that as a basis to "project" what they'll do in their later years (ie, 31-38).

Now if you were to somehow say that a few years ago, Thome, Pujols, Delgado and Giambi were "similar" 1Bmen, I'd agree with you, with Pujols getting the nod for being a better slugger. Still, I can see them as being similar. Therefore, if you'd projected something, we could debate upon who would have "X" number of HRs, RBI, 2B, K, etc, after 15 seasons, etc. However, injuries can't really be calculated, as in the case of Giambi's reduced totals after a very long slump in 2004.

That's where all my insistence upon knowing the innards of the formula come from. I am far from a projections person, but it could seem like a fun thing to do. However, I'd like to hear what others would've said about not just the resulting stats, but upon the method as to how they were arrived on.

If you're going to post and tell me that Player A will have a certain number of HRs before he turns 35, I'd need to know much more than your final answer and a "trust me" type of thing. I'd need to know how you got that number.

Right now, from Sockeye, I'm seeing his reluctance or refusal to do that because he figures others will make posts deriding him upon his methods, as they'll find an excuse to criticize anything.

This is a baseball forum, and theories, in-game decisions, differences as to what should've been done and what could be done are all fair game. You put out an idea, others will debate it. You put out a good idea, even those who agree with you may nitpick about the fine details. You don't want people dissecting your opinion and/or stats, my thinking is not to put forth those opinions and/or stats in the first place. However, if someone insists upon posting those stats, I'd say that being a bit less thin-skinned wouldn't hurt the situation none.

In effect, it's not "this is what will happen" and people should all obey as if it's fact, but "this is what I believe will happen", and others will agree or disagree as to the truth--or lack thereof--involved in the post. That, to me, is what a good baseball discuss can be filled with! :D

[RBi]

and Mattingly, on the flip side...

I really think in the future, everyone should be less aggressive in their replies. I find it fitting if we are going to ask one (rather new member) to be "thicker skined" than we should only ask some of the others to show a bit more respect.

I am not saying everyone should walk on their toes, but simply have respect for their fellow baseball fan. To be honest some of the replies here have been down right rude.

And to me that is more of an issue than someone posting projections that not every agrees with, or understand.

If you don't agree, or understand you can simply just move on. there is no rule that says you have to agree or reply even to every thread.

The sad thing is at least in this post, sockeye was not saying his projections were set in stone, he simply said: "I'll be the first one to throw some out there"

Sockeye was simply ASKING for opinions on this player....

I fear everyone jumped on the bandwagon, without even reading the original post.

In closing, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong in this whole mess, I just feel like a lot of this drama could have been avoided had the situation been handled a bit different.

[Mattingly]

Cubbie, I agree it could've been handled differently. However, the lack of a spreadsheet formula or any kind of method to show how these numbers were come across is what makes me wonder about Sockeye. All he/she had to do was provide how these were done.

In this thread (please see post #46), Sockeye has posted how he/she is reluctant to supply the formula, as others are all too willing to criticize. I think that had he/she supplied this, regardless of criticism, then we could've discussed this. Without any formula, I don't see any logic in anyone accepting this based solely upon one person's say so. If that were the case, what else would I have to believe him/her about?

To me, you post a thread, others disagree on your conclusion, you're obliged to say why you feel this way. If not, then what other than "thin skinned" would that be? Perhaps it could've been said more eloquently, but in the end, to me, it would be all the same. To me, if someone cannot and/or will not support their stated viewpoint, then it may be better to not post this in the first place.

You have an idea, put it forth, defend it. Otherwise, don't put it forth, is usually the way I've gone. Everyone's different.

As to his/her original post, I've read that. I still don't know how the numbers given were reached.

[jalbright]

Cubbie,

Also, while I agree Sockeye has been ridden hard, look at his post (I think #46) where he says this: So to be quite frank I really don't care what the vast majority think of my projection system. If he cares so little for our opinions, I must question why he even bothers to solicit them. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where Sockeye's own approach and attitude have become returned in kind--and there's one Sockeye and many who are returning fire.

Jim Albright

[RBi]

Jim Albright,

He asked for peoples opinions on what they (us other members) thought Thome would finish on his career... and he simply listed his "opinions" what what Thome would finish with just to get the ball rolling...


His projection "system" was not the reason of this thread, he did not ask what people thought about his system, and honestly what difference does it make if he just picked the numbers out of a hat? they are the numbers that he went with...

So I dont blame him for his "i dont care what you think about my system"

because, he never asked what you thought about his system.

With that said, there is a level or respect that I think is needed, we are a well respected community, and we did not get here by post #2 - #11....

it took us until #12, where Mattingly asked him to show his work...

Once again, we just need to play a bit nicer...

[jalbright]

If you judge solely from this thread and not the nearly 30 that preceded it, I can understand how you'd see it that way. But the history of this goes all the way back to at least the Adrian Beltre thread, and there were attempts at discussing his methods back then and at various other threads along the way, with precious little response from Sockeye. So, it's not surprising that after 20 some threads of this, some folks dispensed with that step.

OTOH, the level of venom (as opposed to good old fashioned debate) going back and forth in this and some other threads started by or about Sockeye is hardly BBF at its best. Indeed, if BBF generally proceeded with this level of animosity, I know I wouldn't be here, and I sure a lot of others wouldn't be either. This is supposed to be fun, for goodness' sakes--and I really don't find animosity any fun at all.

Jim Albright

[Mattingly]

With that said, there is a level or respect that I think is needed, we are a well respected community, and we did not get here by post #2 - #11....

it took us until #12, where Mattingly asked him to show his work...

Once again, we just need to play a bit nicer...
Is Sockeye expected to play a little nicer also? Or are we only expected to play nicer?

Quite frankly, I believe that Sockeye has shown a total disdain for others' opinions, so any post by him that he's welcoming this would simply be met with closed ears by myself. If he/she truly wants others' opinions, then he/she should simply request it, and that's throughout a thread, not just in some safe-sounding attempt to solicit opinion, which is followed by refusals to show one's hand, which is what he/she has been asked to do on several occasions.

Right now, I don't see Sockeye as being interested in what others' feel about his/her posts, such as the possibility of criticism for the sake of it, so I'm seeing an "accept my ideas or I'll ignore you" type of attitude.

On a message board, I think that the debate of information, ideas, thoughts and theories is part of the fun. With Sockeye unwillling to engage in that aspect, I have no idea why he remains uncriticized, but we are. This especially after having pointed out the lack of any formulas which demonstrates the accurate of the posts.

As many people have complained about Sockeye, I do believe it's worthy of noting.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Is Sockeye expected to play a little nicer also? Or are we only expected to play nicer?

Quite frankly, I believe that Sockeye has shown a total disdain for others' opinions, so any post by him that he's welcoming this would simply be met with closed ears by myself. If he/she truly wants others' opinions, then he/she should simply request it, and that's throughout a thread, not just in some safe-sounding attempt to solicit opinion, which is followed by refusals to show one's hand, which is what he/she has been asked to do on several occasions.

Right now, I don't see Sockeye as being interested in what others' feel about his/her posts, such as the possibility of criticism for the sake of it, so I'm seeing an "accept my ideas or I'll ignore you" type of attitude.

On a message board, I think that the debate of information, ideas, thoughts and theories is part of the fun. With Sockeye unwillling to engage in that aspect, I have no idea why he remains uncriticized, but we are. This especially after having pointed out the lack of any formulas which demonstrates the accurate of the posts.

As many people have complained about Sockeye, I do believe it's worthy of noting.
Thanks, Matt, that's what I've been saying.
CubsHub, have you looked at the other threads in this forum, or are you gaging your opinion on this solitary thread? If this is the only one you've looked at, you'll see everyone had been more than nice. But tolerance levels have been exceeded. This forum is of an advanced academic scope, and if someone's going to present something, anything, they'd better back it up.

[honus14]

Mike Nadel of the Peoria Journal-Star (http://www.pjstar.com/stories/082307/MIK_BE59QQDE.077.php) has taken up the cause of Jim Thome for the Hall.

Comments?

I don't think he'd be a bad choice.

[KCGHOST]

I would like to see him do more and it would be nice if he hung up one more great season.

One of the factors with his candidacy is Edgar Martinez. The voters will see these guys in similar a similar: Great hitters with minimal defensive value. Right now they are virtually tied in RSAA, EqA, and WARP3. Thome can't improve his EqA, but could significantly distance himself in the others. Thome would geatly benefit from Martinez election (should it happen), but he definitely does not want to be on the same ballot with Edgar and looking like his statistical twin.

It used to be 500 RSAA was a sign of a sure HoFer. Of the 40 some guys who have reached this number and faced the HoF electorate only three failed to make it. They were Joe Jackson (banned), Dick Allen (misanthrope), and Pete Browning (19th Century AA player). But this quasi-standard will probably fall by the wayside with so many active and recently retired players having reached this number. There are four retired guys (Raines, Walker, Edgar, and Rickey) and 10 active guys (Giambi, Chipper, Junior, Arod, Frank Thomas, Thome, Sheffield, Bagwell, Manny, and Barry). I think in terms of the voters Raines, Walker, and Giambi are in real trouble. With there lack of defensive value Thome and Martinez could come up short.

Not much Edgar can do now, but Thome could greatly help himself with three decent seasons or one great one and two so-so ones.

[jalbright]

I'm going to combine the several threads which talk about Thome's case over the past two years or so. I'm going to keep the most recent poll, though.

Jim Albright

[Gregory Pratt]

He'll get in but I wouldn't put him in on the first ballot. I'm not a big fan of putting guys in on the first ballot unless they were top of the game for a long time and he's never really been. Besides that, I have a bias against him for leaving Cleveland like Glavine left Atlanta because of the Union.

[Brad Harris]

He'll get in but I wouldn't put him in on the first ballot. I'm not a big fan of putting guys in on the first ballot unless they were top of the game for a long time and he's never really been. Besides that, I have a bias against him for leaving Cleveland like Glavine left Atlanta because of the Union.

Thank God you don't vote.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He'll get in but I wouldn't put him in on the first ballot. I'm not a big fan of putting guys in on the first ballot unless they were top of the game for a long time and he's never really been. Besides that, I have a bias against him for leaving Cleveland like Glavine left Atlanta because of the Union.

By this logic, everyone will do what you advocate, and he'll be one and done in the balloting.

Thome has helped himself this season; he's got 493 HRs right now (tied with Gehrig and McGriff), and is certain to get to 500 by early next season, if not by the end of the year.

He'll go right in if he gets to 500. I can't see a reason for him not going.

[Cougar]

I don't disagree...he's done what players need to do historically to make it.

Still, it'll be interesting to see how evaluations from this era shake out. Thome is somewhat like a Killebrew figure, but Killer was nearly alone in the 1960's in terms of putting up huge power numbers year in and year out. Thome's anything but alone. Is that going to matter?

This is why some feel that in order to cement his HOF claim, Thome can't just slip over the 500 HR bar, but needs to have one or two more big years and get deep into the mid-500's. I don't agree with this, but I see where they're coming from.

[EdTarbusz]

I have a bias against him for leaving Cleveland like Glavine left Atlanta because of the Union.

Thome left Cleveland because the Indians low-balled an offer to him. Indian shills tried to make Thome out to be an ingrate, but the Indians didn't make any real effort to retain him.

[Gregory Pratt]

Has Thome ever been a top five player in baseball? Top ten? Top fifteen? He's always been a force, but there are so many guys I -- and I'm sure you -- would choose for a team before Thome.

By this logic, everyone will do what you advocate, and he'll be one and done in the balloting.

By your logic, one person's protest vote would lead to one guy not even getting enough votes to continue even though he's clearly a HOFer?

Thank God you don't vote.

Are you troubled by my saying that I wouldn't vote him or Glavine in on the first ballot (though I concur that they belong there) because of their relationship with the Player's Union? I'm sure I'm not alone. I know Glavine will go in first ballot and I'm guessing Thome will, or at least receive substantial support, but there are plenty of people who believe as I do, I'm sure.

There is nothing unusual or wrong with a voter holding the opinion that a guy is a first ballot hall of famer but doesn't deserve his individual vote. Someone will, I'm sure, vote against Rickey Henderson not because they don't think he belongs but because of his sister's rape claim, or because they don't think he was a clean player, or because they think he was arrogant and if he came out, somehow, with the best voting percentage, he'd declare himself the greatest all over again. I'm sure someone will vote against Tom Glavine for the ******** he pulled on Atlanta, twice. It happens, so let's not pretend that it's unreasonable, either.

Nobody deserves an unequivocal YES into the Hall of Fame and only the best of the best of the best deserve to go in on the first ballot with a resounding approval.

[Gregory Pratt]

Thome left Cleveland because the Indians low-balled an offer to him. Indian shills tried to make Thome out to be an ingrate, but the Indians didn't make any real effort to retain him.

Cleveland gave him what they could -- and it was a respectable, substantial offer -- and he turned it down because the Union put undo pressure on him and his agent like what happened with Tom Glavine.

[EdTarbusz]

Cleveland gave him what they could -- and it was a respectable, substantial offer -- and he turned it down because the Union put undo pressure on him and his agent like what happened with Tom Glavine.


I disagree. For what he meant to that club, Thome received a very weak offer from the Indians. The Indians were cutting a lot of costs at that time, and I don't think anyone seriously thought that they would re-sign Thome.

[Gregory Pratt]

I disagree. For what he meant to that club, Thome received a very weak offer from the Indians. The Indians were cutting a lot of costs at that time, and I don't think anyone seriously thought that they would re-sign Thome.

All the same, they were working in good faith and offered him a significant contract that he rejected after the Union hounded his agent and him about how unfair it would be to the other millionaires if he took any sort of discount. Same thing happened with Tom Glavine.

[EdTarbusz]

All the same, they were working in good faith and offered him a significant contract that he rejected after the Union hounded his agent and him about how unfair it would be to the other millionaires if he took any sort of discount. Same thing happened with Tom Glavine.

I don't know about any back room deals, but the Indians offered Thome a lousy deal (especially for someone who had spent nearly a decade as a marquee player for the team) and then tried to make him look like an ingrate for not taking it. The Indians were on a a down-hill slide at that time, with new ownership that didn't seem to have much cash. Thome wanted to play with a contender and it was hard to blame him for leaving the Indians.

[Gregory Pratt]

I don't know about any back room deals, but the Indians offered Thome a lousy deal (especially for someone who had spent nearly a decade as a marquee player for the team) and then tried to make him look like an ingrate for not taking it. The Indians were on a a down-hill slide at that time, with new ownership that didn't seem to have much cash. Thome wanted to play with a contender and it was hard to blame him for leaving the Indians.

I don't have a firm source I can cite on Thome, but Cleveland isn't exactly a money-maker and they gave him, in my opinion and others, something that was perfectly fair and reasonable and perhaps a bit much considering payroll constraints and all that. Sure, it wasn't what he got from the Phillies, but as I've heard it told, he wanted to take it until the Union got on his bat about it.

The Glavine incident I cite is, specifically, in John Schuerholz' book. Glavine, big Union man and a representative during the Strike, is pressured by his agent and the Union into leaving for NY. He verbally commits and then backs out, goes to JS' home to beg him to take him on the Braves (no Agent involved), and JS tells him, "We'll give you two years, guaranteed," which was different from the Rollover Evergreen Clause they'd originally wanted for multiple years but they wanted it done. He was happy because he wanted to stay in Atlanta, even for less money and years, and then the Union/Agent got on him about how it wasn't good precedent and he should milk it for what it's worth and that was that. He called, said sorry, and left for NY. Thome's was very similar.

[Gregory Pratt]

I have nothing more to add. I think Thome deserves it on the merits but not on the first ballot. Second ballot or third. If he gets in on the first, good for him but I wouldn't vote for him on the first, even if he is one of the nicest players in baseball.

[Cougar]

Another note...it'll be nice for Thome's case if he gets to 2000 hits. A total below that can be a little tough for people to swallow...perhaps it shouldn't be, with Thome's secondary average, but it still gives pause.

At this writing, he's at 1892 hits...even a mediocre season in 2008 would do it, assuming reasonable health.

[Brad Harris]

Are you troubled by my saying that I wouldn't vote him or Glavine in on the first ballot (though I concur that they belong there) because of their relationship with the Player's Union? I'm sure I'm not alone. I know Glavine will go in first ballot and I'm guessing Thome will, or at least receive substantial support, but there are plenty of people who believe as I do, I'm sure.

There is nothing unusual or wrong with a voter holding the opinion that a guy is a first ballot hall of famer but doesn't deserve his individual vote. Someone will, I'm sure, vote against Rickey Henderson not because they don't think he belongs but because of his sister's rape claim, or because they don't think he was a clean player, or because they think he was arrogant and if he came out, somehow, with the best voting percentage, he'd declare himself the greatest all over again. I'm sure someone will vote against Tom Glavine for the ******** he pulled on Atlanta, twice. It happens, so let's not pretend that it's unreasonable, either.

Nobody deserves an unequivocal YES into the Hall of Fame and only the best of the best of the best deserve to go in on the first ballot with a resounding approval.

Um...both?

The idea that a voter applies a higher standard than the Hall of Fame rules dictate is a ridiculous farce. The Hall of Fame makes no distinction between first ballot and other Hall of Famers. While thinking of a player as a "first ballot Hall of Famer" is one thing, in the sense that he ought to be a "shoo in" for election, it's not an actual distinction and for voters to attempt to create, themselves, such a distinction is a corruption of the electoral process.

That a voter would leave a worthy player off his ballot solely so that player is not elected in his first election, is an offense worthy of removing that individual's voting privileges.

And frankly, I think you holding these guys' off-the-field personas against them in weighing their Hall worthiness crosses a line too. You evidently have a big problem with the MLBPA. While you're free to assume whatever you want about Tom Glavine's character because of his involvement with that organization, that never prevented Glavine from doing his best to help his team win so long as he wore the team's uniform. I fail to see your line of reasoning there.

Finally - I have to ask - what the heck rape allegation are you talking about with regards to Henderson?

[Brad Harris]

These sorts of idiosyncracies in the voting are great examples of what needs to be changed by the system.

The Hall needs to ask voters "who is the most worthy candidate." I have always assumed that the ballot should include the ten most worthy candidates, or all worthy candidates (if deemed less than ten by the voter).

Ballot manipulation is appalling. The rules ought to be revised to eliminate that.

[Cougar]

It can be relatively benign.

Say one thinks that Dale Murphy is more worthy than Jim Rice, but they are both over your threshold. If one has one ballot spot left on one's 2008 ballot, one might justifiably support Rice over Murphy since Murphy, based on past voting patterns, is going to be ignored by 90% of the electorate.

Eliminating (or, to a lesser extent, expanding) the max-10 ballot would eliminate the need to do such a thing, but as we're learning in the simulation, it might throw the Hall doors wide open too.

I don't agree with Pratt's reasoning, but there's a lot more first ballot machinations than just his out there. I wouldn't get that worked up.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't disagree...he's done what players need to do historically to make it.

Still, it'll be interesting to see how evaluations from this era shake out. Thome is somewhat like a Killebrew figure, but Killer was nearly alone in the 1960's in terms of putting up huge power numbers year in and year out. Thome's anything but alone. Is that going to matter?

This is why some feel that in order to cement his HOF claim, Thome can't just slip over the 500 HR bar, but needs to have one or two more big years and get deep into the mid-500's. I don't agree with this, but I see where they're coming from.

He's not really a Killebrew figure, positive and negative. He gets on base more than Killebrew, even adjusting for era. He has a higher BA and OBP than Killebrew in a 750 run context. On the other hand, Killebrew played 3B in mid-career, and outfield, so he had more defensive value.

He's not just slipping over the 500 bar, because he's only 36 years old. He's 37 now, and will be when he hits 500; that's not like hanging on to age 40. He's averaging 40 jacks per 162 games, and that's pretty good, even for this era. Plus, his career OBP is .409 at this writing.

To me, just slipping over the bar is playing until age 40 or more to get to 500. Thome's MUCH better than that, and he'd be there had he not missed a season to injury (from which he has appeared to recover nicely). People would have to invent reasons as to why Thome shouldn't go into the HOF.

[Gregory Pratt]

Um...both?

1. The idea that a voter applies a higher standard than the Hall of Fame rules dictate is a ridiculous farce. The Hall of Fame makes no distinction between first ballot and other Hall of Famers. 2. While thinking of a player as a "first ballot Hall of Famer" is one thing, in the sense that he ought to be a "shoo in" for election, it's not an actual distinction and for voters to attempt to create, themselves, such a distinction is a corruption of the electoral process.

That a voter would leave a worthy player off his ballot solely so that player is not elected in his first election, is an offense worthy of removing that individual's voting privileges.

2. And frankly, I think you holding these guys' off-the-field personas against them in weighing their Hall worthiness crosses a line too. You evidently have a big problem with the MLBPA. While you're free to assume whatever you want about Tom Glavine's character because of his involvement with that organization, that never prevented Glavine from doing his best to help his team win so long as he wore the team's uniform. I fail to see your line of reasoning there.

Finally - I have to ask - 3. what the heck rape allegation are you talking about with regards to Henderson?

1. It is the reality of HOF voting and always has been.

2. What he did was sleazy and dishonest and bad for the game of baseball, IMO, and it disqualifies him from my hypothetical first-ballot vote. That happens. Get over it. It's like you're not familiar with the voting process or with American democracy, even, where people vote or don't vote for all sorts of reasons, like you've never heard of a "protest vote" or about the symbolism of a 100% threshold.

3. According to his sister, Rickey raped his sister. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E6DF1E31F935A3575BC0A9629582 60

[Honus Wagner Rules]

From Rob Neyer...


Thome likely needs 600 homers to reach HOF

By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com

A few hours after Jim Thome hit his 499th home run, I happened to find myself sitting at a table with seven serious (or semi-serious) baseball fans. So I asked each of them, "Is Thome a Hall of Famer?"

Five said yes, two said no. Five out of seven is 71 percent; if this had been an official Hall vote, Thome would have fallen just 4 percent short. Now, you might think this means nothing, because of course my "voters" didn't have any evidence at hand, and in fact I asked them to respond without thinking about it.

But it does mean something, because some significant percentage of the real voters evaluate Hall of Fame candidates exactly that way. No, I don't mean to suggest that the voters don't think about each player. They do. By the time a player has reached Thome's age -- he turned 37 a few weeks ago -- most of the voters have done a lot of thinking over the years, and they've come to a conclusion. Which isn't to say they don't change their minds. Sometimes they do. We're talking about now, though. Realistically.

So what do the Hall of Fame voters of the future think about Thome right now? For an idea, we can look at how he's fared in the MVP balloting over the years.

Thome has never won an MVP Award. He's never come close. He does have four top-10 MVP finishes: a fourth, a sixth and two sevenths. This constitutes a real problem for his candidacy. Thome has been an RBI man with a number of good teams, and MVP voters typically reward that sort of player. MVP voters essentially are a subset of Hall of Fame voters. If they don't appreciate him while he's playing, will they appreciate him when he's eligible for the Hall?

Only six post-1950 first basemen have been elected to the Hall of Fame. Here's a simple representation of how each fared during his career in MVP balloting, counting only top-nine finishes through the years:


Post-1950 HOF 1B
PLAYER MVP FINISH
Harmon Killebrew 1-2-3-3-4-4
Eddie Murray 2-2-4-5-5-5-6
Rod Carew 1-4-5-7-9
Willie McCovey 1-3-9
Orlando Cepeda 1-2-9
Tony Perez 3-7-8

As you can see, four of the Hall of Fame first basemen won the award once, and all of them finished as high as third at least once.

Next, my first tier of Hall of Fame candidates at first base; these two players clearly have established themselves as favorites in the minds of the MVP/Hall of Fame voters.

FIRST TIER OF 1B HOF CANDIDATES
PLAYER MVP FINISH
Frank Thomas 1-1-2-3-3-4-8-8-8
Jeff Bagwell 1-2-3-7-7-9

For those who think Bagwell is going to have problems getting into the Hall of Fame, it's worth noting that he looks very good here relative to his peers at first base. And Frank Thomas blows everybody out of the water, with the caveat that he's actually logged more games as a DH than as a first baseman. Of course, as we've seen with McGwire, the steroids issue means nobody's a sure thing. But absent performance-enhancing drugs, we can figure that both of these guys will cruise right into the Hall.

Next, the second tier. These guys all were MVPs and put up big numbers, but in abbreviated careers.

SECOND TIER OF 1B HOF CANDIDATES
PLAYER MVP FINISH
Keith Hernandez 1-2-4-8
Don Mattingly 1-2-5-7
Jason Giambi 1-2-5-8

Quite a coincidence, how closely these New York first basemen match in the MVP balloting. All three were great players in their times, each with first- and second-place finishes in the voting, and all three suffered debilitating injuries that severely impacted their Hall of Fame chances (Giambi has had some other issues, of course).

Here's the third tier:

THIRD TIER OF 1B HOF CANDIDATES
PLAYER MVP FINISH
Mark McGwire 2-4-5-6-7
Will Clark 2-4-5-5
Jim Thome 4-6-7-7
Fred McGriff 4-6-6-8

None of the players in the second tier is likely to become a Hall of Famer, and here's Thome in the third tier. Which doesn't bode well for his chances, obviously. And he doesn't match up with Clark and McGriff in MVP votes.

And finally, our fourth tier, completing the list of post-1950 first basemen who have been seriously discussed as Hall of Fame candidates (or who deserve to be).

FOURTH TIER OF 1B HOF CANDIDATES
PLAYER MVP FINISH
Carlos Delgado 2-4-6
Todd Helton 5-7-9
Rafael Palmeiro 5-6-8
Gil Hodges 7-8

Carlos Delgado has been a great hitter for a long time. But did you know that he's been an All-Star only twice? As things stand now, I believe he'll have a difficult time getting elected. He's only 35 and has time to build his counting stats. He'll need to. Helton's candidacy is hurt by all those years with losing teams and by the stigma that comes with playing all those games in Coors Field. He needs to pile up those counting stats, too.

Hodges doesn't stack up, but he has always benefited from his association with the '69 Mets. And Palmeiro? Despite the poor showing in MVP voting, he probably was close to a lock before he got busted for steroids. But that's because he cleared 3,000 hits, which has always been an automatic qualifier (notwithstanding suspension-worthy offenses).

Looking at the first basemen who are in the Hall of Fame, only Tony Perez has anything like Thome's "MVP profile" -- no award, no finish better than third, not many top 10s -- and Perez benefited from a halo effect that comes with having been a key component of the Big Red Machine (and even then, it took him nine years to get elected).

So in a sense, the Hall of Fame voters -- in the guise of MVP voters -- already have passed judgment on Thome, and they have found him wanting. Can he change their minds? Certainly. Just as Palmeiro turned into a likely Hall of Famer by collecting his 3,000th hit, Thome can become one by hitting 600 home runs. But 500's not going to be nearly enough.

So Thome has not, today, done enough to be elected. Realistically, that is. But what about idealistically? Does he deserve to be elected, based on the merits of his case? Well, as Mickey Mantle once told Congress, "My views are just about the same as Casey's."

[Honus Wagner Rules]

From Buster Olney...


Not yet sold on Thome in Hall

Buster Onley, ESPN
Monday, September 17, 2007

If you don't know anything about Jim Thome, you would learn a lot from reading the details of Toni Ginnetti's story this morning:

Before batting in the first inning on Sunday, Thome wrote the name of his mother into the dirt. He awarded the fan who retrieved the milestone career home run No. 500 ball a pair of season tickets. He intends to personally deliver his mementos to the Hall of Fame, with his father. These details reflect the kind of person he has always been since he broke into the big leagues.

So you feel like a jerk when you suggest that he is not quite a rock-solid, first-ballot Hall of Famer yet, and that he has more work to do before achieving that status. That is what I'm going to do now, and then, after that, I'm going to slam the door in the face of Girl Scouts selling cookies, cancel our family Christmas and retrieve that $10 I put in the collection plate at church.

Here's the thing: I think Thome absolutely will get into the Hall of Fame eventually even if he doesn't play another game (and we know that he will continue to play). I might even vote for him on the first ballot if he didn't play another game.

But I do think that the standards for the Hall of Fame voters have shifted in recent years. Five hundred home runs was once a golden ticket into the Hall, but I don't think that's the case any more, with so many hitters achieving that milestone in recent years. There was a lot of conversation in the winter about the questions surrounding Mark McGwire's alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs, but a lot of voters also indicated that they felt that McGwire's résumé was a little hollow, beyond the home runs.

There are some holes in Thome's current resume:

• He currently ranks 67th in career RBI, despite playing in an offense-rich era. There are 10 players with more RBI than Thome whose names have already appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot who haven't gotten in -- guys like Jim Rice and Harold Baines and Andre Dawson. For Thome, a power guy whose credentials are built on run production, that's a problem.

• He's never finished in the top three in MVP voting in any season, which is unusual for a Hall of Fame candidate whose credentials are built on power. The only current member of the 500-homer club about whom that is true is Rafael Palmeiro. Everybody else either was an MVP or finished second at one time or another.

• His defense may not hurt him, but it doesn't help him, either.

• He is one of the all-time leaders in OPS, but some of the OPS argument is diluted by the fact that nine of the 19 greatest OPS hitters are currently playing.

• He ranks 105th all-time in runs scored, behind Steve Finley, Luis Gonzalez and others.

In summation, Thome has hit a ton of homers and drawn a ton of walks, but he hasn't been extraordinary at scoring runs or driving them in, and to get in the Hall of Fame, you either have to be exceptional at one or the other. Or be an extraordinary fielder, or a pitcher.

So my own sense is that to be a first-ballot selection, he'll have to climb into the Frank Robinson stratosphere of home runs -- into the 580s. And he'll probably do that.

If you were to give him points for the kind of person he is, he'd be a unanimous selection. He's always treated me terrifically. But I've never taken credit away from Hall candidates who've been jerks to me, personally, and I don't think it's right to give Thome extra consideration because he's a great guy.

[Captain Cold Nose]

It's kind of funny how he brandishes Hernandez and Giambi as New York first baseman while talking about MVP voting when both actually won their MVPs while in other cities.

Even while discounting MVP voting for what it is, the article does show a measurement of how these players are viewed against their peers, which a voter will look at, rightly or wrongly. I'd say that's a fairly accurate predictor at this time.

[PVNICK]

He's a poor fielding 1B/DH with no value outside of his bat. Granted he had some monster years and a great OPS, but in my eyes all steroid era sluggers are suspect. He also after his first few years was a HR, BB or K type player which while the percentages are pretty I find particularly loathsome.

[fenrir]

i think he'll get more love from the voters then mcgwire. mcgwire has been linked to steroids by canseco and the fbi, and refused to anwser questions at congress about his steroid use. thome may have juiced, but ive never heard anyone accuse him of cheating before.

[KCGHOST]

Thome not an HoFer?? Some guys need to check their figures. The guy is not a stellar fielder, but he has 1100 games at 1B, 500 games at 3B, and 400 games as a DH. He is not a career DH as some suggest.

His RCAA is 651. No player has reached that plateau and not been voted in. It is more than Edgar Martinez, Griffey, jr., Rafael Palmeiro (who's not getting in for other reasons), Chipper Jones, Wade Boggs, etc.

His WARP3 is 108 which is a little light. You would really like to see 120+, but he can still get to that. Since he is only 36 he should be able to add sufficient numbers to overcome his doubters over the next few years.

[jalbright]

Merged this new thread with one that was started two years back. I kept the newer poll, as the past two seasons certainly could affect the voting results.

[jalbright]

My own take on Thome is that he'd be darned close, though perhaps a smidgen short if he quit at the end of this season. I think he's got more than enough to finish where I'd like to see a HOFer.

[Brad Harris]

Thome already has my vote. He ought to be put in by the voters eventually.

While he hasn't won an MVP Award, neither did McGwire and I think McGwire would have been a shoo-in had he not been implicated in the steroids mess. Heck, McGwire would probably have been voted in had he not appeared before Congress.

I'm surprised that Neyer missed Steve Garvey in his analysis as a post-1950 first baseman who's received serious consideration (rightly or wrongly) for the Hall of Fame. Garvey's MVP finishes are 1-2-6-6-6 for anyone wondering.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Thome won't be the first 500 HR guy to be denied the Hall. It might happen, but Thome is a SUPER OBP guy, and he's had some defensive value.

[Wee Willie]

One more good year and he should no longer be on the bubble, IMO. He can help his case by hitting some career benchmarks like 2000 hits and 1500 RBI. He's got 328 Win Shares in exactly 2000 games, which is an excellent per-game rate and close to the total needed for a definition-B Hall of Famer.

I think the argument from Robb Neyer based on MVP voting is pretty weak and makes his getting in more about the sportwriters needing to validate their previous votes than judging him on his actual accomplishments.

[MyDogSparty]

Yep, he's a HOFer but he should have played his whole career in Cleveland.

[Los Bravos]

The Glavine incident I cite is, specifically, in John Schuerholz' book.Needless to say, Glavine disputes this. David Justice and Brian Jordan have each claimed Schuerholtz deceived them about being traded right before he did it.

It took me a while to accept it, considering my gratitude for the way that he helped turn the whole franchise around, but after three people I respect off the field all say he's not telling the truth or at least not playing it straight with them...forgive me if I take his words skeptically.

As for Jim, he needs to get over the 2000 hit hump and hit about 50 more homers and I think he'll be well secure.

[Freakshow]

As for Jim, he needs to get over the 2000 hit hump and hit about 50 more homers and I think he'll be well secure.
This is right.

For a historical comp, I think Willie Stargell is close. After next year, Thome will have about as many plate appearances. They're very close in OPS+, Black Ink, Gray Ink, defensive value. Two more years as a full time player and Thome looks like a possible first-ballot choice, depending who comes on the ballot that year.

[leecemark]

This is right.

For a historical comp, I think Willie Stargell is close. After next year, Thome will have about as many plate appearances. They're very close in OPS+, Black Ink, Gray Ink, defensive value. Two more years as a full time player and Thome looks like a possible first-ballot choice, depending who comes on the ballot that year.

--Willie Stargell stood out alot more as a star in his time than Thome has. Their numbers look pretty similar, but Stargell was for a time the best hitter in the NL. Thome has never really been close to that. Stargell was alot the leader of some great Pirates teams, while Thome has been a secondary star on teams not quite as successfull. Thome may be a Hall of Famer, even a first ballot guy if he lasts long enough, but he is not the stuff legends are made of.

[leecemark]

This is typically obnoxious and vapid; typical of a handful of "regulars" here.

Well, profuse excuses for those writers/historians who don't bow down subserviently basing all their opinions more or less entirely off of a few esoteric, contrived internet stats such as "WARP3" and "RCAA". There is quite a bit more to a player than a few ubermetrics contrived by reclusive netizens stationed nearly permanently behind their computers....

In terms of depth, breadth, and authenticity.... using an ubermetric or two to determine the greatness of a baseball player more or less equates with an someone "authoring" a book using Wikipedia as their primary source.


--Always lovely to have you drop by with your silver tongue. I don't disagree with your point so much. Being a Hall of Famer IS about more than just some numbers. I just wish you could make it without being so mean spirited. No only is it rude, it is boring to read the same lecture out of you every other post.

[Freakshow]

--Willie Stargell stood out alot more as a star in his time than Thome has. Their numbers look pretty similar, but Stargell was for a time the best hitter in the NL. Thome has never really been close to that. Stargell was alot the leader of some great Pirates teams, while Thome has been a secondary star on teams not quite as successfull. Thome may be a Hall of Famer, even a first ballot guy if he lasts long enough, but he is not the stuff legends are made of.
Yeah, that's what I would've assumed, too. But, when I really look at the record, it's remarkable how similar Thome and Stargell are.

In fact, each was the league's best hitter one time, Stargell in 1973, Thome in 2002. Each was consistently one of his league's best hitters during his prime, Stargell 1966-75, Thome 1995-2004.

Their teams' success is also very similar. Stargell's team, in a 2-division era, played in the LCS six times. Thome's team, in a 3-division era, played in the LCS three times, plus three more years as division champs.

Stargell was not as durable as Thome, having three years of 600+ plate appearances to Thome's nine years.

Stargell had a bit higher peak. Eleven best years in win shares:

WS 36-35-29-27-26-25-22-22-21-20-18=281
JT 34-31-30-28-26-26-25-24-20-20-19=283

Yes, there is a big difference in personalities. Stargell acquired a reputation as a team leader in his latter years, winning a share of the MVP in 1979 despite not being among the league's 20 best players that year. Thome is not so charismatic.

So the cult of Fame places Stargell in a higher echelon of greatness than Thome.

[dl4060]

Thome and Stargell is a good comparison. I think they are very close, Thome has a disadvantage in that he has played in a big hitting era, and has not been perceived as one of the top few players. I think he has been a bit shortchanged, and deserves more recognition. His 2002 season was truly a monster, which no one ever talks about. He was a lethal offensive player, good at wearing out pitchers and then driving the ball. I have always enjoyed watching those types play, but many writers do not, which I suspect will hurt JT when it comes time to vote. It always seemed to me that Thome never got quite the recognition he deserved in his prime, not really sure why that was. I would vote for Thome before Ichiro, although I suspect Ichiro will have more support.

[Brad Harris]

[Edited to remove 'dead wood.']

[Los Bravos]

Freakshow's comparison example of Willie Stargell is a really good one. Willie McCovey is another man with very similar numbers.

[leecemark]

Unfortunately it's much less rare than those who make such decisions based on whether a guy "felt like" a Hall-of-Famer. If you're looking to harpoon the "obnoxious and vapid," you might try that crowd first.

--Hey keep those harpoons to yourself! The numbers tell most of the story, but whether a guy was perceived as a great player while active is important too. Cooperstown is not just about honoring the guys who pile up the best numbers, be they traditional counting numbers or more advanced sabermetrics. It is a place to honor the history of the game and the players who made it.
--A couple posts ago someone said Thome was a (much) better hitter than Ichiro but Ichiro was a stronger bet for the Hall of Fame. I think that is right on both counts. Thome may have the more valuable career, but Ichiro is a far more historically important player. If only one of them could be enshrined it should absolutely be Ichiro. Of course, there is no reason they both can't make it.

[mwb]

The question isn't whether Jim will make the HOF but how long it will take him to be elected. At this moment, he's not a first ballot HOFer because he's one-dimensional although very good at that one dimension of his game. He'll improve his chances of being inducted sooner than later by either hitting another 50-100 HR's or eclipsing other career milestones like hits, RBIs, etc.

[Brooklyn]

I think he'll make it, but I don't think he is there yet. He's reminds me very much of Rafael Palmeiro. Both were very good players who accumulated nice numbers, but were never really thought of as the best in the game. they made a similar amount of all-star teams, but where not the dominating first basemen of their era.

Thome has more power then Palmeiro, slugging .562 --> .515. His OBP is higher, .409 -->.371. Palmeiro has the higher batting average, .288 -->.281. Some decline for Thome will make those numbers close, but he'll still likely retire with better rate stats. But Palmeiro's counting stats blow away Thome. He currently has 1100 more hits, 69 more homeruns, 450 more RBI's, 340 more runs. Thome will have to play 3-4 more years to have a chance to catch the HR, RBI and run numbers, but no way he gets to 3,000 hits.

Palmeiro also has three gold gloves. Whether he deserved them all or not, voters do look at that

I mention this comparison because before Palmeiro was caught using steroids, there was serious conversation as to whether he was a HOFer. And if Thome retired right now, I' d have him below Palmeiro. I just don't see how Palmeiro was borderline and Thome is a slam dunk

[plask_stirlac]

I think he'll make it, but I don't think he is there yet. He's reminds me very much of Rafael Palmeiro. Both were very good players who accumulated nice numbers, but were never really thought of as the best in the game. they made a similar amount of all-star teams, but where not the dominating first basemen of their era.

Thome has more power then Palmeiro, slugging .562 --> .515. His OBP is higher, .409 -->.371. Palmeiro has the higher batting average, .288 -->.281. Some decline for Thome will make those numbers close, but he'll still likely retire with better rate stats. But Palmeiro's counting stats blow away Thome. He currently has 1100 more hits, 69 more homeruns, 450 more RBI's, 340 more runs. Thome will have to play 3-4 more years to have a chance to catch the HR, RBI and run numbers, but no way he gets to 3,000 hits.

Palmeiro also has three gold gloves. Whether he deserved them all or not, voters do look at that

I mention this comparison because before Palmeiro was caught using steroids, there was serious conversation as to whether he was a HOFer. And if Thome retired right now, I' d have him below Palmeiro. I just don't see how Palmeiro was borderline and Thome is a slam dunk

Palmeiro's counting stats are from a) playing longer, and b) swinging more, fewer walks, more outs, lower OBP. Thome was better than Raffy. Jim started around 1994, it's only 2007. And he lost 2005 basically.

Thome was the 2nd best AL position player in 2002 and Top 5 in 1996.

[WJackman]

In terms of depth, breadth, and authenticity.... using an ubermetric or two to determine the greatness of a baseball player more or less equates with an someone "authoring" a book using Wikipedia as their primary source.



I wish I wrote that.

[Brooklyn]

Palmeiro's counting stats are from a) playing longer, and b) swinging more, fewer walks, more outs, lower OBP. Thome was better than Raffy. Jim started around 1994, it's only 2007. And he lost 2005 basically.

Thome was the 2nd best AL position player in 2002 and Top 5 in 1996.

my point was that he is not there yet. If he retired today, I don't see the argument for him over Palmeiro, except for the steriods. I have no doubt he'll pass Palemeiro and be a HOFer assuming he keeps playing

[digglahhh]

I'd vote for him.

Aside from the numbers, he's also a great guy. A true gentleman of the game in an era many feel is defined by immature, cry-baby, selfish, showboats. During his minor league rehab assignment, he basically bought the entire team and coaching staff dinner every night. Thome's a classy guy. Being understated helped contribute to him garnering less recognition for his offensive production than he deserves/d.

Thome was one of the best pure sluggers and OBP guys in the game for a long time. And, while his style may not have been exciting to many, he was more successful than all but a very small percentage of men in terms of producing offense on a baseball diamond.

Stargell's not a bad comparison. Neither is Killebrew, IMO.

[plask_stirlac]

Beyong having 500 HR, Ralph Kiner is in. Great batter, but similar: 15 2B, 40-50 HR. not for too long and Thome's going longer.

[Bill Burgess]

Can't help but notice that csh made an unfortunate post. It was properly deleted.

Wouldn't it be nicer for all concerned for the quoted nastiness be removed by the 3 posters who responded to it.

Admittedly, it was Chris who interjected the nastiness, but he feels badly about it, and is it worth it to leave it up, for all to see, just to rub his nose in it and make him live with it?

Just a thought, that the thread would be nicer without the quoted 'dead wood'.

[538280]

I think it's hard to say Thome isn't a HOFer. His numbers are spectactular even in the context of this era. He has a lot of power and he gets on base a ton. He is a 1Bman and is not fast and isn't a great fielder-but he brings plenty of value with his bat that he's still a HOFer in my book, there are many other players (McCovey, Killebrew, Stargell, Kiner) who didn't bring much else besies their bats and are still in the HOF, because it's clear they bring enough to their teams just with their bats. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy too, a few years ago I saw an interleague game between the Phillies and Red Sox and Thome was talking to the fans in the RF corner. Couldn't have been much more nice and good relationed. I don't mind at all when players aren't happy with fans crowding them, I understand, I don't like it either, but it still is nice for those who can still be very nice.

Besides, I simply don't understand the case against Thome. I think it entirely stems from a backlash against his type of player, the one dimensional slugger, and the thought that he just doesn't "feel" like a HOFer. One dimensional sluggers are somewhat limited, but they still bring lots of runs and wins to their teams. Thome has always been a monster run producer. Don't forget either-Thome wasn't always so one-dimensoinal. He came up as a relatively slick fielding 3Bman.

[dl4060]

Besides, I simply don't understand the case against Thome. I think it entirely stems from a backlash against his type of player, the one dimensional slugger, and the thought that he just doesn't "feel" like a HOFer.

This is an important point. There are many people out there who for whatever reason dislike this type of player. Nothing bothers me more than the absurd idea that Mcgwire/Thome type sluggers just blindly swing for the fences. Low average sluggers who draw walks and drive the ball play a VERY cerebral game, of wearing the pitcher down, and then delivering a killing blow. It just amazes me that undisciplined slap hitters are looked at as craftsman while those with the baseball intellect to beat the pitcher in a chess match are looked at as mindless Neanderthals.

[RuthMayBond]

Admittedly, it was Chris who interjected the nastiness, but he feels badly about it, and is it worth it to leave it up, for all to see, just to rub his nose in it and make him live with it?
Does he feel badly enough about it to stop the nastiness?

[PVNICK]

This is an important point. There are many people out there who for whatever reason dislike this type of player. Nothing bothers me more than the absurd idea that Mcgwire/Thome type sluggers just blindly swing for the fences. Low average sluggers who draw walks and drive the ball play a VERY cerebral game, of wearing the pitcher down, and then delivering a killing blow. It just amazes me that undisciplined slap hitters are looked at as craftsman while those with the baseball intellect to beat the pitcher in a chess match are looked at as mindless Neanderthals.

I'm not sure I ever heard striking out 160 times and batting .260 described that way. To use Jason Giambi as an expample I'm not sure taking pitches until you get two strikes and then swinging requires a great intellect you can see it in any little league game girl or boys.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'm not sure I ever heard striking out 160 times and batting .260 described that way. To use Jason Giambi as an expample I'm not sure taking pitches until you get two strikes and then swinging requires a great intellect you can see it in any little league game girl or boys.
Well, Thome has a career .281 BA, hit over .300 three times, and has a career high of .314. He's never hit as low as .260 in any full season. He is a strikeout machine, though, with over 2,000 Ks already.

[PVNICK]

In all honesty if I had to recast my vote I would switch my vote from a no to a yes.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm not sure I ever heard striking out 160 times and batting .260 described that way. To use Jason Giambi as an expample I'm not sure taking pitches until you get two strikes and then swinging requires a great intellect you can see it in any little league game girl or boys.Thome's "non-intellect" has got him at least 89 walks in 12 different seasons (and at least 104 in nine)

[digglahhh]

I will happily define Jim Thome as a strikeout machine, provided we also define Jimmy Rollins as the more generic out-making machine.

Besides, a player being defined by his strikeout is apparently a judgment of that player's speed.

Do we refer to Curtis Granderson or Grady Sizemore as strikeout machines? No, because the run fast when the make contact with the ball... at a similar rate to Thome.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I will happily define Jim Thome as a strikeout machine, provided we also define Jimmy Rollins as the more generic out-making machine.

Besides, a player being defined by his strikeout is apparently a judgment of that player's speed.

Do we refer to Curtis Granderson or Grady Sizemore as strikeout machines? No, because the run fast when the make contact with the ball... at a similar rate to Thome.

Thats' a good point. Why are strikeout machines invariably slow footed players? Looking at the top single season strikeout leaders the vast majority are slow footed players. If we look at all players that wiffed 170+ in one season the only speedsters are Bobby Bonds, Reggie Jackson , Sammy Sosa, Bo Jackson, and Granderson. I only referred to Thome as a strikeout machine because he is only one of four players with 2,000+ career strikeouts.

[RuthMayBond]

Thats' a good point. Why are strikeout machines invariably slow footed players?Um, because they're taking the big swing so they concentrate on power and don't worry about speed

<Looking at the top single season strikeout leaders the vast majority are slow footed players. If we look at all players that wiffed 170+ in one season the only speedsters are Bobby Bonds, Reggie Jackson , Sammy Sosa, Bo Jackson, and Granderson.>

Assuming Mike Cameron, Mike Schmidt and Jose Canseco are slow-footed

[RuthMayBond]

If we look at all players that wiffed 170+ in one season the only speedsters are Bobby Bonds, Reggie Jackson , Sammy Sosa, Bo Jackson, and Granderson. But if you go down just to 160 whiffs, you add
Corey Patterson
Juan Samuel
Ron Gant
Alfonso Soriano

[digglahhh]

I only referred to Thome as a strikeout machine because he is only one of four players with 2,000+ career strikeouts.

Even though, I basically quoted your post, my criticism wasn't aimed at you. My main point is that guys like Juan Pierre and Jimmy Rollins are out-making machines - they just happen to sprinkle in a lot variety in the kinds of outs they make. Thome is not at all an outmaking machine, he's is the opposite. He is an on-base machine. Yet, because a large portion of the outs he makes are Ks, he's looked at through the prism of out-making. Again, ironic, since he is a HOF caliber player on the strength of basically only two skills - hitting the ball really hard and far, and not making a lot of outs.

And, honestly there's a reason why it is predominantly big sluggers who put up huge K totals. There is less value to those guys simply, putting the ball in play. They want to rack up XBHs, they are less likely to beat out grounders, more likely to hit into GDPs, and less of an asset on the bases. That's not my problem. My problem is why some of the speedy guys who do K often as seemingly given a pass in this regard. I do hear people in Detroit or Cleveland, and their broadcasters talk about how Granderson and Sizemore have to get their Ks down. But, nobody ever says - Grady Sizemore - oh, K machine. They do say that about Thome. To make it even worse, through their short careers, Granderson and Sizemore have BAs of .279 and 283 respectively. Thome is .281. This isn't Greg Vaughan's yearly .240 we are talking about.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Even though, I basically quoted your post, my criticism wasn't aimed at you. My main point is that guys like Juan Pierre and Jimmy Rollins are out-making machines - they just happen to sprinkle in a lot variety in the kinds of outs they make. Thome is not at all an outmaking machine, he's is the opposite. He is an on-base machine. Yet, because a large portion of the outs he makes are Ks, he's looked at through the prism of out-making. Again, ironic, since he is a HOF caliber player on the strength of basically only two skills - hitting the ball really hard and far, and not making a lot of outs.

And, honestly there's a reason why it is predominantly big sluggers who put up huge K totals. There is less value to those guys simply, putting the ball in play. They want to rack up XBHs, they are less likely to beat out grounders, more likely to hit into GDPs, and less of an asset on the bases. That's not my problem. My problem is why some of the speedy guys who do K often as seemingly given a pass in this regard. I do hear people in Detroit or Cleveland, and their broadcasters talk about how Granderson and Sizemore have to get their Ks down. But, nobody ever says - Grady Sizemore - oh, K machine. They do say that about Thome. To make it even worse, through their short careers, Granderson and Sizemore have BAs of .279 and 283 respectively. Thome is .281. This isn't Greg Vaughan's yearly .240 we are talking about.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. Thome is somewhat underrated because of his high strikeout totals. But he's not, and has never been, a .240 Adam Dunn type hitter.

[dl4060]

I'm not sure I ever heard striking out 160 times and batting .260 described that way. To use Jason Giambi as an expample I'm not sure taking pitches until you get two strikes and then swinging requires a great intellect you can see it in any little league game girl or boys.

I have never seen a little leaguer show the type of plate discipline Giambi or Bonds has. Frankly, to state that they do is absurd. Some kids have a good batting eye, and some don't, some take pitches because they are scared, but I hghly doubt any of them have anything like the approach to hitting that Giambi does. Taking until two strikes may or may not require great intellect, but it is a very intelligent way to play baseball. If you have fewer than two strikes, and a pitcher throws you a pitch you cannot do anything with, why on earth swing? When a hitter takes a pitcher's pitch it allows him a much better shot at getting a pitch one can drive. Most of these type of hitters ONLY swing early in the account when they get a pitch they can crush. When they do not, they let it go and wait for something better. I remember a quote from Bonds saying something like "if you make your pitch, you can get me out, so I won't swing. Eventually you will make a mistake." It is not hitting .260 and striking out 160 times that is cerebral, it is having an OBP over .400 and an SLG above .550. Ted Williams, the greatest hitter since Ruth, took this approach to hitting. Remember that picture with all of the baseball's in the science of hitting? Ted did not swing at pitches low and away because he knew he would hit .230 doing that. It is unquestionably cerebral in the baseball sense.

Hitting .280 and leading the league in outs, now THAT is a non-cerebral way to play baseball.

[PVNICK]

Giambi does that every time no matter the sutuation. There's nothing more pathetic than man on third or second and third and the batter takes a called strike three or pops up because he let the hittable pitches go by. It doesn't happen eveyr time obviously but there's a time to work the count and there's a time to work for runs rather than hope you get a meatball and if not leave it up to the next guy.

[PVNICK]

I have never seen a little leaguer show the type of plate discipline Giambi or Bonds has. Frankly, to state that they do is absurd. Some kids have a good batting eye, and some don't, some take pitches because they are scared, but I hghly doubt any of them have anything like the approach to hitting that Giambi does. Taking until two strikes may or may not require great intellect, but it is a very intelligent way to play baseball. If you have fewer than two strikes, and a pitcher throws you a pitch you cannot do anything with, why on earth swing? When a hitter takes a pitcher's pitch it allows him a much better shot at getting a pitch one can drive. Most of these type of hitters ONLY swing early in the account when they get a pitch they can crush. When they do not, they let it go and wait for something better. I remember a quote from Bonds saying something like "if you make your pitch, you can get me out, so I won't swing. Eventually you will make a mistake." It is not hitting .260 and striking out 160 times that is cerebral, it is having an OBP over .400 and an SLG above .550. Ted Williams, the greatest hitter since Ruth, took this approach to hitting. Remember that picture with all of the baseball's in the science of hitting? Ted did not swing at pitches low and away because he knew he would hit .230 doing that. It is unquestionably cerebral in the baseball sense.

Hitting .280 and leading the league in outs, now THAT is a non-cerebral way to play baseball.
I don't know that I'd go lumping everyone in Ted Williams class, since he was able to hit .344, never struck out more than 64 times and had a nearly 3-1 BB-K ratio. The guys like Thome and Giambi have .280 averages with 1-1.5 and 1-1 ratios whereas Adam Dunn is at .240 @ 1-1.5 so I don't think they have quite the mastery of the strike zone or the bat that Ted Williams did. To take it a step further if its true that over the past twenty or so years the umpires have reduced the size of the strike zone that they call you could say that these guys are really just the modern day Dave Kingmans and Rob Deers rather than Ted Williamses.

[plask_stirlac]

Thome is a .281 hitter, though, .282 with RISP. That's not that bad for the HOF, certainly not Dunn.

Well I bet Giambi took the same approach in 00-02 and, with steroids, destroyed pitchers and hit for high average. So if Thome, who's better, does it it's also gonna work well.

[dl4060]

I don't know that I'd go lumping everyone in Ted Williams class, since he was able to hit .344, never struck out more than 64 times and had a nearly 3-1 BB-K ratio. The guys like Thome and Giambi have .280 averages with 1-1.5 and 1-1 ratios whereas Adam Dunn is at .240 @ 1-1.5 so I don't think they have quite the mastery of the strike zone or the bat that Ted Williams did. To take it a step further if its true that over the past twenty or so years the umpires have reduced the size of the strike zone that they call you could say that these guys are really just the modern day Dave Kingmans and Rob Deers rather than Ted Williamses.

I didn't lump any of them into Ted Williams' class, I said they took his approach, which is pretty clearly outlined in the science of hitting. In no way did I imply that they were anywhere near Williams' class as a hitter. They merely take the same approach in using the strike zone to their advantage.

If you are saying that either Thome or Giambi could be described as a modern day Rob Deer you are way off base. Deer hit about 40 points below the league average for his career. He drew a walk roughly every two games which is a good, but not outstanding ratio. In his last few healthy seasons Giambi has had a batting average within several points of the league average, nowhere near Deer territory. He also draws walks at a rate of roughly 3/4 of a walk per game, which is also very different from Deer. Thome is also far above Deer, I'm not going to go into his numbers, but if you take a careful look at his stats you will notice that he is also very different from Deer. And Kingman? You have got to be kidding to even bring him up, he drew a walk every three games, and had a batting average about 30 points below the league. To lump Thome and Giambi in with him is pretty far off. Adam Dunn is a bit better, but he is still within about 20 points of the league average, with a much better walk rate than Deer. He is similar to Deer, just a good deal better. His ability to control the strike zone makes him a pretty different player than Kingman.

[digglahhh]

Giambi does that every time no matter the sutuation. There's nothing more pathetic than man on third or second and third and the batter takes a called strike three or pops up because he let the hittable pitches go by. It doesn't happen eveyr time obviously but there's a time to work the count and there's a time to work for runs rather than hope you get a meatball and if not leave it up to the next guy.

Really, those situations are pretty rare. ESPECIALLY in that line-up!

Maybe 7th inning on in a one run game with a runner on third and less than two out? How many of those ABs do you think a batter gets per year.

I would be appreciative if somebody runs some numbers - how often do guys like Giambi and Thome drive in a runner from third with less than two out, as opposed to guys like Juan Pierre or Paul Lo Duca.

I've certainly seem Thome and Giambi pop up a 3-2 pitch with a runner on third and one out. I've also seen Lo Duca ground the first pitch to third and not score the run in the same situation. Looking at the numbers of guys like Thome and Giambi, I'd be hesitant to bet on them having significant shortcomings when it comes to driving guys in.

The idea that a player who walks is passing the buck to the next guy is really toxic thinking. It shocks me that anybody who has played the game at anything beyond the Little League level would say something like that.

[PVNICK]

Late in games with RISP Olerud got criticized when he was with the Mets for exactly that. Being content to take a walk as a middle of the order hitter and more precisely the team's best hitter. Beltran got crucified for taking a called strike three in the playoffs. Giambi spend last season throwing A-Rod under the bus talking about how he would be walking to set things up for A-Rod late game as if Giambi was a leadoff hitter.

To be honest my favorite and most admired was Keith Hernandez who would work the count in his favor and then get a good pitch to hit, with the operative word being to hit.

I don't know that you need to get all sanctimonious and call it "toxic thinking." I don't run out the pocket protector, nerd never watched a game line of patter.

Man on third. Mets could be wierd but it seems to happen at least once a week with Reyes and either Castillo or more often Wright or Beltran.

[plask_stirlac]

Remember, if a guy is hitting 45 HR, 1st base is also scoring position.


To be honest my favorite and most admired was Keith Hernandez who would work the count in his favor and then get a good pitch to hit, with the operative word being to hit.


And if it's not a good pitch to hit, then it's taken. Or if it's missed way out then Keith walked as well, he didn't swing like Juan Uribe. And pitchers are even more careful with Thome than Hernandez, so he walks.

Oh and Beltran wasn't going to hit that Wainwright curve, anyway, but it was a strike. He was out either way, that was the Hammer of God, the hit was taken out of the equation.

[jalbright]

All right folks, it's starting to get personal, and the phrases used are starting to show anger (toxic thinking, sanctimonious, nerd; to name a few). Personal attacks are not permitted here at BBF, and will not be tolerated. If the nasty stuff doesn't end here and now in this thread, it is entirely possible there will be consequences which may include a vacation from the site. That isn't to say you have to agree. Far from it. There's no problem with civil disagreements. At best, we are teetering on the brink of uncivil disagreements, and such disagreements are over the line.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

Late in games with RISP Olerud got criticized when he was with the Mets for exactly that. Being content to take a walk as a middle of the order hitter and more precisely the team's best hitter. Beltran got crucified for taking a called strike three in the playoffs. Giambi spend last season throwing A-Rod under the bus talking about how he would be walking to set things up for A-Rod late game as if Giambi was a leadoff hitter.

To be honest my favorite and most admired was Keith Hernandez who would work the count in his favor and then get a good pitch to hit, with the operative word being to hit.

I don't know that you need to get all sanctimonious and call it "toxic thinking." I don't run out the pocket protector, nerd never watched a game line of patter.

Man on third. Mets could be wierd but it seems to happen at least once a week with Reyes and either Castillo or more often Wright or Beltran.

First off all, when was Olerud the Mets' best hitter? He played three seasons for the Mets. In '97 he hit in front of Hundley during his career year. Piazza get there a third of the way through '98 and Olerud hit in front of him. You're going to criticize the guy for taking a couple of pitches to get Mike Piazza some ABs late in close games?...

Olerud was an OBP-machine, that's what he did. You like that yearly .300+ BA, kiss it goodbye if you change his approach. I had no problems with John Olerud when he was on the Mets.

The Giambi thing is pure nonsense. First of all, who do you think the pitchers want to face, A-Rod or Giambi? Passing the buck; what a load of crap! Listen Giambino, you pocket twenty million a season, don't complain that you wanted A-Rod to reach eight inches out of the zone to pop up and end a game prematurely so that you aren't faced with the prospect of failing in a key spot. The goal of the game is not to make out!

This has to be the only sport in which this type of thinking can gain any traction. Does Rafer Alston "pass the buck to T-Mac" when he passes him the ball, even if double-teamed, late in a close game, when Skip's got a wide open 27 footer?... Why does this perspective pervade the game?

As for Beltran taking the strike, he was fooled. It was a good pitch. Beltran swings 3-0 relatively frequently. That one instance is anecdotal, irrelevant, and not representative of the player in question.

BTW, I watch plenty of games. Used to actually get paid to watch them. Wrong tree to bark up.

Jim,

The disagreement was civil. Your post was actually the most reactionary and "sharp" of the three. "Moderate" is an adjective too...:hide: Rest assured, when I have a problem with the way somebody is speaking to me, you'll be the first to know.

[538280]

To take it a step further if its true that over the past twenty or so years the umpires have reduced the size of the strike zone that they call you could say that these guys are really just the modern day Dave Kingmans and Rob Deers rather than Ted Williamses.

That's an unfair statement. The reducing of the strike zone's size has been uniform. It affects all players. Guys like Thome, Dunn, and Giambi are all drawing walks at huge numbers above the league rate. Kingman was not.

Giambi does that every time no matter the sutuation. There's nothing more pathetic than man on third or second and third and the batter takes a called strike three or pops up because he let the hittable pitches go by. It doesn't happen eveyr time obviously but there's a time to work the count and there's a time to work for runs rather than hope you get a meatball and if not leave it up to the next guy.

Of course sometimes it's not going to work out and they're going to strike out-it's all part of the approach, and just about all players make far more outs than they do get on base. You may see it as an eyesore for those few times when Giambi strikes out looking with men on, but it's part of his overall approach that is very effective in helping the team score runs and win games. "Working for runs" is trying to get the situation which will most likely result in the most runs, and taking a pitch with a runner on third base for perhaps a walk will result in a situation more conducive to scoring more runs far more often that reaching out for a way out of the zone pitch that you have a very small chance to get a hit on.

[Brad Harris]

I wonder if the whole "slow-footed slugger" label that's applied to great hitters like McGwire and Thome - by way of comparing them to Dave Kingman or George Foster or other Hall-of-Very-Good players from past eras - is related to the steroid usage of the late 1990s? That is to say, I remember growing up in the 1980s when sluggers (Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell) were revered for the prodigious home runs they hit. These were the RBI men of their teams. Exactly the type of player one thought of as a future Hall-of-Famer. Why should Thome or Big Mac be any different?

It's not because Thome or Big Mac were more like Kingman than they are like Jackson/Schmidt, but rather (I will argue) because the era they played in is perceived differently. There seems to be a not insignificant portion of fans who view any HR-hitter from the modern (i.e. "steroids") era as being suspect and, hence, of downgrading the players' accomplishment, whether consciously or not. Which is why the support for a player of Ichiro Suzuki's skillset is so interesting in the modern game; precisely because he represents a stark contrast to the power-game that dominates the sport.

Steroids or not, prolific home runs or not, the best players of every era are the kind of players the Hall should be honoring. Whatever one thinks about the times Thome played in, the type of game that was played then, or the type of player Thome was, there's little room for someone to reasonably debate that Thome wasn't one of the best at it.

Thome should be celebrated for what he did, not penalized for the time in which he did it. We should appreciate what we've been fortunate enough to see. Thome is the Willie Stargell or Reggie Jackson of his era, not a Dave Kingman or Rob Deer. That Thome played in the modern era doesn't make it less so.

[PVNICK]

This has to be the only sport in which this type of thinking can gain any traction. Does Rafer Alston "pass the buck to T-Mac" when he passes him the ball, even if double-teamed, late in a close game, when Skip's got a wide open 27 footer?... Why does this perspective pervade the game?

BTW, I watch plenty of games. Used to actually get paid to watch them. Wrong tree to bark up.

Wre all know you used to get paid to watch games, you have the charming habit of bringing it up whenever you have a difference of opinion.

As for your basketball analogy you miss the point completely. In that sport you get criticized for passing up an open shot to pass to a guarded teammate with the shot clock winding down. Anybody who watched the Knicks or Channing Frye last year would be familiar with this phenomenon.

[PVNICK]

Well it's abundantly clear that I took a marginal point, which is that according to "The Book" the probability of a team scoring 0 runs in an inning increases (albeit slightly) when when a 1 or, I believe, no out and runner on 3rd or 2nd and 3rd now becomes a 1st and third or bases loaded one out situation, and used it in a feeble attmept to denigrate high BB middle of the order batters. To compound that error I took that very thin glob of information and then attempted to spread it to the point where it became invisible and the alleged points bore only the most tenuous resmblance of reality. I know better even if I don't always act on that knowledge. To anainone exasperated, offended or or otherwise irritated you have my apoligies.

[digglahhh]

Wre all know you used to get paid to watch games, you have the charming habit of bringing it up whenever you have a difference of opinion.

As for your basketball analogy you miss the point completely. In that sport you get criticized for passing up an open shot to pass to a guarded teammate with the shot clock winding down. Anybody who watched the Knicks or Channing Frye last year would be familiar with this phenomenon.

Nick, you certainly didn't offend or anger me. I just think the passing the buck perspective privileges a minor potential advantage in a drastic minority of situations over the substantial statistical advantage of maintaining such an approach as an overarching offensive strategy. I'm always uncomfortable asking players to go outside themselves and do things that they don't seem comfortable doing on their own, I think it is unfair to ask Thome to be Ichiro, even if the situation calls for it.

I think that "passing the buck" is an inaccurate, if not revisionist, way of looking at the walk, even in "RBI situations." It implies that contact of any sort would be lauded in its place. That is to say that Thome or Giambi popping up a 3-1 pitch six inches off the plate would be a superior decision to taking that pitch. But, of course is the following batter homers, nobody ever complains.

Yeah, Channing Frye wasn't eager to take those open 18-footers. Of course, that trepidation came from the fact that he missed a ton of them - which was surprising because he appeared to establish that kind of range in his rookie season. But, that's a confidence issue. Are you implying that Thome takes a walk in an RBI spot because he isn't confident that he can drive in the run? Again, look at the career stats of guys like Thome, Giambi, or Frank Thomas. Does it look like these guys have trouble driving in runs? Do they look like they have run-producing deficiencies?

And once again, don't ignore the notion that opposing pitchers don't want to pitch to these guys with the game on the line.

I'll make a deal with you, Nick. I've never mention my old job in that sense to you again, and you never imply that I might not watch the games. Cool?

But enough talking, here's some data I found - a list of the players who swung the bat most frequently on 3-0 counts from 2000 - 2005, courtesy of Hardball Times. Notice Jim Thome.

Name Counts Takes Swings SwPct InPlay H HR RBI AVG SLG
Sosa 190 93 93 0.489 40 22 8 15 0.55 1.325
McGriff 116 64 50 0.431 29 12 2 9 0.414 0.655
Batista 117 73 44 0.376 24 10 3 10 0.417 0.958
Guerrero 156 97 49 0.314 24 8 1 3 0.333 0.583
Mondesi 106 72 33 0.311 15 5 1 3 0.333 0.6
Ortiz 158 109 45 0.285 18 8 3 6 0.444 1.111
Burnitz 206 145 54 0.262 23 8 3 5 0.348 0.826
Kent 163 120 42 0.258 23 9 1 5 0.391 0.739
Thome 230 160 58 0.252 18 6 3 7 0.333 0.889
Hernandez,J 122 90 30 0.246 13 10 4 7 0.769 1.923


Here's the least of those who swung least frequently:


Name Counts Takes BB Swings
Vizquel 187 185 57 0
Eckstein 156 153 47 0
Piazza 146 142 70 0
Matthews 128 124 40 0
Womack 120 118 35 0
Hinske 120 117 41 0
Vina 105 103 42 0

[PVNICK]

You have a deal. Actually it was inartfully listing the standard retorts without meanign to imply that I thought you fit into the only looks at the mythical stats category. Can the Mets please win a game by the way.

[digglahhh]

Can the Mets please win a game by the way.

Apparently not.

Maybe there was some "projection" of frustration going on in these past posts...

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I wonder if the whole "slow-footed slugger" label that's applied to great hitters like McGwire and Thome - by way of comparing them to Dave Kingman or George Foster or other Hall-of-Very-Good players from past eras - is related to the steroid usage of the late 1990s? That is to say, I remember growing up in the 1980s when sluggers (Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell) were revered for the prodigious home runs they hit. These were the RBI men of their teams. Exactly the type of player one thought of as a future Hall-of-Famer. Why should Thome or Big Mac be any different?

It's not because Thome or Big Mac were more like Kingman than they are like Jackson/Schmidt, but rather (I will argue) because the era they played in is perceived differently. There seems to be a not insignificant portion of fans who view any HR-hitter from the modern (i.e. "steroids") era as being suspect and, hence, of downgrading the players' accomplishment, whether consciously or not. Which is why the support for a player of Ichiro Suzuki's skillset is so interesting in the modern game; precisely because he represents a stark contrast to the power-game that dominates the sport.

Steroids or not, prolific home runs or not, the best players of every era are the kind of players the Hall should be honoring. Whatever one thinks about the times Thome played in, the type of game that was played then, or the type of player Thome was, there's little room for someone to reasonably debate that Thome wasn't one of the best at it.

Thome should be celebrated for what he did, not penalized for the time in which he did it. We should appreciate what we've been fortunate enough to see. Thome is the Willie Stargell or Reggie Jackson of his era, not a Dave Kingman or Rob Deer. That Thome played in the modern era doesn't make it less so.
Great post. :clapping

[Walt Zink]

i have had the pleasure of getting to meet thome. i work behind a bar and work lunches and get a lot of visiting ballplayers before they go to fenway, as they're just grabbing a quick lunch. had thome two straight days, and i have worked in restaurants for 13 years now, and that man could be the nicest and most polite person i've ever had.

that being said, he has that rep. that will win him some points with voters. and anyone who's seen him can say he's not going to be lumped in with the 'roid crowd. again, a few more votes. however, i think he needs to tack on some more to his numbers. he needs to pass 2000 hits, first of all. perhaps pass at the very least mike schmidt on the HR total. if he can work it up to about 2100-2200 hits and about 575 HRs (and that would probably put him around 1600 RBIs), then absolutely.

honestly, i just wish more players in the league were like him personally.

[Brad Harris]

[Thome] has that rep. that will win him some points with voters.

Which is a big reason he's likely to get more support than - say - Carlos Delgado.

[Bravesfan1984]

I would say no Thome was great hitting home runs but not anything else. He was never considered the top players in baseball Only 3 times in 18 years has he had over a 300 batting average.

[Cowtipper]

I would say no Thome was great hitting home runs but not anything else. He was never considered the top players in baseball Only 3 times in 18 years has he had over a 300 batting average.

Same with Willie Stargell, and he's in the Hall of Fame. Willie McCovey hit over .300 only twice in his career, and one of those seasons he played only 52 games. Reggie Jackson hit .300 - and I mean literally, .300 - once, and never hit .300 or better again. The only season in which Harmon Killebrew hit .300 or better was his first - and he had only 13 at-bats that year.

It doesn't make a player bad when he doesn't hit .300 a lot. In fact, some of the greatest power hitters of all time weren't high-average guys.

[Bravesfan1984]

Thome and Jackson are comparable except Jackson won an mvp where Thome's finish is 4th. It shows that Jackson at one time was the best player in baseball.I would also throw in that Thome has more career Strike outs then hits not really a sign of greatness.

[The Commissioner]

I would also throw in that Thome has more career Strike outs then hits not really a sign of greatness.

So did Reggie.

[Bravesfan1984]

So did Reggie.

Reggie had more career hits though he has over 2500. I do not think Reggie Jackson belongs in the HOf either though.

[BSmile]

Thome is a HOF'er. Although maybe not 1st ballot.

BTW, I think we all understand that BA isn't the best way to judge a hitter, but OBP seems to work out ok. So:

Seasons with OBP over .400:
Thome - 9 (career .407)
Stargell - 1 (career .360)
Jackson - 1 (career .356)

So, for a non-running, strikeout prone power hitter like Thome, not to shabby.
Which isn't to suggest that Stargell and Jackson aren't worthy HOF'ers, because they cleary are as well...and they earned the rings to further prove it...which IS something that Thome can't say.

[1905 Giants]

Reggie had more career hits though he has over 2500. I do not think Reggie Jackson belongs in the HOf either though.

Why don't you think Jackson belongs in the Hall of Fame?

[Bravesfan1984]

Why don't you think Jackson belongs in the Hall of Fame?

He has more strikeouts then hits. He only hit over 200 once he does not have 3000 hits, This is his mvp year which is not very impressive when he hit only 293 and had 11 strikeouts

[1905 Giants]

He has more strikeouts then hits. He only hit over 200 once he does not have 3000 hits, This is his mvp year which is not very impressive when he hit only 293 and had 11 strikeouts

He also led the league in Slugging, OPS, Runs, Homeruns, RBIs, Extra Base Hits, and At Bats per Homerun.

[Cowtipper]

He has more strikeouts then hits. He only hit over 200 once he does not have 3000 hits, This is his mvp year which is not very impressive when he hit only 293 and had 11 strikeouts

Judging by your posting, you're an advocate of putting Tip O'Niell and Lefty O'Doul in the Hall of Fame, correct?

Also, Thome is very much a Hall of Famer.

OPS:

Thome: .968
Mays: .941
Aaron: .929
Stargell: .889
Jackson: .846

Thome is 18th all time in career OPS. He trails Ruth, T. Williams, Gehrig, Bonds, Pujols, Foxx, Greenberg, Hornsby, Helton, M. Ramirez, McGwire, Berkman, F. Thomas, Mantle, DiMaggio, Musial and A. Rodriguez. Not to shabby a group to be in. He is ahead of Mays, Aaron, and every other Hall of Famer as well.

[Senor Octobre]

He has more strikeouts then hits. He only hit over 200 once he does not have 3000 hits, This is his mvp year which is not very impressive when he hit only 293 and had 11 strikeouts

I'm utterly lost...

[1905 Giants]

I'm utterly lost...


What he means is that Reggie Jackson only got more than 200 hits once, and in 1973 (when he won the MVP), he hit .293. However, he struck out 111 times that season, not 11.

[Senor Octobre]

What he means is that Reggie Jackson only got more than 200 hits once, and in 1973 (when he won the MVP), he hit .293. However, he struck out 111 times that season, not 11.

Gotcha... still though BravesFan, I don't see that as a valid argument. Reggie's career OPS+, in almost 10,000 at-bats, is 139. Sure he struck out a lot, but guess who was the all-time leader in strikeouts before him -- Willie Stargell. Before Stargell? Mickey Mantle. Before Mantle? Babe Ruth. I mean, having a ton of whiffs is by no means a great accomplishment, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you're not a great player.

[Bravesfan1984]

Judging by your posting, you're an advocate of putting Tip O'Niell and Lefty O'Doul in the Hall of Fame, correct?

Also, Thome is very much a Hall of Famer.

OPS:

Thome: .968
Mays: .941
Aaron: .929
Stargell: .889
Jackson: .846

Thome is 18th all time in career OPS. He trails Ruth, T. Williams, Gehrig, Bonds, Pujols, Foxx, Greenberg, Hornsby, Helton, M. Ramirez, McGwire, Berkman, F. Thomas, Mantle, DiMaggio, Musial and A. Rodriguez. Not to shabby a group to be in. He is ahead of Mays, Aaron, and every other Hall of Famer as well.


What is OPS? How do you figure that out?

[1905 Giants]

What is OPS? How do you figure that out?

OPS is On-Base % + Slugging %

[Bravesfan1984]

Thome has finished in the top ten in runs 3 times only. Also Thome has hit more then 30 doubles in a season twice. Not quite a great hitter. What else does he have going for him? Running base. No he only has 19 career stolen bases. I would put Jim Edmonds in the Hall of Fame before I put Thome.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Thome has finished in the top ten in runs 3 times only. Also Thome has hit more then 30 doubles in a season twice. Not quite a great hitter. What else does he have going for him? Running base. No he only has 19 career stolen bases. I would put Jim Edmonds in the Hall of Fame before I put Thome.

Now that you know what OPS is, take note of the fact that Thome has a sizeable advantage over Edmonds in both of the components that make up OPS. If traditional stats or counting numbers are your thing instead, Thome has even more substantial leads over Edmonds in HR, RBI, and runs. The only real advantage Edmonds has is his defense, which, regardless of how good it is, isn't going to get an outfielder with under 400 home runs into the Hall of Fame. Thome is pretty clearly a Hall of Famer and Jim Edmonds is pretty clearly not one.

[RuthMayBond]

Judging by your posting, you're an advocate of putting Tip O'Niell and Lefty O'Doul in the Hall of Fame, correct?

Also, Thome is very much a Hall of Famer.

OPS:

Thome: .968
Mays: .941
Aaron: .929
Stargell: .889
Jackson: .846

Thome is 18th all time in career OPS. He trails Ruth, T. Williams, Gehrig, Bonds, Pujols, Foxx, Greenberg, Hornsby, Helton, M. Ramirez, McGwire, Berkman, F. Thomas, Mantle, DiMaggio, Musial and A. Rodriguez. Not to shabby a group to be in. He is ahead of Mays, Aaron, and every other Hall of Famer as well.Geez, a LITTLE CONTEXT, please

[jalbright]

I think the real answer on Thome's chances is something similar to what Bill James wrote about Curt Schilling on his website:

Q: If Schilling is done, does he get the "hall call"? Checking baseball reference, his stats are similar to Drysdale (who's in), and a bunch of guy who aren't (Burdette, Tiant, Kevin Brown, etc.) I think the postseason work tilts me toward yes
Answered: June 22, 2008

This is a non-answer, but I think it's really the best answer. Hall of Fame debates in practice are always relative debates. Here's a list of pitchers. . .Randy, Schilling, Smoltz, Mussina, Moyer, Glavine, Trevor Hoffman, Kevin Brown, Mariano, John Franco, Lee Smith, Billy Wagner. . ..are you going to choose Schilling from that list as the guy you vote for? In practice these are always relative questions, but we are in the habit of discussing them in isolation, discussing Schilling as if the question presented to the voters was "Should Curt Schilling be in the Hall of Fame?" I think that if the ballot mailed to Hall of Fame voters read "Should Curt Schilling be in the Hall of Fame?", he'd have a pretty decent chance. But the reality is that he has to stand out from a list of names, and I'm less certain whether he will or won't.


Thome will have to stand out in a fairly large field of modern sluggers, and that won't be easy. Certainly, it will be harder than if the question is focused simply on Thome's worthiness for the Hall.

[Brad Harris]

I think the real answer on Thome's chances is something similar to what Bill James wrote about Curt Schilling on his website....Thome will have to stand out in a fairly large field of modern sluggers, and that won't be easy. Certainly, it will be harder than if the question is focused simply on Thome's worthiness for the Hall.
While this is certainly true, when you consider how anyone implicated of steroid use has been systematically crossed off by a vocal (and by no means marginal) segment of the voters, you have to like Thome's chances. There aren't many sluggers who are clearly better than Thome who will be on the ballot at the same time and who have not had the PED finger pointed at them. Besides Griffey and Man-Ram, I'm hard pressed to think of anyone off the top of my head. At this point in their career numbers, Thome is roughly equivalent to Frank Thomas and certainly better than Carlos Delgado. Thome should already be a Hall of Famer in the minds of a majority of the voters but if he can somehow limp to 600 home runs and isn't smeared with the "S-word" he'll be a lock.

[RuthMayBond]

I would say no Thome was great hitting home runs but not anything else. He was never considered the top players in baseballFour 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?

[RuthMayBond]

He has more strikeouts then hits.If he had 14 more hits or 14 fewer strikeouts he'd be ok then?

<He only hit over 200 once he does not have 3000 hits>

I'm hoping you meant he only hit over THREE hundred once. By those categories you just wiped out Bench, MCovey, Killebrew, Carter, etc. Doby, Kiner, Evers, Ferrell, Doerr, Berra, MCCovey, etc. are hanging on by their teeth.

[Bravesfan1984]

Four times in the top seven in MVP voting

4 years in 18 years and best finish 4th. This shows he was good but not a great player.


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

they had other stuff they did great though all Thome does is hit homers.

[Brad Harris]

they had other stuff they did great though all Thome does is hit homers.
Thome also reaches base a heck of a lot. Is there something else a hitter is supposed to do besides reach base and drive in runners? Gosh...if someone is great at doing those two things for an extended period of time, I guess it's just not enough for the Hall unless he's a gold-glove shortstop with some hardware and a couple championship rings?

[RuthMayBond]

they had other stuff they did great though all Thome does is hit homers.Thome would be surprised to learn that he was no good at getting on base :eek: What else did Mathews do great?

[Bravesfan1984]

Thome also reaches base a heck of a lot. Is there something else a hitter is supposed to do besides reach base and drive in runners? Gosh...if someone is great at doing those two things for an extended period of time, I guess it's just not enough for the Hall unless he's a gold-glove shortstop with some hardware and a couple championship rings?

He was had an average amount of run scores a year

Runs Career High
Thome 122
Bagwell 183
Giambi 120
Thomas 115

RBI Career High
Thome 131
Bagwell 135
Giambi 137
Thomas 143

Hr Career High
Thome 52
Bagwell 47
Giambi 43
Thomas 43

Hits Career High
Thome 157
Bagwell 183
Giambi 181
Thomas 191

Best MVp Finish
Thome 4th
Bagwell 1rst
Giambi 1rst
Thomas 1rst

Compared to his counterparts Thome is comparable but nothing stands out I mean Even Jason Giambi has better stats in some catagories does that make Giambi a Hall of Famer? All these other guys won a mvp where Thome finished 4th at best.

[RuthMayBond]

He was had an average amount of run scores a year

Runs Career High
Thome 122
Bagwell 183
Giambi 120
Thomas 115

RBI Career High
Thome 131
Bagwell 135
Giambi 137
Thomas 143

Hr Career High
Thome 52
Bagwell 47
Giambi 43
Thomas 43

Hits Career High
Thome 157
Bagwell 183
Giambi 181
Thomas 191

Best MVp Finish
Thome 4th
Bagwell 1rst
Giambi 1rst
Thomas 1rst

Compared to his counterparts Thome is comparable but nothing stands out I mean Even Jason Giambi has better stats in some catagories does that make Giambi a Hall of Famer? All these other guys won a mvp where Thome finished 4th at best.You do understand that Hall worthiness is mroe than career highs, especially of counting stats that don't tell much?

[Bravesfan1984]

You do understand that Hall worthiness is mroe than career highs, especially of counting stats that don't tell much?

Like what? I am just curious that THome has that makes him more hall worthy then these other players.

[RuthMayBond]

Like what? I am just curious that THome has that makes him more hall worthy then these other players.He is not more Hall worthy than Bagwell or Thomas (he doesn't have to be), but he has a much better career than Giambi and no PED suspicions

[Bravesfan1984]

How does Thome have a better career then Giambi? Giambi has an mvp a higher career batting average, a lot of less strikeouts. Giambi best seasons are better then Thomes's/

[RuthMayBond]

How does Thome have a better career then Giambi? Giambi has an mvp a higher career batting average, a lot of less strikeouts. Giambi best seasons are better then Thomes's/Thome has a better OPS+, for many more plate apps, and is not under PED suspicion. MVPs are subjective awards, there is more to it than career batting average, Giambi has fewer Ks because he has way fewer plate apps, and we've already talked about CAREER vs. single seasons. I'm not gonna argue the same thing over & over

[Bravesfan1984]

Like I said before Thome has been good but nothing that seperates him from other players and make him a Hall of Famer

[RuthMayBond]

Like I said before Thome has been good but nothing that seperates him from other players and make him a Hall of FamerYeah, Thome is pretty much Mario Mendoza. Have a nice thread

[Senor Octobre]

Yeah, Thome is pretty much Mario Mendoza. Have a nice thread

LOL. Yeah, looks like our efforts are going to be fruitless here.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yeah, Thome is pretty much Mario Mendoza. Have a nice thread

You realize this isn't going to end until you post some clear numbers, right? I think you're letting him off the hook.

Just post some stuff that actually states his case. We see OPS, a pretty basic number, and that's a good start. (Saying he's higher than Aaron or Mays, though, makes the stat seem ridiculous at face value as you kind of say.) Right now all we have is Thome didn't steal a lot of bases and failed to make lead leaders in doubles too often. That's the anti-argument. His career averages are lower.

Bring it home before you leave.

[digglahhh]

Like I said before Thome has been good but nothing that seperates him from other players and make him a Hall of Famer

When two of those other players who there's not much separating him from (in your own words) are Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell, you have just made an argument in Thome's favor!

Also, what's up with criticizing him for his lack of 2Bs? The guy's got over 900 career extra base hits. What more do you want?

[Bravesfan1984]

It is okay I am done posting on this topic. You have your views and I have mine that will not change no matter what I say. I still did not have anyone answer what seperates him from other playes when he has never had a break out year.

[Cowtipper]

Geez, a LITTLE CONTEXT, please

Okay...

Here's him compared to all the current (or just retired) players with at least 300 home runs:

OPS:

Bonds: 1.051
T. Helton: 1.004
M. Ramirez: 1.000
F. Thomas: .978
Thome: .968
A. Rodriguez: .968
Guerrero: .965
C. Jones: .955
Giambi: .949
Delgado: .926
Griffey, Jr: .922
Piazza: .922
Sheffield: .915
Edmonds: .904
Alou: .885
Sosa: .878
Kent: .857
R. Sexson: .851
S. Green: .849
L. Gonzalez: .848
A. Jones: .832
R. Sanders: .830

Thome is fifth among all active (or recently retired) players with at least 300 home runs. He is seventh among all active players with at least 3,000 plate appearances. In OPS+ he is tied with Berkman for fifth among active players.

[Cowtipper]

It is okay I am done posting on this topic. You have your views and I have mine that will not change no matter what I say. I still did not have anyone answer what seperates him from other playes when he has never had a break out year.
Well, for one...he hit over 500 home runs.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Like what? I am just curious that THome has that makes him more hall worthy then these other players.

I assume that "these other players" are:

Jason Giambi - This is an easy one. Thome has 521 homers to Giambi's 381. That's about as wide of a HOF worthiness gap as 140 homers can possibly create between two slugging first basemen. Thome has also never been the subject of any serious steroid allegations, while Giambi is an admitted user (whose performance has dropped significantly since his parasite troubles subsided). Giambi's prime was statistically fantastic, but it was probably tainted to a reasonable degree. I'd argue that Thome's prime was not far behind, but its value was harder for casual fans to appreciate. Regardless, Thome has had the clearly superior career and that is what should get him into the HOF.

Jeff Bagwell - The main thing seperating these two is 72 home runs and counting. Not that it necessarily should be this way, but 500+ homers will look much more impressive to HOF voters than 450. It's also worth noting that Thome has hit those 72 extra homers in 731 fewer at bats. Other than that, Thome and Bagwell are pretty comparable. Bagwell just had the misfortune of dropping off very sharply in terms of health and production.

Frank Thomas - Absolutely nothing. You will find a consensus wherever you go that Frank Thomas is more HOF worthy than Jim Thome. However, the actual vote is not an either/or thing - they can both get in. Greg Maddux is more HOF worthy than Tom Glavine, but that isn't a good argument against Glavine's induction.

[baseball junkie]

He strikes out a lot but he walks a lot too. I'd like to see him win a ring, already lost two. And he's never won an MVP.

By the time he retires he'll likely have 1,600 + runs and RBI and close to 600 home runs with a .400+ OBP and .500+ SLG. Unless there is concrete proof he juiced and I don't think there's even an allegation yet, he has to go in -- much to my dismay.

[Bravesfan1984]

I assume that "these other players" are:

Jason Giambi - This is an easy one. Thome has 521 homers to Giambi's 381. That's about as wide of a HOF worthiness gap as 140 homers can possibly create between two slugging first basemen. Thome has also never been the subject of any serious steroid allegations, while Giambi is an admitted user (whose performance has dropped significantly since his parasite troubles subsided). Giambi's prime was statistically fantastic, but it was probably tainted to a reasonable degree. I'd argue that Thome's prime was not far behind, but its value was harder for casual fans to appreciate. Regardless, Thome has had the clearly superior career and that is what should get him into the HOF.

Jeff Bagwell - The main thing seperating these two is 72 home runs and counting. Not that it necessarily should be this way, but 500+ homers will look much more impressive to HOF voters than 450. It's also worth noting that Thome has hit those 72 extra homers in 731 fewer at bats. Other than that, Thome and Bagwell are pretty comparable. Bagwell just had the misfortune of dropping off very sharply in terms of health and production.

Frank Thomas - Absolutely nothing. You will find a consensus wherever you go that Frank Thomas is more HOF worthy than Jim Thome. However, the actual vote is not an either/or thing - they can both get in. Greg Maddux is more HOF worthy than Tom Glavine, but that isn't a good argument against Glavine's induction.

He may have had more home runs then Bagwell but Bagwell was better in about everything else.

Career Hits
Bagwell 2314
Thome 1977

Career Runs
Bagwell 1517
Thome 1316

Career RBI
Bagwell 1529
Thome 1436

Career Strikeouts
Bagwell 1558
Thome 2113

This show that Bagwell had a shorter career then Thome but still has better stats and is a much better player. All Thome has going for him is Homeruns and being a nice guy

[baseball junkie]

This show that Bagwell had a shorter career then Thome but still has better stats and is a much better player. All Thome has going for him is Homeruns and being a nice guy

Absolutely no dispute with you there. But comparing Bagwell to any first baseman, even a potential HOFer, might not be fair. IMO, Bagwell is right behind Gehrig as the greatest first baseman in MLB history.

[Brad Harris]

That's so true, in fact, Bags had even slipped my mind when I was thinking of similar candidates. Never mind that Bagwell will be a member of the Hall of Fame before Thome reaches the ballot.

[digglahhh]

Jim Thome isn't a HOFer - how is he different than Jeff Bagwell

...

That dude can't rap, he reminds me of Big Daddy Kane

...

That girl ain't beautiful, she looks like Scarlett Johanson

[Brooklyn]

Jim Thome isn't a HOFer - how is he different than Jeff Bagwell

...

That dude can't rap, he reminds me of Big Daddy Kane

...

That girl ain't beautiful, she looks like Scarlett Johanson

well said. If you are going to come up with a reason to exclude Thome, you'll have to do a lot better than, "he's no better than Bagwell"

[abolishthedh]

I hate posting without reading the entire thread, but I may not have time so I have to get this in...

Jim Thome is a very, very similar player to Harmon Killebrew. Noone I've met questioned Killebrew's candidacy in his time, or today. Killebrew was one-dimensional, his career BA was .256 and he never hit .300. However, later in his career his K/W improved significantly by drawing far more walks.

IMO, you could just about present Killebrew's career next to Thome's on a sheet of paper and the average fan in the stands couldn't tell them apart. A defense of that statement forthcoming, when I have time.

[BoSox Rule]

I've never really thought of him as HOF worthy, but looking at his numbers its clear that I should have. He certainly has the numbers to back it up.

.280/.407/.562, 521 HR, 1500 BB, and a .321 EqA.

[abolishthedh]

OK, here we go.

First, I never understood the need to compare players to the same era when there are enough variables to cloud the picture. Comparisons of Thome to Bagwell, Thomas and Giambi are not valid, IMHO, whether or not these players might be HoFers someday.

We need to compare similar hitters, and Bags and Thomas hit for much higher averages while avoiding excessive strikeouts, while Giambi's PED situation makes him another argument anyway.

With similar hitters, we can make easier adjustments for their respective eras.

Stat.............................Harmon Killebrew......................Jim Thome
At Bats..............................8147 ...................................7069
BA...................................0.256 ...................................0.280
OBP..................................0.376 ...................................0.407
SLG...................................0.509....... ............................0.562
HR .................................... 573 ..................................... 521
RBI ....................................1584 ................................... 1436
Walks .................................1559 ................................... 1500
K's .....................................1699 ................................... 2113
Runs Created........................1606 ................................... 1721
2B........................................290..... .................................382
Hits......................................2086 ...................................1977

The slight increase for Thome over Killebrew in BA mostly accounts for the slight difference in OBP. The increase for Thome over Killebrew in SLG % is accounted for by the substantial difference in doubles. (This is one difference between the hitters. Is it a park difference?) Jim Thome walked slightly more often, but struck out much more often, so Killebrew's strike zone control would give him an edge here.

In other words, there are a couple of differences, but differences which could be accounted for, and not enough difference to keep Thome out of the Hall once that Killebrew is in it.

I have never heard or read a good argument against Killebrew's deservedness for the Hall. Maybe someone would pose one over BA and his one-dimensionality from that, but I have never heard or read it. In lieu of that, a very similar player shouldn't be kept out of the Hall. In other words, if a fan believes Killebrew is a mistake he/she will have to prove it before Thome's deserved election (in 2014?).

[Brad Harris]

Wow. Never heard the "you can't compare contemporary players, but you can compare players across different eras" argument before. Interesting thought.

Killebrew, by the way, is an excellent comparison. The BA, OBP and SLG numbers listed below are the player followed by the league average. Draw your own conclusions.

KILLEBREW
BA - .256/.259
OBP - .376/.331
SLG - .509/.393
OPS+ - 143
PA - 9,831

THOME
BA - .280/.272
OBP - .407/.342
SLG - .562/.433
OPS+ - 149
PA - 8,700

Give Thome another thousand plate appearances and the two would have virtually identical relative BA/OBP/SLG numbers.

As was said before, very few people question Killebrew's Hall credentials. I don't know if this is because some people might think of him as a third baseman (whereas some might think of Thome as a designated hitter) or because Killebrew is identified almost exclusively with one team (whereas Thome is not) but there's very little substantive difference between the two players.

Excellent comp. Excellent.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Jim Thome isn't a HOFer - how is he different than Jeff Bagwell

...

That dude can't rap, he reminds me of Big Daddy Kane

...

That girl ain't beautiful, she looks like Scarlett Johanson

Big Daddy Kane? The Undertaker's brother?

http://www.wwe.com/content/media/images/377012/456934

[digglahhh]

Big Daddy Kane? The Undertaker's brother?

http://www.wwe.com/content/media/images/377012/456934

Blasphemy.

No pork on my fork, strictly fish on my dish.

[Brad Harris]

Like I said before Thome has been good but nothing that seperates him from other players and make him a Hall of Famer
I don't know what Thome you've been watching but the players Thome can't be separated far from are the ones going to the Hall of Fame. Thome's much closer to that group than he is the "close, but no cigar" folks. To wit, below is a list of the 20 most prominent first basemen of the last 20 years, ordered by career WARP3 through their age-37 season (which Thome is currently in).

W3 Player
126.4 Jeff Bagwell
122.2 Eddie Murray (inducted)
120.4 Frank Thomas
117.7 Rafael Palmeiro (steroid user)
109.6 Mark McGwire (steroid user)
108.2 Jim Thome
104.7 John Olerud
104.0 Will Clark
100.0 Fred McGriff
90.5 Jason Giambi (steroid user)
88.7 Carlos Delgado
87.0 Albert Pujols
84.5 Don Mattingly
84.2 Mark Grace
78.1 Todd Helton
74.4 Wally Joyner
61.2 Mo Vaughn
60.8 Derrek Lee
54.8 Andres Galarraga
52.7 Richie Sexson

Thome is on a better track than a strong candidate like Fred McGriff, will probably just inch over McGwire in value before the year is over, and is just a little below Bagwell/Thomas who remain the only surefire Hall of Famers at the position from this era. Thome has been one of the best of his generation. One could probably make a strong argument that Jim Thome has been the American League's premier first baseman for the past 15 years. Olerud and Clark retired at age 36; Bagwell and McGwire at 37. Anything Thome does from this point on only further separates him from a pack he's been separating himself from throughout his career.

When was the last time you saw your optometrist?

[Bravesfan1984]

Thome best season is not even that impressive. When he finished 4th in the mvp voting he only was batting 266 and had 182 strikeouts. Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell are way ahead of Thome. They both have more career hits and have mvps.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Thome best season is not even that impressive.
A .304/.445/.667, 197 OPS+ 52 HR, 118 RBI, 101 R 122 BB/139 Ks is not impressive?


When he finished 4th in the mvp voting he only was batting 266 and had 182 strikeouts. Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell are way ahead of Thome. They both have more career hits and have mvps.

Bagwell won just one MVP in the strike shorten season in '94. The only reason he won the '94 MVP was because of the strike. If the strike would have been averted he would not have won the MVP. Bagwell broke his hand a few days before the strike hit. His season was finished before the strike hit.

[Bravesfan1984]

A .304/.445/.667, 197 OPS+ 52 HR, 118 RBI, 101 R 122 BB/139 Ks is not impressive?
I guess not if he finsihed 7th in the MVP


Bagwell won just one MVP in the strike shorten season in '94. The only reason he won the '94 MVP was because of the strike. If the strike would have been averted he would not have won the MVP. Bagwell broke his hand a few days before the strike hit. His season was finished before the strike hit.

Bagwell played 110 games and was batting 368 with 39 home runs. I doubt he that was the only reason was it was cut short.

[Cougar]

Bagwell played 110 games and was batting 368 with 39 home runs. I doubt he that was the only reason was it was cut short.

Don't try to diagram that sentence; you could dislocate something.:noidea

[digglahhh]

Don't try to diagram that sentence; you could dislocate something.:noidea

In the words of Ken Tremendous, "#&@# the heck?"

Whatever, this is a lost cause anyway.

MVPs /end argument. Zoilo Versalles for the HOF!!

[Brad Harris]

Bagwell played 110 games and was batting 368 with 39 home runs. I doubt he that was the only reason was it was cut short.
Bravesfan, if you want to use bold for emphasis that's one thing, but please stop using it for entire posts. On the annoying scale, it's the equivalent of all caps.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Thome best season is not even that impressive

Jim Thome's best season was 2002 and it was very impressive. He probably deserved the MVP that year.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

In the words of Ken Tremendous, "#&@# the heck?"

Whatever, this is a lost cause anyway.

MVPs /end argument. Zoilo Versalles for the HOF!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bagwell played 110 games and was batting 368 with 39 home runs. I doubt he that was the only reason was it was cut short.

What the heck does this even mean? :shrug:

[Bravesfan1984]

What the heck does this even mean? :shrug:

What I meant to say is that by those stats it would be not likely he would have not won the MVP Thome 2002 season was good but not really great. He only had 19 doubles and two triples. He did not have his career high RBI that year and he stuck out 139 more then he walked 122

[four tool]

If his season was over in Aug. because of a broken bone, he would not have gotten the MVP

[Captain Cold Nose]

If his season was over in Aug. because of a broken bone, he would not have gotten the MVP

You ever think about working at the U.N.?

[Brad Harris]

You ever think about working at the U.N.?
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Best laugh I've had all week!

[four tool]

You ever think about working at the U.N.?

With my head for languages--nope.

[Brad Harris]

With my head for languages--nope.
No matter how many languages they speak, the UN has as much credibility in politics as Commissioner Selig does in baseball. And they're just about as useful, too.

[Bravesfan1984]

Miguel Tejada won the mvp that year(2002) and had better BA more rbi and more hits sorry Thome did not deserve the mvp that year. In fact Alex Rodriguez who finished second also had better numbers.

[Brad Harris]

Miguel Tejada won the mvp that year(2002) and had better BA more rbi and more hits sorry Thome did not deserve the mvp that year. In fact Alex Rodriguez who finished second also had better numbers.
My lands...can it be possible that Thome had an MVP-"worthy" season without actually winning the award? There is, after all, only one such award per year, you know. I suppose Ted Williams sucked it up in 1941 because DiMaggio walked away with the hardware when everything was said and done too?
Whether or not Thome won a popularity contest in 2002 doesn't say anything about whether or not that was a great season. I suppose you can't be excellent at your job either unless your name is on the Employee of the Month plaque too? :rolleyes:

[digglahhh]

Miguel Tejada won the mvp that year(2002) and had better BA more rbi and more hits sorry Thome did not deserve the mvp that year. In fact Alex Rodriguez who finished second also had better numbers.

Tejeda... where's the vomit emoticon?

What does .004 points of BA mean in the face of about .090 points of OBP and .170 points of SLG?

And what does 19 doubles have to do with anything, dude hit 52 bombs. He paced the league in SLG by .030 points that season - I'm pretty sure he got his share of XBHs.

The poor man's ElHalo, anybody?

[Brad Harris]

Who won the award is really beside the point.

[four tool]

You ever think about working at the U.N.?

Where does Selig come into this?

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

The poor man's ElHalo, anybody?

Hahahahaha......

[Bravesfan1984]

Who won the award is really beside the point.

It does when it shows that he was never the best player in mlb

[Brad Harris]

It does when it shows that he was never the best player in mlb
Think. Before. You. Speak.

It does nothing of the sort. It only shows that the BBWAA never thought he was the best player in the league. Awards are given out based on a collective summary of the electorate's opinions about who was better/best. Because X sportswriters thought Thome was the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league, rather than the first doesn't make it so.

[Cougar]

In a league with Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Junior Griffey, Roger Clemens, Albert Pujols, etc., Thome probably never was the best player in the major leagues.

But that's not the standard...otherwise you'd have a Hall of Fame with 20-25 people.

Over the 15 years he's been a more or less full time player, Thome is easily among the very best in the game. In his best seasons, he's in the top 1%; in his average seasons, he's in the top 3-5%.

This sums to a career that is one of the very best we've seen from a player of his type (slugger with good plate discipline, mostly left* side of the defensive spectrum). He's one of the most efficient run producers the game has ever seen, and creating runs is what the game is all about, is it not?



*Is left the easier side, or is it right...I forget. Anyway, he played a little more than half of his career as a first baseman, with the rest split about evenly between third base (at the outset of his career) and DH (at the end). So whichever side that is...the point is, his fielding is merely adequate and not a big part of his value.

[Bravesfan1984]

Think. Before. You. Speak.

It does nothing of the sort. It only shows that the BBWAA never thought he was the best player in the league. Awards are given out based on a collective summary of the electorate's opinions about who was better/best. Because X sportswriters thought Thome was the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league, rather than the first doesn't make it so.

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

[Captain Cold Nose]

It does when it shows that he was never the best player in mlb

Which means what in regards to HOF voting?

Before you answer, not ever "being the best player in mlb" did not hurt Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield, Kirby Puckett, Ozzie Smith, Paul Molitor, Wade Boggs, Al Kaline or Lou Brock with the voters at all. Each one first ballot. MVPs among them, zilch.