Makes no difference which ballot. Thome is an obvious hall of famer.

Comps for Thome, centered on him in terms of PAs and OPS+, ranked by WAR Fielding Runs:



Steroids will hurt the chances of the last two on the list, but at face value every one is a no-doubt, what-are-you-even-thinking Hall of Famer.

Interesting, if somewhat coincidental, in the list is how many of them are/were third basemen. There are eleven RH throwers on the list of 14, and nine of them played some third base (Bagwell didn't in the majors, but was a minor-league 3B). The main conclusion to draw is that Frank Thomas and Manny Ramirez were really, really bad fielders.

The Fielding Runs have to be read with some interpretation in a mixed list like this, and they're really just provided for fun. One has to mentally factor in 600+ games at DH for Thome and assign that whatever significance one likes. Thome has played, very roughly, about a quarter of his career at 3B, half at 1B, and a quarter at DH, moving in an orderly way down the spectrum. B-Ref has him at 2 runs a year below average for his position at either 3B or 1B, overall.

Interesting, if somewhat coincidental, in the list is how many of them are/were third basemen. There are eleven RH throwers on the list of 14, and nine of them played some third base (Bagwell didn't in the majors, but was a minor-league 3B). The main conclusion to draw is that Frank Thomas and Manny Ramirez were really, really bad fielders.

I think the conclusion should be that it's really, really hard to maintain a long career without significant base athleticism. A 19-year-old who has both the power potential to be a major league slugger and the athleticism to play some 3B has much better long-term prospects than a 19-year-old who can hit like crazy but can't play the field.

Being a PED agnostic, I'm really bothered by the "he did it CLEAN" narrative that I'm seeing. How can anyone be sure? The higher we build them up, the longer they have to fall. Thome deserves to be talked about as the great player that he has been, but some assertion that we know what kind of protein shakes he's ingested over the last twenty years seems to be irresponsible.

To say it more cleanly, I agree that Thome is underappreciated. If the lynchpin to public appreciation is that in an era of PEDs, he hit a lot of home runs without their aid, then if he's later shown to use them, he'll be back to underappreciated again.

I agree with 4 & 5. There seems to be a lot of "He's a great guy, and thus he's CLEARLY never used anything to help his power numbers," which is crap reasoning given the rush to witchunt nearly every other player who's come close to such power numbers recently.

Thome is a great guy, from all accounts, and his career has been very impressive. But the skepticism which seems to accompany many other players' accomplishments is absent here, and I'm curious why that is.

The Fielding Runs have to be read with some interpretation in a mixed list like this, and they're really just provided for fun. One has to mentally factor in 600+ games at DH for Thome and assign that whatever significance one likes. Thome has played, very roughly, about a quarter of his career at 3B, half at 1B, and a quarter at DH, moving in an orderly way down the spectrum. B-Ref has him at 2 runs a year below average for his position at either 3B or 1B, overall.

Here's the same list with "RField" as fielding runs + positional adjustment:



This gives, I think, a better sense of the size of the gap between the true inner circlers who actually played defense, and the deserving Hall of Fame sluggers who don't make the inner circle because they couldn't handle an important position.

I think it's interesting that Jose Batista and Thome are perceived in opposite ways here. With no evidence on either side (even kinds of evidence, like circumstancial or hearsay), it seems to be widely assumed that Batista has been using and Thome never has. Why is this? A sudden jump in productivity on Batista's part?

If that's the case, then any Yankee fan or follower should equally suspect Curtis Granderson. Prior to last August, he didn't even look like a big league hitter. Since then he's put up historically great numbers, particularly in the power department.

I mean, folks are free to discuss whatever they want to discuss, and what makes this site fun is that different people share their interests and create new conversations. But wouldn't it be better if this weren't a steroid thread? At least, that's what I think.

That's a great list in #7, Matt, I bow to your superior querying skills :) The bottom of the list includes three guys with somewhat different narratives: Ramirez, who could never be trusted to play the infield, Thomas, who could never be trusted to play the outfield, and Sheffield, who moved across the whole spectrum, always stretched just beyond the limits of what he could actually play at the moment.

But wouldn't it be better if this weren't a steroid thread?

OK, how about the fact that since Thome is a "nice guy", he will get extra sportswriter votes for the HOF, proving that playing well with the ink-stained wretches is worth bonus points.

Perhaps my understanding of the media and popular coverage of Thome's feat is not the same as everyone else's, but from where I stand, steroids are absolutely part of the Thome story; often in the first line of the account. I woke up to three Facebook posts mentioning Thome and a naive (IMO, of course) statement of his PED history this morning alone. Presenting evidence and context of Thome as a ballplayer is interesting and worthy, but it isn't telling the full story, IMO.

That's a great list in #7, Matt, I bow to your superior querying skills :)

Oh, I did it by hand. Some day Sean will include all of the component columns in play index, and all will be well with the land again.

I mean, folks are free to discuss whatever they want to discuss, and what makes this site fun is that different people share their interests and create new conversations. But wouldn't it be better if this weren't a steroid thread? At least, that's what I think.

You mean you don't *want* to see more posts from Andy and Ray going at each other like little children?

One of the best things about this is that Thome didn't stagger and claw his way to 600. He's got a 136 OPS+. Sure it's in part time play, but he's still a very useful ball player. He had a 180 OPS+ last year and has a 142 OPS+ over the last three years. He's going to end up well beyond 600 HRs and maybe even challenge Mays if he can keep hitting like this as a most of the time DH.

You mean you don't *want* to see more posts from Andy and Ray going at each other like little children?

I was looking forward to Ray showing up to say that every game Jim Thome has played for the last five years has made his Hall of Fame case weaker, because he is so bad at defense that he's worse than useless. Or maybe that he was worse than useless when he was a 1B, but now that he's a DH that's not possible, so he's back to accumulating positive value. That's always fun.

Further to Cowboy Popup's comment, I've been wondering if Thome will hang 'em up now that he's reached this milestone or if he'll keep plugging away and try to pass, at least, Sosa and Griffey.

Thome is a great guy, from all accounts, and his career has been very impressive. But the skepticism which seems to accompany many other players' accomplishments is absent here, and I'm curious why that is.

I think you answered your own question.

Maybe Thome passes the smell test because he gradually morphed from a "skinny" physique to a "beer league" one without a stop at "WWE Superstar" at some point in between.

Dude's actually a pretty good fielder. No errors in the last seven years.

Maybe Thome passes the smell test because he gradually morphed from a "skinny" physique to a "beer league" one without a stop at "WWE Superstar" at some point in between.

Exactly what I was about to post, in so many words. I mean, even before '98 McGwire was obviously some sort of chemical-laden freak who looked like he'd explode if you pricked him with a pin. A few years later, of course, Bonds had to butter his head to squeeze it through normal doorways.

(Sosa, now, looked more human. Except for when he took a bath in Liquid Paper that time, though I guess that was pretty much after the fact.)

Interesting that Thome sits at 71.1 b-ref WAR in 10,000+ PAs, and Edgar is at 67.2 in slightly less than 8,700. (I realize the gap would almost certainly be wider had Edgar played the field as much as Thome did.)

What is the replacement level set at for DH vs 1B?

What is the replacement level set at for DH vs 1B?

The difference in positional adjustment between 1B and DH is just 5 runs per season in the CHONE WAR system. A 1B who is worse than 5 runs below average with the glove would have more WAR value as a DH. For corner outfield, it's a -8 RF/LF who rates as equivalent in defensive value to a DH.

Players get sent to DH, usually, for being another good step worse than that. Frank Thomas was -10 1B, for instance.

Being a PED agnostic, I'm really bothered by the "he did it CLEAN" narrative that I'm seeing. How can anyone be sure? The higher we build them up, the longer they have to fall. Thome deserves to be talked about as the great player that he has been, but some assertion that we know what kind of protein shakes he's ingested over the last twenty years seems to be irresponsible.

Fully agree with this. It's s shame how many in the media have assumed they can judge a (steroid) guilty person 'just like that' and then use this suspect conclusion to drive an article.

The (I'm sure unintended) impression one gets from articles like this is that Thome should get your vote because he's clean and the numbers come second, which doesn't do his career justice. A player's career should (and Thome's does) speak for itself.

Thome came up as a 3rd baseman and moved to first in 1997. He played 156 games at first for the Phils in 2003 at 32 but never played more than 140 games in the field in any season after that.

He gained quite a bit of bulk, lost mobility and didn't seem to be able to play even first base for the latter part of his career.Most of the comps cited above were players who played in the field for most of their careers.

Unlike the writer and others in the Thome camp, I have no idea if he used PED's at any time in his career. Would like to see early career and later career pictures of the Thome physique as we see with Barry Bonds and others.

I have a question: if Thome had been an exclusive or near-exclusive DH the way that Edgar was, would most here still consider him a HoFer?

In other words does 1,400 more PAs (a little over 2 seasons) at pretty much the same rate of production get Edgar over the line? (Thome doesn't seem to my eye to have a peak argument over Edgar.)

(Edit: of course that second question is directed at those who think Edgar falls short.)

OK, how about the fact that since Thome is a "nice guy", he will get extra sportswriter votes for the HOF, proving that playing well with the ink-stained wretches is worth bonus points.

I've been thinking that prior to this season, Thome was going to have a problem getting in, but I think this points to the flaw in my thinking. I'm judging Thome's chances by how many articles I've read talking about how good/great he is/has been over the years and not thinking about the dugout advantage that he is going to be able to muster due to his likability. When I factor that in, it changes my perception of his chances from a guy struggling for a year or two on the ballot to a guy who at worse goes in on second ballot but more than likely gets an Eddie Murray like support on the first ballot.

I'm judging Thome's chances by how many articles I've read talking about how good/great he is/has been over the years and not thinking about the dugout advantage that he is going to be able to muster due to his likability. When I factor that in, it changes my perception of his chances from a guy struggling for a year or two on the ballot to a guy who at worse goes in on second ballot but more than likely gets an Eddie Murray like support on the first ballot.

A humorous comparison, considering Eddie Murray was kind of on the opposite end of the likability scale, at least for the people who did the voting.

Thome may take a little while, in part because the ballot may still be crowded by the time he gets on and sluggers of his type have often required longer to get there than they should have. But he'll make it.

Prior to last August, he didn't even look like a big league hitter.

He was in a slump. But that's going a little too far. Granderson didn't come out of nowhere, the guy averaged 29 doubles, 15 triples, 25 homers, and a .499 SLG the 3 previous seasons in Detroit.

I didn't realize that Granderson had 23 triples in 2007, more than doubling the second-place triples leader in the AL.

Jim Thome : Rookie
Jim Thome : Current

You decide.

I was looking forward to Ray showing up to say that every game Jim Thome has played for the last five years has made his Hall of Fame case weaker, because he is so bad at defense that he's worse than useless.

Ray is busy in the "Confedrate Flag" thread, which has morphed into something else entirely of course and is now over 475 posts. I'm sure he will be along when he gets a chance.

A humorous comparison, considering Eddie Murray was kind of on the opposite end of the likability scale, at least for the people who did the voting.

I realized that, but at the same time, the people who did the voting constantly gave Murray good MVP ballots, so it wasn't like he was hated by the press, just that he wasn't loved and was unapproachable as a person. I don't really think that personality hurts a player unless it's in the extreme and Murray wasn't quite there. I don't argue that they are comparable valued players, but will argue that Murray was generally considered to be more highly regarded player on a seasonal basis than Thome, which is why I was thinking Thome would have some problems getting the votes. Thome's perception as a guy that the writers like is going to help get him over the hump, where they might be willing to argue themselves for a guy who they might have never felt "he feels like a hofer" when he was playing.

Jim Thome : Rookie
Jim Thome : Current

You decide.

Do the same thing for Hank Aaron. or you know Babe Ruth..

I realized that, but at the same time, the people who did the voting constantly gave Murray good MVP ballots, so it wasn't like he was hated by the press, just that he wasn't loved and was unapproachable as a person. I don't really think that personality hurts a player unless it's in the extreme and Murray wasn't quite there.

I think you're underselling the contentious relationship between Murray and the press and overstating the degree to which likability influences award voting results (see Bonds' 7 MVPs or Steve Carlton's four Cy Young awards).

Jim Thome : Rookie
Jim Thome : Current

You decide.

Do that for any athlete... they get bigger, not smaller.

Either way, the whole Thome is clean meme is a crap argument for inclusion to HOF. Is he good enough or isn't he?

Jim Thome certainly looks like he's gotten older. Imagine that.

Do that for any athlete... they get bigger, not smaller.

Actually, to me he looks smaller in that Twins photo than he's looked in 15 years (though still bigger than rookie Jim).

Doesn't look that different, just older and pudgier.

I think you're underselling the contentious relationship between Murray and the press and overstating the degree to which likability influences award voting results (see Bonds' 7 MVPs or Steve Carlton's four Cy Young awards).

possibly, I'm an NL fan, Murray was about one of maybe half a dozen AL players I knew anything about when growing up, we didn't hear about his relationship with the press, just that he was a great player who constantly finished well in the MVP voting.

I'm not sure how I'm overstating the degree to which likability influences award voting. I didn't say unlikability hurts a player, just that likability is going to potentially help Thome do better than I originally thought he was going to do. Again I don't think many people pointed to Thome in his prime and said "he's a hofer"... Murray was labeled that by 1984, I thought it was silly when people were acting like he was going to have a problem getting into the hof because of his second half non-entity status part of his career.

In the end Thome is going to probably go in on the first ballot(depending on the competition and holdovers of course) and in a normal election year probably posts high 80's or very low 90 percent on his vote.

Unlike the writer and others in the Thome camp, I have no idea if he used PED's at any time in his career. Would like to see early career and later career pictures of the Thome physique as we see with Barry Bonds and others.

In addition to the pics in #31 I recently watched the 10th Inning of the Burns doc and was struck by how thin Thome looked in the footage from the '95 series. While I am sure some will, no one who judged Bonds by photo evidence alone can possibly draw a different conclusion using the same criteria for Thome (yes, I know this is probably a small population I am describing that are not reading this but they do exist).

Thome is a great guy, from all accounts, and his career has been very impressive. But the skepticism which seems to accompany many other players' accomplishments is absent here, and I'm curious why that is.

I think a lot of the PEDs furor is about Barry Bonds. In that people didn't like him. The only people that seem to like him are those that value his baseball ability and either ignore his personality or embrace it as a "giving it to the man" sort of way. I'm mostly agnostic, too, but when Sosa and McGwire were being all cute in 1998, no one much seemed to care about PEDs. McGwire was never a jovial sort, but he wasn't disliked. I think had Barry Bonds done everything else he did but had, say, Junior's personality, the PED story in baseball plays out much differently.

I'm not excusing PED use or saying that anyone seriously anti-PED BBTFer is only against them because of Bonds. I'm saying the press got interested because he was seen, rightly or wrongly, as a villain and there was a critical mass of people who were all too happy to see him go down. Without that, I think PEDs don't make Congress. I think PED policies come to bear later and not as punitively.

That probably pushes this into PED territory and I'm sorry for that. But Thome is part of the era so he gets sullied at least to the point that internet threads get hijacked. We would all love to believe that Jim Thome, all around nice guy*, wouldn't do something like use PEDs. We know, deep down, how silly that is, because most of us know someone who is a great person, giving, warm, and genuine who is addicted to something. If we think about it, we know that we can't judge actions by overall likeability and that all have sinned. We know. But we deny for obvious reasons.

FWIW, I, too, believe Thome was mostly clean. That is, if you showed that he was a steroid user or HGH user it would be a "hey, I'm getting older, maybe I'll try it" sort of story. But I don't know, can't know unless it's proved he used. So, as said above, look to the career: was it worthy? I say, yes, definitely without a doubt.



* I'm not arguing he's a nice guy - he really seems to be, I mean no one even wavers a little with him. And a good smile takes you a long way.

Jim Thome : Rookie
Jim Thome : Current

You decide.



Do the same thing for Hank Aaron. or you know Babe Ruth..

I didn't state one way or the other that Thome looked "bigger".
The only thing I asked was people decide on their own.

To be honest, other than having a fatter face, those photos don't really show much bulk increase. His forearm looks more muscular, but not by outrageous amounts.

The difference in positional adjustment between 1B and DH is just 5 runs per season in the CHONE WAR system. A 1B who is worse than 5 runs below average with the glove would have more WAR value as a DH. For corner outfield, it's a -8 RF/LF who rates as equivalent in defensive value to a DH.

Players get sent to DH, usually, for being another good step worse than that. Frank Thomas was -10 1B, for instance.

That of course is more than offset by his inferior hitting as a DH, losing a whopping .179 points of OPS. IMNSHO anybody who adjusts the "floor" for the DH position has to account for this.

Thome as a youngster: it's funny, but I recall several sportswriters at the time expressing skepticism that he'd ever hit for power: only 3 HRs in his first two seasons (235 PA), and only 10 HRs in the minors (698 PA) over the same span. In 1993 of course he got 32 across MLB & AAA, and the rest is history.

I'm not excusing PED use or saying that anyone seriously anti-PED BBTFer is only against them because of Bonds. I'm saying the press got interested because he was seen, rightly or wrongly, as a villain and there was a critical mass of people who were all too happy to see him go down. Without that, I think PEDs don't make Congress. I think PED policies come to bear later and not as punitively.

The actual timeline of steroids events doesn't really bear this theory out.

Barry became a nice face of steroids because of his pre-existing reputation *(and the fact that he was the absolute best player of the era). But virtaully all of the big steps forward in the roids story took place without him.

I'm not sure how I'm overstating the degree to which likability influences award voting.

You said, "the people who did the voting constantly gave Murray good MVP ballots, so it wasn't like he was hated by the press." But the consistently good showings of Bonds and Carlton demonstrate that one can be hated by the press and still do very well in BBWAA awards voting.

It's s shame how many in the media have assumed they can judge a (steroid) guilty person 'just like that' and then use this suspect conclusion to drive an article.

I don't think that they assume that at all. I think they assume that a few days of articles and call-in shows about the great clean white hope Jim Thome is good for selling papers and getting ratings. And I think they assume that if they end up being wrong, nobody will care about them being wrong, and a few days of articles and call-in shows about "OMG! THIS IS JI should have his children taken away!" will be good for selling papers and getting ratings.

You said, "the people who did the voting constantly gave Murray good MVP ballots, so it wasn't like he was hated by the press." But the consistently good showings of Bonds and Carlton demonstrate that one can be hated by the press and still do very well in BBWAA awards votin

Ok, then what I should have said is that I don't think a player being disliked gets hurt in the voting unless that disliked can be shown to have possibly hurt his team(see Dick Allen) although of course the dislike for Kevin Brown stopped him from getting 5%, but in that situation I think it was a combination of factors 1. dislike 2. full ballot 3. steroid implications(not in any order)

Heck Jim Rice just went into the hof and he wasn't well liked, and the Alomar spitting incident hurt his reputation for several years.

Ok, then what I should have said is that I don't think a player being disliked gets hurt in the voting unless that disliked can be shown to have possibly hurt his team(see Dick Allen) although of course the dislike for Kevin Brown stopped him from getting 5%, but in that situation I think it was a combination of factors 1. dislike 2. full ballot 3. steroid implications(not in any order)

I'd add, his best years were on lower profile teams, while he was considered a flop in his stints with the glamour teams (though he was actually good in LA, the combination of his contract and the team's failures during that time color his run there).

One guy who most definitely lost out on a major award as a result of his personality is Albert Belle, who wins the AL MVP in 1995 if he isn't a sociopath. At the same time, if the divisional setup in 95 was the same as it was in 93, Joey wins any way, misanthropic qualities be damned. His personality was just one of the factors that kept him from winning, but the margin was so close that if you take away any of them it likely reverses the outcome.

One question remaining for Thome: can he catch Reggie?

In other words does 1,400 more PAs (a little over 2 seasons) at pretty much the same rate of production get Edgar over the line? (Thome doesn't seem to my eye to have a peak argument over Edgar.)

Two full seasons (and counting) of that kind of production is a crapload more value, and Thome's still adding value.

For a better idea of what it means, Thome's added 15.5% to Edgar's career.

I think it's interesting that Jose Batista and Thome are perceived in opposite ways here. With no evidence on either side (even kinds of evidence, like circumstancial or hearsay), it seems to be widely assumed that Batista has been using and Thome never has. Why is this? A sudden jump in productivity on Batista's part?

If that's the case, then any Yankee fan or follower should equally suspect Curtis Granderson. Prior to last August, he didn't even look like a big league hitter. Since then he's put up historically great numbers, particularly in the power department.

The reason is human hypocrisy.

Thome as a youngster: it's funny, but I recall several sportswriters at the time expressing skepticism that he'd ever hit for power: only 3 HRs in his first two seasons (235 PA), and only 10 HRs in the minors (698 PA) over the same span.

That's not quite accurate. He hit 16 homers in 235 AB at age 19, in 1990. The 10 homers in 698 PA span looks like his 1991-1992 seasons, both split between AA and AAA. This was at ages 20-21, and also includes 40 doubles, 8 triples, 86 walks, and averages well above .300.

When you have a very young hitter playing in advanced leagues, who is a big guy, with a good swing, knowledge of the strike zone, and who hits lots of doubles, that is about as good a bet for a guy to develop future power that you'll ever see. No guarantee though, we're still waiting on Sean Burroughs.

Back then I thought he'd develop into a George Brett type hitter, but that maybe he'd be like Wade Boggs. I've given up waiting on the next Boggs, he was really unique. There are no great hitters with the batting eye and strength that Boggs had who can resist the temptation to crush homers, and just be content batting .350 every year.

Now I think of Thome as what Johnny Mize would have been without losing prime years to WWII, and having the DH rule around to delay his transition to productive part time player. In particular, compare Thome's 2002 (.304, 52 homers) to Mize 1947 (.302, 51 homers) and last year with the Twins (25 HR in 276 AB) looks a lot like Mize 1950 - 25 homers in 274 AB.

When you have a very young hitter playing in advanced leagues, who is a big guy, with a good swing, knowledge of the strike zone, and who hits lots of doubles, that is about as good a bet for a guy to develop future power that you'll ever see. No guarantee though, we're still waiting on Sean Burroughs.

Burroughs had drug problems. What's Lars Anderson's excuse?

Two full seasons (and counting) of that kind of production is a crapload more value, and Thome's still adding value.

For a better idea of what it means, Thome's added 15.5% to Edgar's career.

I'm aware. I'd just like to hear how people -- especially those who don't support Edgar -- would view that theoretical Thome: still not enough because it's no more peak? Just enough? More than enough?

For a better idea of what it means, Thome's added 15.5% to Edgar's career.

Edgar by rate is a little better hitter than Thome though because he's got about a 20 point advantage in OBP. So it's more like 11%. I think Edgar's leagues were generally a little better than Thome's too.

Both seem to me to be clear HOFers but apparently others don't see it that way. I'd vote for either over Alomar.

#53 Ken Phelps is another example. His minor league career doesn't really say TTO, it just suggests strongly that he could hit.

#53 Ken Phelps is another example. His minor league career doesn't really say TTO, it just suggests strongly that he could hit.

.307/.444/.606 in over 2000 AAA PAs, how is that even possible?

Petagine hit .322/.431/.577 in over 2000 AAA PAs

think we'll ever see that again?

Kila K is at .284/.418/.505 in 1400 PAs, but that's all in the PCL
Scooch is at .276/.395/.512 in 3300! PAs... but that's still an OPS of 900, Petagine and Phelps were over 1000

Nelson Cruz was up there, .313/.399/.597 in 1364 AAA PAs, but then even after flopping his first extended look he was given another chance

Since somebody asked:

Babe Ruth- Red Sox
Babe Ruth- 1935

Hank Aaron- 1954
Hank Aaron 1975

Babe Ruth clearly did horse steroids and Aaron looks like a meth head. How were they allowed in the hall of fame? Also, Thome clearly is a roider. As are all players at HS level and up. They all should have their kids taken away.

Hey, I'm bigger than I was 20 yrs ago. A lot bigger.

Is pizza a PED?

Sorry if somebody has already commented on this, but you gotta love it. Re. Edgar:

I believe I was caught up too much in numbers

Excuse me, the numbers are the one thing that say "no"! You was caught up in somethin' but it wasn't numbers.

Since I think I started with a request for photo links here, I would suggest anyone google Jim Thome and limit the results to Images. You will see a wide range of photos which seem to show a bulkier Thome from his mid Cleveland days on through today, not the same as rookie picture vs. Today.

It is easy to cherry pick photos which seem to prove your point with two pictures. I also agree that most of us gain weight from our twenties to forties. My original comment was that he bulked up quite a bit in Cleveland and gained hr power. He left 3b and eventually 1b to dh at least partly because of the bulk.

PED's or not, his defensive value was negligible in his career and he perhaps should be compared to Harold Baines, Edgar Martinez and other HOF candidates/ DH types who have so far been passed over.

PED's or not, his defensive value was negligible in his career and he perhaps should be compared to Harold Baines, Edgar Martinez and other HOF candidates/ DH types who have so far been passed over.

Not really sure I agree with that, he did spend a significant amount of time on the field, even negative defense is a plus in comparison to a player who doesn't get on the field. Heck by defensive War he's not a terrible fielder. But even acknowledging that he should be compared to other DH types, he stacks up pretty well. Although in my opinion the argument goes the other way, DH types should be compared to other primary offensive players who played in the field. In other words guys who's defense wasn't considered that great but played because of their bat, Mark McGwire, Dick Allen, Killebrew, Manny, Sheffield, Thomas, Giambi, Luzinski etc.

Excuse me, the numbers are the one thing that say "no"! You was caught up in somethin' but it wasn't numbers.

I don't get this comment. From what I've argued against, the numbers is very strong with Edgar, you have to parse out context in order to present a decent argument against Edgar.

he perhaps should be compared to Harold Baines, Edgar Martinez and other HOF candidates/ DH types who have so far been passed over

OK: Thome is at ~10,000 PAs with an OPS+ of 147. Baines is at ~11,000 and 120; Martinez, ~8,700 and 147. So he's got quality on Baines and quantity on Martinez. Rusty Staub is slightly better than Baines, ~11,200 and 124; Hal McRae's at ~8,000 and 122; Don Baylor is ~9,400 and 118.

Top ten career hitters with 20% or more of their career at DH:



Unless one's HOF is pretty small, to leave Thome out on the basis of his being a minus defender and late-career DH is more an aesthetic call than a value call. He has had an extremely valuable career.

PED's or not, his defensive value was negligible in his career and he perhaps should be compared to Harold Baines, Edgar Martinez and other HOF candidates/ DH types who have so far been passed over.

Baines is passed over because he was merely a good, not great hitter. His OPS+ of 120 isn't in the same league as the 147 of both Thome and Edgar.

Jim Thome has 57.5 batting wins on BB-ref, that is 25th all time. Defense is important too but I just can't grok the position of anyone who does not think a top 25 alltime hitter should go into the hall.

Jim Thome has 57.5 batting wins on BB-ref, that is 25th all time. Defense is important too but I just can't grok the position of anyone who does not think a top 25 alltime hitter should go into the hall.

I would argue that he's not a top 25 of all time, he's top 25 career accumulator of all time, although even that might be arguable as I think for hof arguments above average should be a portion of the discussion. But top25 of all time doesn't really account for guys who have shorter careers(Mark McGwire most notably) who were superior hitters.

Of course your overall point still stands, Thome scores in the upper half of offense among hof players, and it's ridiculous to think he doesn't deserve just because the writer had a built in perception of what Thome was, and not a realistic understanding of what he was.

Thome is a great guy, from all accounts, and his career has been very impressive. But the skepticism which seems to accompany many other players' accomplishments is absent here, and I'm curious why that is.

When it comes to other players, A-Rod has admitted to taking PEDs, Bonds has admitted the same (though he says it was unintentional). Ditto for Sheffield. McGwire has admitted to steroids. Sosa apparently tested positive for steroids in 2003. Manny Ramirez tested positive. So it's not like the skepticism is based on nothing. Nothing like that exists for Thome.