User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6598 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I did note that while Thome comes in currently a mere 37th in all-time OPS+, Renteria doesn't crack the top 1000.
JIM THOME.
No.So?Okay, legit.So?That's two completely different points, actually. Both have a little merit, but clearly neither is anything close to a HOF disqualifier.Huh?Who cares what ballot?He is not like Harold Baines.
Edit: Dammit beaten.
Also, a fourth of his games played have been as a 3B.
and ask Harold Baines how that has helped HIS case to get into Cooperstown without having to open up his wallet.
Well over half of Baines's games were as a DH.
The only better hitter than the current crop with similar ML career time who is not in the Hall of Fame is Dick Allen. "Clubhouse considerations" definitely play a role there.
He's in, no trouble at all.
The 2003 year was odd because while Thome had a worse year than Pujols and Bonds, I believed that he was more valuable to his team than either of those men.
Maybe not to you. I would differ.
Wrong.
So, what's the point here? You tell me...is Jim Thome a Hall of Famer? First ballot? Fifteenth? If so (or not), comment over at The Hall of Very Good itself.
So...what is your case for Thome, let me over at The Hall of Very Good.
He has 40 based on an average of playing 162 games a year...CLEARLY not a valid way of determining someone's worth
I'm not saying that you are basing his candidacy on one number, but I am asking that you try to take into account total offensive value. OPS or OPS+ do a much better job of that. You shouldn't just look at them and decide an entire candidacy on them, but I feel fairly certain that if you DID just look at them, then look at the guy's total plate appearances, and make some subjective defensive judgment...you would have a pretty good idea of whether or not they were a HoF.
Ok...how about this...from 1996 through 2004, the meat of his career, Jim Thome averaged 41 homers a year. Is that valid?
-he creates runs. Since 1996, Thome has scored 100 runs and driven in 100 runs every year except 1998 (when he only played in 123 games) and the injury-destroyed 2005.
-he gets on base. He has also walked 100 times every year aside from those years.
-This means he has a great OBP: .409. Currently that is 38th all time, better than Joe DiMaggio, Rickey Henderson, Rod Carew, and many other great players.
I'm not completely sold on Thome as a HOFer but to dismiss "hitting longballs" in one sentence underrates Thome as a player.
Thome's comps are interesting:
Canseco, Delgado, Manny, Juan Gone, Big Mac, Snider, Stargell, Belle, Jack Clark, and Mize. Three of those are HOFers, two might be, and there are certainly worse cases out there than Belle. Of course, the two at the top won't be.
In terms of 1B/DH of this era, loosely defined as 1990 to now, off the top of my head Bagwell and Thomas are better. I think Thome then places 3rd.
We could go back and forth here...but I'm not going to entertain that. Re-read my ENTIRE blog...not just what was posted here and you'll get a better understanding of what I am talking about. Total offensive value cannot be the ENTIRE factor...you have to look at everything. I did that and stand by what I said...Thome is not a first ballot Hall of Famer. Look at the OPS numbers...Thome is 17 all-time. HALF of the top 20 are current players and strengthens my initial comment..."we’re living in a juiced ball era". Players like Thome de-value the heralded magic number of 500 home runs.
Agree?
Throw Todd Helton in there and I place Thome fourth.
Which makes him a Hall-of-Famer given the size of the current Hall.
Really not once? Not in 2001, 2002, or 2003? There is a reason you know that Thome was a highly sought after free agent.
Couldn't do in the playoffs? Why because of batting average? Yet you say OPS is inanely overrated, what does that make batting average then?
You do know that Thome has hit 13 homers in his last 27 playoff games right? If Cleveland's pitching staff could have held the leads that Thome gave them then Thome is the hero in 1999 and the Indians advance to play the Yanks.
For the record Edgar Renteria has a grand total of 6 more hits then Thome. Yet Thome has 382 more homers, almost 900 more walks, almost 1200 more total bases, over 300 more runs, around 600 more RBI, and has an OPS+ 50 higher then Edgar but yeah let's ignore all that and say Edgar has more hits. Whatever
Do you think Harmon Killebrew is a Hall of Famer? Because there's essentially no difference in overall production between him and Thome.
Having said that I think this guy needs to prove somehow that Thome doesn't belong. The reasons he uses are extremely flawed.
But the capitalization is EXTREMELY persuasive.
- Six years in the top five for MVP voting and one win...one top five for Thome.
- Eleven out of thirteen years receiving votes for the MVP award...Thome received votes eight times total.
- 13 All-Star appearances (twice both in 1959 and 1961)...five for Thome.
- Eight 40+ home run seasons...six for Thome.
- Nine 100+ RBI seasons...the same for Thome.
Not a BAD comparison actually, but let me ask you this...who do you think pitchers feared more, Killebrew or Thome.
And when you figure that total out, you, IMHO, are likely to end up with a HOF type number. Not a slam dunk -- I do think the arguments about Thome not ranking that well among his peers have some merit, probably not enough to keep him out in my personal opinion, but it's certainly the big strike against him -- but likely. In any event, that should be the methodology.
Again.
Bring this discussion over to the site, fellas.
You and I don't. And neither do most of the Primates for that matter, but I'd say a good chunk of HOF voters do. From a logical standpoint I'd say some guys need historical perspective to get in. Some voters probably just want to seperate a guy from Ruth or something. You know, 'inner circle' HOFers.
Well in 22 seasons Harmon was walked intentionally 160 times for 11 per 162 games. So far Thome has been walked 150 times for 12 per 162.
Does fear translate into anything real? If it doesn't then what is the point? I hear this argument all the time. Pitchers feared Lou Brock on the basepaths, yada, yada, yada. Look I don't care if the pitcher pissed his pants every time Lou got on base if it doesn't translate into something real and tangible for his team then it doesn't matter. It tells a good yarn but if it doesn't do anything for your club then it meaningless.
But yes I'm pretty darn sure a lot of managers and pitchers did not want Thome up there against their team.
Helton's clearly behind Thome imho:
His OPS+ through age 33 is 142 and he's been at 119 and 127 the last 2 years
Thome's been at 156 and 142 the last 2 years
Helton's career road numbers are .294/.393/.500
Thome's are: .277/.404/.529
Helton's top ten OPS+ finishes are: 3, 7, 8, 8, 9
Thome's are: 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 8, 10
Helton is a better fielder, but I doubt he finishes within 10 OPS+ points of Thome.
and Thome has about a 27 WARP3 lead (about 12 through age 32- I don't see Helton outproducing Thome after age 33, let alone closing the gap)
and what point would that be?
seriously...
But if Thome were a Wade Boggs type creating the same number of runs and hitting 5 HR a year, that'd be fine. Just as long as he creates the runs. It doesn't matter how.No.
This answer is and always will be (according to everything I've read for the past 30 years)...Jim Rice!
Okay, I "re-read your ENTIRE blog" -- if by "blog" you actually meant "blog post," rather than "blog," because I'm obviously not reading your whole blog just to figure out your point wrt Thome. I don't know what you mean by "look at everything." If you mean, "defense, too," then I agree; one needs to consider that. Obviously Thome isn't getting into the Hall with his defense -- but, then, he's primarily a 1B, so he'll normally be judged on offense. He has spent some time at DH, but also some time at 3B, so there's a balance there. That isn't what you seem to mean by "total offensive value cannot be the entire factor." You appear to mean, "We ought to break down offense into components to try to find one where Thome isn't good so we can argue against him," which doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
Thome is 17 all time, playing in a high-offense era. Sure. He's 34th all time, once you factor in the level of offense. (E.g., OPS+.) And almost all the eligible people above him are in the Hall. It would be nearly unprecedented for someone of his performance level and longevity to not make the Hall. As someone else pointed out, if you exclude Thome, how is Killebrew in the Hall?
The "less than 2000 hits" thing is silly for many reasons -- not least of which being that unless I've missed an injury report, he'll finish his career with more than that. It's silly because, well, so what? If this is a proxy for career length, then there are better ways to look at that factor. If it's a proxy for offensive value, then there are much much better ways to look at that. What information does "less than 2000 hits" convey?
A fifth of his games at DH is not an unusually large number; he's nothing like Baines.
Jim Thome right now is extremely comparable to Edgar Martinez. He has 300 fewer PA, a 2 point higher, but more SLG weighted, OPS+ and they both have 500 games at 3B to go along with 1B/DH time. He did play the field a lot more, but poorly.
He's been a better hitter, by a lot, than McGriff and Helton. He's better than Giambi at everything. The only thing going against him is the number of all time great 1Bmen, McGwire, Thomas, Bagwell, and Pujols, who played during his career, but there are twice as many teams now as there were 45 years ago and being the fourth or fifth best 1B/DH of his era doesn't come close to disqualifying his numbers as one of the top 15 or 20 at the position.
BTW, note that Killebrew played in a smaller league, making it much easier for him to rank higher in MVP voting or all-star appearances.
I don't know, Thome has 2 more intentional walks through age 36...
don't care
don't care
and
don't care
1: no
2: Your statement only makes ANY SENSE if you are accusing Thome of being a steroid user. Otherwise saying that "players like Thome" devalue a magic number is similar to those lugnuts who said that Sutton devalued 300 wins- basically you are whining because a player you do not like and do not think is worthy is doing something you don't think they should be able to do- waah!!!! So instead of re-evaluating Thome, you are accusing him of being an inferior player who has no right to reach a certain milestone.
I've got news for you- Thome's not the best hitter to reach 500- but neither is he the worst.
And many of them will drop as they go through their decline phase.
Loot at OPS+ instead, which adjusts for era and ball park. There are 3 current players in the top 20: Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, and Frank Thomas. Barry is an all-time great player. Albert has been an amazing offensive force who has not yet suffered his decline phase. And Frank is likely to drop out in the next year or two, while still ranking fairly high.
Thome is currently tied for 34th, and likely to drop over time. But that is still an impressive number after 17 years in the majors.
Thome is going to suffer by comparison to guys with enormous peaks like Frank Thomas. But if he can stay reasonably healthy and productive -- if, if, if -- he will finish with 2,200+ hits, 1,500+ runs and RBI, and 550+ Hrs, and an OBP north of .409. That will eventually get him, and deservedly so, under the established standards of the BBWAA.
What will also help him is that, at least so far, nobody has whispered "steroids" about him. If he maintains the image of the "clean slugger", like Frank Thomas, that will boost his chances. Whether either of them actually ever used anything stronger than creatine is besides the point: Image is the issue.
why on earth would you want THIS DISCUSSION on YOUR site?
I said he's not a first ballot guy and the 500 home runs is not as great a number as it once was.
2. I agree that 500 HRs is not as great a number as it once was. But Thome has more going for him than HRs.
To see a real HR-only player, let's look at Dave Kingman. Kingman hit 442 HR, which at the time was a lot.
Kingman has 442 HR but an OBP of .302. He never finished in the Top Ten of MVP voting, drove in 100 runs twice, and never scored 100 runs in a season. He went to the postseason once and hit .111. He was widely regarded as one of the worst defensive players ever.
That should have been "north of .400"
- Six years in the top five for MVP voting and one win...one top five for Thome.
- Eleven out of thirteen years receiving votes for the MVP award...Thome received votes eight times total.
- 13 All-Star appearances (twice both in 1959 and 1961)...five for Thome.
Irrelevant in all three cases. Not just because there were significantly more players in the league to receive MVP and All-Star consideration in Thome's era than in Killebrew's, but because MVP votes and All-Star appearances are only tangentially related to what the players did on the field. Being underrated by the media is not a good argument against a player's candidacy (or even first-ballot status), and being appreciated by the media doesn't make a player a deserving Hall of Famer, regardless of ballot.
- Eight 40+ home run seasons...six for Thome.
- Nine 100+ RBI seasons...the same for Thome.
38 homers per 162 for Killebrew, 40 homers per 162 for Thome.
10 seasons of at least 30 home runs for each.
Career OPS+ of 143 for Killebrew, 149 for Thome.
They're pretty darn close, and you can make a compelling argument that Thome's been more valuable.
Not a BAD comparison actually, but let me ask you this...who do you think pitchers feared more, Killebrew or Thome.
Pitchers in Killebrew's era? Killebrew. Thome wasn't even born for most of that era.
Pitchers in Thome's era? Thome. Killebrew was already 55 and long retired when Thome came up.
Yarrr...who's that a-rap-tap-tapping over my bridge?
They're pretty darn close, and you can make a compelling argument that Thome's been more valuable.
As a Killebrew fan from long ago, I'd agree that such an arguement could be made, but hardly a "compelling" one, from either side. Killer was never a good fielder, but he was always a fielder, and his willingness and ability to be not awful in 3 different positions as needed must add some value.
Thome has 50% more players in competition, but Killebrew has 48 points of black ink versus 13 for Thome. K's gray ink (193/112) and HOF monitor (178/125.5) are well above Thome, though Jim's HOF standard is 49.3 to K's 45.5. Thome will probably add a bit to all but the black, though he has an outside chance for BB leader before he retires. As for IBB, when comparing rates they are similar, but it seems there are a lot more IBBs today than 30-40 years ago. Still, Thome's OPS+ is at a level where nearly every eligible player is in the Hall, and those eligible but not in have far fewer PA.
I'll also say that the attempt to bring the discussion over to his blog is lame.
"Well, he's so all over the place that I don't even know what he's saying anymore."
My argument has never ever waivered from what I initially wrote. I've only had to re-iterate myself to those who engage in typing a quick retort versus paying attention to what I said.
My intial statement was (and always has been): "Thome is very good, not great. Hall of Famer? Perhaps…but not on the first couple of ballots. In short, we’ve got a guy who smacked the Hell out of the ball, but was never the most dominant, much less feared, player of his era."
The poll on my site even asks..."is Thome a first ballot Hall of Famer" NOT "is Thome a Hall of Famer". Never once did I claim he wasn't hall worthy...I only suggested that he wasn't a first ballot guy, the 500 HR mark is watered down and OPS (while currently a popular barometer in this homer happy era) isn't the stat people should go by.
I'm just glad people are responding. I can't wait to have you respond to my next one. Better yet, if THIS post was such a lightning rod...check out the others!
Why?!? Players that AREN'T power hitters won't get judged fairly IF you only look at OPS. Someone here mentioned all the players that Thome has a higher OPS than...by that logic, he is better than them.
You need to look at the whole package!
seems like you are questioning whether or not he's a HOFer.
Why not?
Yippee pick any good pitcher's best 5 consecutive years and make this argument, fun with endpoints it's called.
Well replace OPS with OPS+ and you'd have a pretty good argument that he is a better HITTER than them. No one is using OPS as a be all and end all.
You may have noticed that no one is giving Thome any points for fielding- saying he DH'd less than Baines or Edgar is about as far as most are willing to go.
careful he's been known to bite
What aspects of hitting does OPS not consider? The big factors are 1) basestealing/running; 2) the fact that OBP is more important than SLG; 3) park effects; 4) the effects of different eras. OPS+ factors in those last three. So now you're only left with the basestealing/running, which obviously for a corner IF/DH, is not gonna hurt Thome much relative to his peers.
That's why people keep quoting OPS+ to you. Because it sums up everything a hitter does at the plate. You can't then cite something (like batting average) that is already included in OPS+, and present it as an argument against the OPS+! It's like saying he has a 3.9 grade point average, but only 3.0 in sociology. What does it matter? We already factored that in, and he's still a great student.
More specifically…is someone like Jim Thome a Hall of Famer? [...] I’m not convinced.
[Yadda yadda]
There you have it...Thome is very good, not great.
It's true that you follow this up with "Perhaps…but not on the first couple of ballots." But that doesn't make any sense. There is no such category as "first couple of ballots Hall of Famer." He either is a Hall of Famer or he isn't. And since you compare him unfavorably to Renteria and Baines, neither of whom are Hall of Famers, and since you describe him as only very good, but "not" great, it seems pretty clear that you don't think he is.
Bruce Sutter...Hall of Famer, yes, but a first ballot Hall of Famer?
No.
Jesus Melendez:
But you're missing the original poster's point. He's not particularly concerned with how Thome created runs -- he's just concerned with how many runs Thome created. In Thome's case, it was mostly via home runs and walks along with a decent batting average. But had it been more batting average and less home runs, that would been ok also, if it created the same number of runs. Offense has many components; it's not home run derby.
Why? We're already here.
Well, Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame, so those people would be correct, wouldn't they?
More seriously, two things:
1) Are you questioning whether Jim Thome <u>should</u> be in the Hall of Fame or whether he <u>will</u> be in the Hall of Fame? Most of the responses here are answering the former question. Personally, I find that to be a much more interesting question than the latter.
So, in your hypothetical about Sutter. It's a true statement that Bruce Sutter was elected to the Hall of Fame on a late ballot. Most people here would argue either (a) that Bruce Sutter should have been elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot, or (b) Bruce Sutter should not have been elected to the Hall of Fame at all. I vote (b) but I'm sure others disagree.
2) What exactly is your argument if it's neither that Jim Thome is a Hall-of-Famer nor that Jim Thome is not a Hall-of-Famer? No offense, but that's not a particularly interesting position to take - Jim Thome might be a Hall-of-Famer? For a guy the caliber of Thome, isn't that pretty much everybody's default position at this point?
Man, this still makes me sore. There's nothing compelling about Sutter that makes him HOF. Nothing.
If you start comparing players by OPS+, PAs, RC, and RCAP (Runs Created Above Position), people might start listening. If you post on this site without at least a few of these stats to back you up, you'll keep getting slammed. All of those except RCAP (and other useful stats) are available here.
Edit: If it's unclear, no, I'm not trying to be condescending.
Until you actually learn how to compare the value of two players, rather than bringing up irrelevancies such as which player is more "feared," I think I'll pass. That may sound harsh, but if it's of any comfort, I think you have enough skills right now to write sports columns for any major newspaper.
edit: odd, that worked in the preview
He is actually #978, AHEAD of HOFers Pee Wee Reese and Lloyd Waner. And with OPS+ of 107 and 129 the last two years, that number should only go UP! So who looks silly now?!
well it was higher than that through age 40 when he kept playing for some obscure reason despite being a sub-replacement level player...
Seriously no one uses OPS "solely", maybe if you are talking about someone like Thome or Edgar you do because that's all they have going for them- and as noted in 68 it's still quite a lot.
Rose of course:
1: Was a better baserunner than Thome- in fact he was quite a good baserunner, something you might not realize just by looking at his bbref page- his sb-cs numbers are not impressive.
2: His OPS was OBP heavy
3: He had more defensive value than Thome, he played 2nd (not great), he played 3rd (better than Thome), he was ok in the OF...
4: He had great durability- not including his post 40 shenanigans, he was a legitimately productive player for a VERY long time.
5: I've heard that he owns a very notable hitting record, can't quite recall it right now...
Until you actually learn how to compare the value of two players, rather than bringing up irrelevancies such as which player is more "feared," I think I'll pass. That may sound harsh, but if it's of any comfort, I think you have enough skills right now to write sports columns for any major newspaper.
I believe the word is ... "pwn3d"?
Wait, McLovin...are you proving that OPS ISN'T a good indicator of someone's Hall of Fame worth?
Are you some kind of retard? If you're going to get into the hall of fame because you're a really good hitter, your OPS should be high. If your case is based on something else, then it need not be as high.
This is like arguing with a 5 year old.
That can be partially attributed to era. If Thome never juiced, then he might have lost a lot of black/gray ink to 'roided players. You can't fault a man if he had to play on an uneven field.
It is fun to be perfectly honest. Great way to kill a rainy afternoon.
Best Regards
John
Amit...
Hey man...I'm not that one that can't detect sarcasm. But seriously, what would be the case for Rose. One of the best hitters ever (arguably), but with a considerably lower OPS than some other players. Correct? Based on the logic in this forum...people think that high OPS means Hall of Fame inclusion. Again...what would be Rose's "something else"?
Note the sarcasm here, but "fear" is kinda like "respect" right? So...players like Ozzie Smith who was nothing but a god glove got in on "respect" correct? I mean, numbers will show that he wasn't the best fielder EVER at his position (if so, Jim Kaat would be enshrined)...but he was well liked and respected.
Um, numbers are pretty unanimous that Ozzie Smith was the best fielding shortstop ever.
By the way, "Ozzie Smith who was ... a god glove" - nice typo. :-)
Having the most hits doesn't make you the best hitter; it just means you've got the most hits. Ted Williams was a better hitter. Cy Young/Nolan Ryan/Ed Walsh aren't the greatest pitchers despite having the most wins/K's/lowest career ERA. It just meant they had the most wins/K's/lowest career ERA.
Granted, you've got to be a damned fine hitter/pitcher to hold those distinctions.
Just a small point--I'm pretty sure that wasn't the point you meant to make.
I know some glaciers and continental drifts that beg to differ.
Best Regards
John
Man...I now see where you guys are coming from. You just pick and choose the words you want, huh? I believe I dropped a "one of the best" and an "arguably" in there. You don't think Rose was one of the greatest hitters of all time? Screw the most hits in a career...I know a hit streak and career batting average that would disagree with you.
And you're right...Cy Young was a TERRIBLE pitcher.
And you're right...Cy Young was a TERRIBLE pitcher.
1. He never said Cy Young was terrible.
2. Pete Rose is not arguably one of the best hitters ever.
3. You are an idiot...or really stubborn.
Let me make something clear: NOBODY HAS SAID THAT OPS IS THE ONLY MEASURE, OR EVEN THE BEST MEASURE, OF A HALL OF FAMER. Nobody thinks it's a good way to quantify Ozzie Smith's contribution, that it tells the whole story about Pete Rose, or that it ends the discussion on Thome. It's just that, in the case of Thome, it is a clearly better indicator of than the stupid things you tried to argue in your foolish article.
No, I don't. In fact, I think people who hit like him should wear dresses.
First, my tone above was unwarranted, so I apologize; I guess I was a bit annoyed by your constant insistence that people take this discussion over to your site.
In any event, as to the substance, the numbers _do_ show that Ozzie Smith was a god at SS. Your analogy to Kaat doesn't help your argument, since a pitcher's defense doesn't play a significant role in his value; but a shortstop's defense does.
Ozzie Smith won a lot of games for his team with his defense and a few with his bat. Thome won a lot of games for his team with his great power and patience. Rose won a lot of games for his team with his BA, power, baserunning, and defense. etc.
You're right, he said he wasn't the greatest...and i aws being sarcastic. Damn shame no one can recognize that here.
2. Pete Rose is not arguably one of the best hitters ever.
Really? I'll make that argument now...therefore, making semantic police here agree with my claim. Christ...this thread is getting old. But, Hell...let's hit 100 posts!
3. You are an idiot...or really stubborn.
Really...you think so?
I never compared their credentials...someone else did.
"Let me make something clear: NOBODY HAS SAID THAT OPS IS THE ONLY MEASURE, OR EVEN THE BEST MEASURE, OF A HALL OF FAMER. Nobody thinks it's a good way to quantify Ozzie Smith's contribution, that it tells the whole story about Pete Rose, or that it ends the discussion on Thome. It's just that, in the case of Thome, it is a clearly better indicator of than the stupid things you tried to argue in your foolish article."
Dude...there are plenty of words that have been in my proverbial mouth on this site that I never said. Start at the top...it's a pretty funny read.
No sweat, baby...it's all good.
And for those of you that take everything so damned LITERAL on this site...I didn't just call Ray a "baby".
Compared to everyone who has played major league baseball? Yes. Compared to Hall of Famers? No.
His hit streak is trivia, not a serious basis for making an "arguably one of the best hitters ever" case. It's an ornament, not a christmas tree.
Moreover, batting average is not offense. And even if it were, a .303 career batting average is not the slightest bit impressive in this context.
It was more rhetorical than anything...but honestly, I would think a .300+ average in 15 of 17 years AND 13 seasons of 190+ hits is pretty good. Don't you?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main