Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 10, 2007

The Hall of Very Good: Jim Thome? Not so fast.

Coop sends over this HOF look at Jim Thome.

The case against:

—Less than 2000 career hits is VERY underwhelming. Edgar Renteria has more hits than Jim Thome.

—No MVP awards, only one top five finish (fourth in 2003).

—Third on the all-time strikeout list.

—No rings in two World Series appearances…a career .229 post season batting average. Heck…he wasn’t even the best player on the Indians during his days in Cleveland.

—They will be FAR too many more qualified first time inductees by the time Thome becomes eligible.

Repoz Posted: September 10, 2007 at 02:37 PM | 523 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame

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.

Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. The District Attorney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 03:18 PM (#2518214)
   2. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 03:19 PM (#2518216)
Thome has more hits than Earle Combs, and Renteria has fewer hits than Johnny Damon. You could play that idiotic game all day.

I did note that while Thome comes in currently a mere 37th in all-time OPS+, Renteria doesn't crack the top 1000.
   3. The District Attorney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 03:20 PM (#2518217)
HI I'M GONNA WRITE ABOUT JI

JIM THOME.

While he has no Gold Gloves to show for it, this converted third baseman is VERY overlooked as a fielder.
No.
Less than 2000 career hits is VERY underwhelming. Edgar Renteria has more hits than Jim Thome.
So?
No MVP awards, only one top five finish (fourth in 2003).
Okay, legit.
Third on the all-time strikeout list
So?
No rings in two World Series appearances...a career .229 post season batting average. Heck...he wasn't even the best player on the Indians during his days in Cleveland.
That's two completely different points, actually. Both have a little merit, but clearly neither is anything close to a HOF disqualifier.
They will be FAR too many more qualified first time inductees by the time Thome becomes eligible.
Huh?
Hall of Famer? Perhaps…but not on the first couple of ballots.
Who cares what ballot?
Also, a fifth of his games played have been as a DH…and ask Harold Baines how that has helped HIS case to get into Cooperstown without having to open up his wallet.
He is not like Harold Baines.
   4. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 10, 2007 at 03:24 PM (#2518221)
HEY GUYS ITS JI

Edit: Dammit beaten.
   5. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 03:25 PM (#2518223)
Also, a fifth of his games played have been as a DH

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.
   6. Mike Green Posted: September 10, 2007 at 03:25 PM (#2518224)
The real issue with Thome is the plethora of no-field, great hitters of the time. Jason Giambi and Edgar Martinez are similar in quality, although Thome may end up with a considerably longer career than either.

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.
   7. MikeinMI Posted: September 10, 2007 at 03:34 PM (#2518232)
Ok, maybe today he's marginal. Let's fast forward two years through his age 38 season. Over 550 HR's around 2300 hits. No steroid accusations (yet).

He's in, no trouble at all.
   8. Toolsy McClutch Posted: September 10, 2007 at 04:06 PM (#2518274)
How many steals does he have? Vince Coleman isn't a HOF is he?
   9. PreservedFish Posted: September 10, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2518282)
Thome does fail the "smell test" or "gut check" or whatever you want to call it. He doesn't feel like a HOFer and he never has. I don't think that it automatically kills his candidacy but it is an important factor, or would be for me if I had a vote.
   10. Poochie Mahoney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 04:27 PM (#2518294)
Thome, based on stats alone, should probably have done better in the 2002 vote--he led the league in OPS and I'd rank him over Garret Anderson and Torii Hunter at least, both of whom had great years for playoff teams.

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.
   11. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 04:33 PM (#2518300)
"He doesn't feel like a HOFer and he never has."

Maybe not to you. I would differ.
   12. dze27 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 04:39 PM (#2518310)
Slamming him for a .229 postseason batting average is very unfair. His OPS was .842 and he hit 17 HR (tied for 5th all-time) in 55 games so not exactly an offensive zero in the playoffs like the writer pretends. I think he'll end up in the HOF. He may well get 600 HR and have an OPS+ near 150 and that's easily good enough for me.
   13. MSI Posted: September 10, 2007 at 04:49 PM (#2518318)
He has 500 homers already and averages 40 per year. If this wasn't the steroid era and no one suspected him then he'd be in for sure.
   14. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 04:54 PM (#2518324)
Okay, so what is the case for Jim Thome's election to Cooperstown...his home run total? If so, don't you believe that will just water down the mystique of what 500 home runs means? And I compared his hit numbers to show that he doesn't have credentials OTHER than close to 500 bombs. Comparing his steals to Coleman or bringing up Renteria's OPS (which is a HIGHLY overrated, yet popular, stat) is inane. Ozzie Smith's was .665 and he's in the Hall! C'mon...CLEARLY he was awful, right?

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.
   15. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:15 PM (#2518343)
Wait...do you really not understand why it's foolish, at best, to compare Jim Thome's hit total to Edgar Renteria's?
   16. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2518350)
Comparing his hit total to someone who CLEARLY isn't a Hall of Famer is EXACTLY like basing his credentials on one number...OPS. If you think for a second that I was saying Edgar Renteria IS...you didn't read anything other than that one quote that was pulled. Thome hits long balls...hooray. He's not a first ballot Hall of Famer because of it.

So...what is your case for Thome, let me over at The Hall of Very Good.
   17. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:24 PM (#2518356)
"He has 500 homers already and averages 40 per year. If this wasn't the steroid era and no one suspected him then he'd be in for sure."

He has 40 based on an average of playing 162 games a year...CLEARLY not a valid way of determining someone's worth
   18. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:25 PM (#2518358)
Comparing his hit total to someone who CLEARLY isn't a Hall of Famer is EXACTLY like basing his credentials on one number...OPS. If you think for a second that I was saying Edgar Renteria IS...you didn't read anything other than that one quote that was pulled. Thome hits long balls...hooray. He's not a first ballot Hall of Famer because of it.

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.
   19. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:28 PM (#2518366)
He has 40 based on an average of playing 162 games a year...CLEARLY not a valid way of determining someone's worth

Ok...how about this...from 1996 through 2004, the meat of his career, Jim Thome averaged 41 homers a year. Is that valid?
   20. Poochie Mahoney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:29 PM (#2518369)
Thome doesn't just hit long balls:

-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.
   21. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:33 PM (#2518373)
The real issue with Thome is the plethora of no-field, great hitters of the time. Jason Giambi and Edgar Martinez are similar in quality, although Thome may end up with a considerably longer career than either.

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.
   22. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:33 PM (#2518374)
"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."

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?
   23. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:34 PM (#2518377)
Delgado might get in, depends on how long he wants to play and--if he does--where he does it. He'll probably be around 70 short of 500 by the end of this season. If he plays another 3-5 years, he might get up around 500. And then these articles would start appearing about Carlos.
   24. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:35 PM (#2518378)
"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."

Throw Todd Helton in there and I place Thome fourth.
   25. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:35 PM (#2518380)
If the Indians had won the '97 WS (or any WS while he was on the team), Thome would be likely to get in, I think, if only because I think they'd want to put someone from that team in, and Thome's a likable guy with counting stats who's associated primarily with that franchise.
   26. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2518386)
"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."

Throw Todd Helton in there and I place Thome fourth.


Which makes him a Hall-of-Famer given the size of the current Hall.
   27. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:39 PM (#2518388)
Never once, have I thought of dominant first basemen and come up with the name “Thome”.

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
   28. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2518392)
Thome is not a first ballot Hall of Famer.
Yes he is. Or he's not a Hall of Famer. You either judge a player worthy of being in the Hall or you don't. Being a Hall of Famer is binary. No one actaully ranks them by how many ballots it takes to get in.
   29. DCW3 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:45 PM (#2518397)
Comparing his hit total to someone who CLEARLY isn't a Hall of Famer is EXACTLY like basing his credentials on one number...OPS. If you think for a second that I was saying Edgar Renteria IS...you didn't read anything other than that one quote that was pulled. Thome hits long balls...hooray. He's not a first ballot Hall of Famer because of it.

Do you think Harmon Killebrew is a Hall of Famer? Because there's essentially no difference in overall production between him and Thome.
   30. Randy Jones Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:48 PM (#2518401)
Is this guy for real, or is this another Mark Garber?
   31. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:52 PM (#2518406)
I personally don't think Thome is going to make it into the hall or if he does it is going to take a very very long time to get in. Either VC or something like 12th or 13th try. I guess it really depends on how long he can stick around and stay productive.

Having said that I think this guy needs to prove somehow that Thome doesn't belong. The reasons he uses are extremely flawed.
   32. The Buddy Biancalana Hit Counter Posted: September 10, 2007 at 05:59 PM (#2518414)
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.
   33. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:00 PM (#2518416)
Assuming you've read everything I wrote about Thome...let's compare to Killebrew.

- 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.
   34. The District Attorney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:01 PM (#2518418)
The author seems to think that people want Thome in because he hit 500 homers. I don't care if he hit 500, 50 or 5 homers! Forget about the dumb 500 HR club. It means nothing. Forget about batting average. That also means nothing. The question is, how many runs did he end up creating with his hitting? I don't care the least bit how he got there, whether it was by hitting homers, hitting for average, stealing bases or what. I just care what the total is. (And that's why I care what his OPS is, although OPS still needs more massaging before you can get to the final total.)

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.
   35. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2518425)
FYI...if he ended up with only 5 HRs, his OPS would be FAR below what it is now. Just ask Ozzie Smith! And no, I'm not saying Ozzie Smith only had 5 HRs...just making a point.

Again.

Bring this discussion over to the site, fellas.
   36. galaxieboi Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2518428)
Yes he is. Or he's not a Hall of Famer. You either judge a player worthy of being in the Hall or you don't. Being a Hall of Famer is binary. No one actaully ranks them by how many ballots it takes to get in.

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.
   37. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:07 PM (#2518431)
who do you think pitchers feared more, Killebrew or Thome.

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.
   38. JPWF13 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:08 PM (#2518434)
Throw Todd Helton in there and I place Thome fourth.


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)
   39. baudib Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:08 PM (#2518435)
This article is beyond stupid.
   40. JPWF13 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2518440)
FYI...if he ended up with only 5 HRs, his OPS would be FAR below what it is now. Just ask Ozzie Smith! And no, I'm not saying Ozzie Smith only had 5 HRs...just making a point.


and what point would that be?
seriously...
   41. The District Attorney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:11 PM (#2518443)
FYI...if he ended up with only 5 HRs, his OPS would be FAR below what it is now.
Good point! Homers do create more runs than singles! I guess they're worth something after all!

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.
Bring this discussion over to the site, fellas.
No.
   42. Repoz Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:11 PM (#2518444)
who do you think pitchers feared more, Killebrew or Thome.

This answer is and always will be (according to everything I've read for the past 30 years)...Jim Rice!
   43. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:13 PM (#2518449)
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?
No.

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.
   44. JJ1986 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:14 PM (#2518451)
I always thought that Thome wasn't a hall of famer, but I've never really looked at it and he almost certainly is.

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.
   45. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:16 PM (#2518453)
Not a BAD comparison actually, but let me ask you this...who do you think pitchers feared more, Killebrew or Thome.
Who cares? That sounds like a question one asks about Halloween costumes, not baseball players. How did they actually hit?

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.
   46. JPWF13 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:17 PM (#2518455)
Not a BAD comparison actually, but let me ask you this...who do you think pitchers feared more, Killebrew or Thome.


I don't know, Thome has 2 more intentional walks through age 36...

- 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.


don't care
don't care
and
don't care

."we’re living in a juiced ball era". Players like Thome de-value the heralded magic number of 500 home runs.

Agree?


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.
   47. Srul Itza Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:20 PM (#2518458)
Look at the OPS numbers...Thome is 17 all-time. HALF of the top 20 are current player

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.
   48. JPWF13 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:20 PM (#2518461)
Again.

Bring this discussion over to the site, fellas.


why on earth would you want THIS DISCUSSION on YOUR site?
   49. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:29 PM (#2518470)
It sure seems to be the hot topic of the day doesn't it? Where did I EVER say Thome WASN'T a Hall of Famer? Riddle me that, stat masters! The only person I've read today that suggests that is McCoy.

I said he's not a first ballot guy and the 500 home runs is not as great a number as it once was.
   50. Poochie Mahoney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:58 PM (#2518496)
1. Thome may or may not be a first ballot guy. I really have no way of quantifying that. If it means he's not inner circle, then true, I agree. But who was saying he 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.
   51. Srul Itza Posted: September 10, 2007 at 06:58 PM (#2518498)
an OBP north of .409

That should have been "north of .400"
   52. Mirabelli Dictu (Chris McClinch) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 07:10 PM (#2518505)
Assuming you've read everything I wrote about Thome...let's compare to Killebrew.

- 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.
   53. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 07:20 PM (#2518514)
FYI...if he ended up with only 5 HRs, his OPS would be FAR below what it is now. Just ask Ozzie Smith! And no, I'm not saying Ozzie Smith only had 5 HRs...just making a point.

Yarrr...who's that a-rap-tap-tapping over my bridge?
   54. The District Attorney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 07:26 PM (#2518522)
Well, he's so all over the place that I don't even know what he's saying anymore. If his argument has indeed been reduced to:
he's not a first ballot guy and the 500 home runs is not as great a number as it once was.
... then he's cut back his claims to the point that they're completely banal, so, congrats on that. Well, you can still argue the "first ballot" thing. Unless there are 10 better players on the first ballot that Thome is eligible for, voters should not be considering that. But no, Jim Thome is not Lou Gehrig; we're aware of that.
   55. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: September 10, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2518534)
Not a BAD comparison actually, but let me ask you this...who do you think pitchers feared more, Killebrew or Thome.
Who cares? That sounds like a question one asks about Halloween costumes, not baseball players.
Snarky... but funny. Both of them could make convincing Vincent D'Onofrio characters from Men in Black
   56. SandyRiver Posted: September 10, 2007 at 07:41 PM (#2518553)
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.


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.
   57. Mirabelli Dictu (Chris McClinch) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 07:53 PM (#2518573)
You're right in that "compelling" may be overstating things. I was looking primarily at Thome's advantages in slugging and on-base percentage as compared to his league. Thome's 60 more runs created in 1000 fewer plate appearances also have value.
   58. Gaelan Posted: September 10, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2518580)
Without taking a stance on Thome's worth which, I'll admit, I haven't thought about much other than I know it should be after guys like Chipper Jones and Frank Thomas who, for whatever reason, appear to be on the bubble, I will say that the distinction between hall of famer and first ballot hall of famer upon which this entire article is apparently based is utterly vacuous.

I'll also say that the attempt to bring the discussion over to his blog is lame.
   59. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:07 PM (#2518587)
The District Attorney...

"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!
   60. The District Attorney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:13 PM (#2518595)
OPS (while currently a popular barometer in this homer happy era) isn't the stat people should go by.
Why not?
if THIS post was such a lightning rod...check out the others!
No.
   61. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:16 PM (#2518599)
My argument has never ever waivered from what I initially wrote.
I guess putting your argument on waivers would be admitting defeat. Hang tough. :)
   62. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:17 PM (#2518600)
if THIS post was such a lightning rod...check out the others!
Shameless Shilling! Or is that Curt's blog?
   63. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:20 PM (#2518607)
Gaelan...why is the attempt to bring people to my blog lame? Selfishlessly, it's easier for me to see the responses since they go right to my email.
   64. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:21 PM (#2518614)
"Why not?"

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!
   65. JPWF13 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:24 PM (#2518619)
is someone like Jim Thome a Hall of Famer?... I’m not convinced. The guy hit a bunch of bombs in an era when EVERYONE did....


seems like you are questioning whether or not he's a HOFer.

and OPS (while currently a popular barometer in this homer happy era) isn't the stat people should go by.


Why not?
Orel was ARGUABLY one of the most dominant pitchers of the 80s. Hershiser notched 98 wins between 1984 and 1989…an average of 16 per year. To put that into perspective, Roger Clemens had 95, Dwight Gooden had 100 and Bret Saberhagen (remember him?) had 92. Nolan Ryan (the ONLY Hall member to have toed the rubber as a starter for the ENTIRE 80s) had 70 in that same span. Hershiser had an ERA of 2.68 (2.03 in 1985, 2.26 in 1988 and 2.31 in 1989)…second only to Gooden’s 2.64.


Yippee pick any good pitcher's best 5 consecutive years and make this argument, fun with endpoints it's called.
   66. JPWF13 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:27 PM (#2518624)
OPS. Someone here mentioned all the players that Thome has a higher OPS than...by that logic, he is better than them.


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.
   67. JPWF13 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:33 PM (#2518637)
Gaelan...why is the attempt to bring people to my blog lame?


careful he's been known to bite
   68. The District Attorney Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:33 PM (#2518641)
You need to look at the whole package!
Yes. That is the exact reason people look at OPS to begin with. Because it almost is the whole package. On-base, plus slugging. Getting runners on base, and then driving them in. That's basically what hitting is. Wouldn't you agree?

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.
   69. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:46 PM (#2518660)
It sure seems to be the hot topic of the day doesn't it? Where did I EVER say Thome WASN'T a Hall of Famer? Riddle me that, stat masters! The only person I've read today that suggests that is McCoy.
Where you said it was where you wrote:

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.
   70. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 08:53 PM (#2518670)
Pete Rose had an OPS+ of 118...Hall of Fame career? Some people here would think otherwise if they looked SOLELY at that number.
   71. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 09:20 PM (#2518707)
"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."

Bruce Sutter...Hall of Famer, yes, but a first ballot Hall of Famer?

No.
   72. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 09:26 PM (#2518711)
DA:
The author seems to think that people want Thome in because he hit 500 homers. I don't care if he hit 500, 50 or 5 homers! Forget about the dumb 500 HR club. It means nothing. Forget about batting average. That also means nothing. The question is, how many runs did he end up creating with his hitting? I don't care the least bit how he got there, whether it was by hitting homers, hitting for average, stealing bases or what. I just care what the total is. (And that's why I care what his OPS is, although OPS still needs more massaging before you can get to the final total.)


Jesus Melendez:
FYI...if he ended up with only 5 HRs, his OPS would be FAR below what it is now. Just ask Ozzie Smith! And no, I'm not saying Ozzie Smith only had 5 HRs...just making a point.


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.

Again.

Bring this discussion over to the site, fellas.


Why? We're already here.
   73. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 10, 2007 at 09:28 PM (#2518713)
Pete Rose had an OPS+ of 118...Hall of Fame career? Some people here would think otherwise if they looked SOLELY at that number.


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?
   74. Paul M Hates Krispy Kreme Posted: September 10, 2007 at 09:35 PM (#2518715)
Hall of Famer, yes


Man, this still makes me sore. There's nothing compelling about Sutter that makes him HOF. Nothing.
   75. An Athletic in Powderhorn™ Posted: September 10, 2007 at 09:35 PM (#2518717)
Jesus, you and the guys here seem to be talking past each other. The stats you're using to evaluate Thome aren't the same stats that are used here to evaluate players. This discussion is a bad fit for your blog because you and the guys here are playing "Is he or isn't he?" by very different sets of rules.

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.
   76. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 09:48 PM (#2518732)
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!


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.
   77. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 10, 2007 at 10:00 PM (#2518736)
Bruce Sutter...Hall of Famer, <s>yes,</s> no

edit: odd, that worked in the preview
   78. McLovin Posted: September 10, 2007 at 10:01 PM (#2518740)
I did note that while Thome comes in currently a mere 37th in all-time OPS+, Renteria doesn't crack the top 1000.

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?!
   79. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 10:29 PM (#2518757)
Wait, McLovin...are you proving that OPS ISN'T a good indicator of someone's Hall of Fame worth?
   80. JPWF13 Posted: September 10, 2007 at 10:30 PM (#2518759)
Pete Rose had an OPS+ of 118...Hall of Fame career? Some people here would think otherwise if they looked SOLELY at that number.


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...
   81. Amit Posted: September 10, 2007 at 10:43 PM (#2518771)

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"?
   82. Amit Posted: September 10, 2007 at 10:46 PM (#2518774)

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.
   83. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: September 10, 2007 at 10:51 PM (#2518779)
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)


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.

Yippee pick any good pitcher's best 5 consecutive years and make this argument, fun with endpoints it's called.


It is fun to be perfectly honest. Great way to kill a rainy afternoon.

Best Regards

John
   84. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 10:58 PM (#2518784)
"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."

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"?
   85. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:01 PM (#2518789)
"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."

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.
   86. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:03 PM (#2518793)
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)


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. :-)
   87. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:04 PM (#2518795)
It's true -- Thome is not so fast.
   88. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:04 PM (#2518798)
One of the best hitters ever (arguably), but with a considerably lower OPS than some other players.


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.

It's true -- Thome is not so fast.


I know some glaciers and continental drifts that beg to differ.

Best Regards

John
   89. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:13 PM (#2518814)
"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."

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.
   90. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:18 PM (#2518828)
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.


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.
   91. Amit Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:20 PM (#2518834)
Rose's HOF case is, obviously, based on getting a lot of hits over a very long career. Would it make you feel more comfortable to characterize that fact with words like "best" or "arguably"? Obviously Pete Rose and Jim Thome were/are good at different things. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to understand that.

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.
   92. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:23 PM (#2518844)
You don't think Rose was one of the greatest hitters of all time?

No, I don't. In fact, I think people who hit like him should wear dresses.
   93. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:24 PM (#2518845)
You don't think Rose was one of the greatest hitters of all time?
Is this a semantic question, or a serious one? Was Rose one of the top 1,000 hitters of all time? Clearly. Was he one of the top 20? Clearly not. Where (roughly speaking) are you saying Rose ranks? Somewhere between 20 and 50? Somewhere between 50 and 100? Somewhere between 100 and 200? Somewhere worse than 200?
   94. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:24 PM (#2518846)
"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."


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.


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.
   95. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:31 PM (#2518864)
Put in the simplest possible terms, a player deserves to be in the HOF if he helped his team win a lot of games. There are different ways of helping your team win: creating a lot of runs by hitting HRs, creating a lot of runs by getting on base, creating a lot of runs by stealing a lot of bases at a high rate, saving a lot of runs with great defense, and saving a lot of runs with great pitching. Any of these skills can make a player great and therefore a HOFer.

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.
   96. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:33 PM (#2518872)
1. He never said Cy Young was terrible.

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?
   97. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:36 PM (#2518881)
"Rose's HOF case is, obviously, based on getting a lot of hits over a very long career. Would it make you feel more comfortable to characterize that fact with words like "best" or "arguably"? Obviously Pete Rose and Jim Thome were/are good at different things. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to understand that."

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.
   98. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:37 PM (#2518889)
"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."

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".
   99. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:39 PM (#2518900)
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?


Compared to everyone who has played major league baseball? Yes. Compared to Hall of Famers? No.

Screw the most hits in a career...I know a hit streak and career batting average that would disagree with you.


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.
   100. Jesus Melendez Posted: September 10, 2007 at 11:40 PM (#2518902)
"Is this a semantic question, or a serious one? Was Rose one of the top 1,000 hitters of all time? Clearly. Was he one of the top 20? Clearly not. Where (roughly speaking) are you saying Rose ranks? Somewhere between 20 and 50? Somewhere between 50 and 100? Somewhere between 100 and 200? Somewhere worse than 200?"

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?
Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSource: Myers to Padres in 11-player deal with Rays, Nats | MLB.com
(15 - 3:26pm, Dec 18)
Last: Lars6788

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(88 - 3:24pm, Dec 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOpening of Relations Could Bring Cuban Stars to Major League Baseball
(9 - 3:23pm, Dec 18)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogMatt Kemp's arthritic hips hold up deal with Padres
(25 - 3:22pm, Dec 18)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4781 - 3:22pm, Dec 18)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals Celebration Tour
(6 - 3:20pm, Dec 18)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(11 - 3:20pm, Dec 18)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(50 - 3:20pm, Dec 18)
Last: Cat Named Manny

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(37 - 3:19pm, Dec 18)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(306 - 3:18pm, Dec 18)
Last: The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(7 - 3:15pm, Dec 18)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(16 - 3:03pm, Dec 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2014 - January 2015)
(98 - 3:02pm, Dec 18)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(53 - 3:00pm, Dec 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(662 - 2:56pm, Dec 18)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with Wife!)

Page rendered in 0.8104 seconds
48 querie(s) executed