Jim Thome and the Hall of Fame!

[JR Hart]

Thome is a HOFer , but he played and thrived in the PED era and must be suspected as all should be from that era.

 

[romeo212000]

Really? What's with you and bumping old threads 11 posts in to your membership?

 

[JR Hart]

Really? What's with you and bumping old threads 11 posts in to your membership?

What the hell does it matter to you? Are you the bump police? I'll look for threads that interest me and bump them if I wish.

 

[steveringo]

He will not make it...

He was really only "great" at one thing. In fact, I am hoping someone signs him this year so he can break Reggie Jacksons all-time record. He is only 50 away and could probably get that in two weeks...

Talk about a celebration!



Career Leaders &amp Records for Strikeouts - Baseball-Reference.com

 

[navamind]

Yes. He only had a couple of "great years", but they were pretty great ones at that if you ask me. He batted .311/.450/.612 with an OPS+ of 167. That's amazing production from 3B. He wasn't a bad defender at 3rd either. He also batted .304/.445/.667 (197 OPS+) in '02.

 

[JR Hart]

I agree with all that you stated.

However, they are comparative, so saying "He did not make the ASG because there were other guys having better years" (paraphrasing, but I am making a point, so bear with me) makes my point for me. There were always better 1B in the game during his era (Thomas, Delgado, Pujols, Gonzalez, etc).

We are not discussing the Hall of Very Good.

I was VERY against the inclusion of Bert Blyleven. He was good, sure. But one of the main reasons he is in is because of his win total. Wins are a complete bogus stat. It has almost nothing to do with how good a pitcher you are. He also only made 3 ASG in a 21 year career. Sure, if you analyze his career, I am sure you can make an argument for 7 or 8 or 9 (or whatever). That is all a bunch of hypothetical, what-if, BS. The fact is, if he was THAT dominant, he would have represented more than 3 times in a 21 year career.

Thome falls into the same boat.

Thome is like an asshole. Everyone has one. (or something like that)

600+ home runs says hello

 

[HammerDown]

Really? What's with you and bumping old threads 11 posts in to your membership?

 

[HammerDown]

You'll never hear anyone say "I hate Jim Thome." There's a million things to love about the guy. The problem is that he juiced like a motherfucker.

 

[obxyankeefan]

You'll never hear anyone say "I hate Jim Thome." There's a million things to love about the guy. The problem is that he juiced like a motherfucker.

Can't say I ever rooted for him, he always played on teams that the Yankees were competing with. He is a bit like Big Papi though in that it is just hard to root against them.

I said it when Frank Thomas retired and I will say it about Jim Thome. In this era of baseball everybody is guilty of using HGHs until proven innocent. Sadly for any player that has not juiced at some point this is unfair, but it is what this media driven society is.

 

[JR Hart]

And 2 people responded with good insight. Maybe you have more threads worth bumping and I wouldn't have to go back so far.

:focus:

 

[HammerDown]

And 2 people responded with good insight. Maybe you have more threads worth bumping and I wouldn't have to go back so far.

:focus:

I apologize. Can you please be available in the future to let me know which posts I am and am not allowed to respond to?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

He doesn't look like the typical guy who used PEDs though. He looks like the same guy now as he did 10 years ago. Plus the people who are guilty by association were mentioned somewhere, either in the Mitchell Report, by Canseco or some other way. JMO

Did Matt Lawton "look like the typical guy who used PEDs"? How about Alex Sanchez? Bartolo Colon?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

If everyone was guilty until proven innocent, should we just consider it a level playing field and let them all in if their accomplishments merit induction? If you were the best, you were the best.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Yes. He only had a couple of "great years", but they were pretty great ones at that if you ask me. He batted .311/.450/.612 with an OPS+ of 167. That's amazing production from 3B. He wasn't a bad defender at 3rd either. He also batted .304/.445/.667 (197 OPS+) in '02.

You must have a different definition of "great" than I.

 

[navamind]

I suppose.

 

[calsnowskier]

If everyone was guilty until proven innocent, should we just consider it a level playing field and let them all in if their accomplishments merit induction? If you were the best, you were the best.

It makes it tough, though, because accumulated stats need to be disregarded, to an extent. Bonds' 73 should be ignored, but can you ignore his WAR or his 7 MVPs? ARod was still considered the premier SS in the game for a decade. Clemens was going toe-to-toe with Maddux in the greatest-ever discussion the whole way.

McGwire? Sosa? Palmeiro? Not so much.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

It makes it tough, though, because accumulated stats need to be disregarded, to an extent. Bonds' 73 should be ignored, but can you ignore his WAR or his 7 MVPs? ARod was still considered the premier SS in the game for a decade. Clemens was going toe-to-toe with Maddux in the greatest-ever discussion the whole way.

McGwire? Sosa? Palmeiro? Not so much.

McGwire, Sosa and Palmiero shouldn't make the HOF even if you ignore steroid use. Sosa and McGwire weren't good for long enough, and Palmiero (even with the benefit of near-career-long steroid use and playing in two extremely favorable parks for hitters) simply wasn't as good as several of his peers at his position. You can't let every power-hitting first baseman in the Hall from a given generation. He was clearly behind a few guys.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I agree with all that you stated.

However, they are comparative, so saying "He did not make the ASG because there were other guys having better years" (paraphrasing, but I am making a point, so bear with me) makes my point for me. There were always better 1B in the game during his era (Thomas, Delgado, Pujols, Gonzalez, etc).

We are not discussing the Hall of Very Good.

I was VERY against the inclusion of Bert Blyleven. He was good, sure. But one of the main reasons he is in is because of his win total. Wins are a complete bogus stat. It has almost nothing to do with how good a pitcher you are. He also only made 3 ASG in a 21 year career. Sure, if you analyze his career, I am sure you can make an argument for 7 or 8 or 9 (or whatever). That is all a bunch of hypothetical, what-if, BS. The fact is, if he was THAT dominant, he would have represented more than 3 times in a 21 year career.

Thome falls into the same boat.

Thome is like an asshole. Everyone has one. (or something like that)

Oh please...the year he hit 52 HR, .304, and led the AL in SLG, OPS/OPS+, and BB he wasn't named an all star....the prior year he hit .291 with 49 HR and finished top 3 in OBP/SLG/OPS and wasn't an all star.

You think making an all star game is more telling of a season's quality than finishing 2nd in the entire league in OPS?

Shoot, Chipper Jones didn't make the all star team the year he won MVP....are we to discredit that season one bit because of that?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I was VERY against the inclusion of Bert Blyleven. He was good, sure. But one of the main reasons he is in is because of his win total. Wins are a complete bogus stat. It has almost nothing to do with how good a pitcher you are. He also only made 3 ASG in a 21 year career. Sure, if you analyze his career, I am sure you can make an argument for 7 or 8 or 9 (or whatever). That is all a bunch of hypothetical, what-if, BS. The fact is, if he was THAT dominant, he would have represented more than 3 times in a 21 year.

Yeah... Bert Blyleven isn't in because of his win total. He's in because he was consistently excellent for nearly all of his 21 year career and his win total is a reflection of that. It just took the clueless voters a decade to finally realize it. A frequent topic of message board discussion is "most underrated such-and-such". Blyleven is possibly the most underrated pitcher of all-time. He wasn't jaw-dropping dominant, but if you're regularly one of the top 5-8 pitchers in your league for 10-15 years (which Blyleven was), isn't that as impressive as being *the* best pitcher for 4-5 years? Plenty of pitchers are rightfully in the HOF without being "THAT dominant", and Blyleven is one of them. Tom Glavine will be joining their ranks soon.

All-Star game appearances are a terrible way to evaluate a player's HOF credentials. There are too many factors in the selection process that skew the results that it just can't be taken at face value. Joe Carter made more All-Star teams than Jeff Bagwell and wasn't half the player. All-Star appearances are a nice superlative achievement to add to the plaque, but are by no measure an accurate way to assess a player's worthiness.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Yeah... Bert Blyleven isn't in because of his win total. He's in because he was consistently excellent for nearly all of his 21 year career and his win total is a reflection of that. It just took the clueless voters a decade to finally realize it. A frequent topic of message board discussion is "most underrated such-and-such". Blyleven is possibly the most underrated pitcher of all-time. He wasn't jaw-dropping dominant, but if you're regularly one of the top 5-8 pitchers in your league for 10-15 years (which Blyleven was), isn't that as impressive as being *the* best pitcher for 4-5 years? Plenty of pitchers are rightfully in the HOF without being "THAT dominant", and Blyleven is one of them. Tom Glavine will be joining their ranks soon.

Pretty much...looking at Blyleven's ranks...
10x finished in the top 10 in ERA, with 7x in the top 5, and 4x in the top 2 in ERA+
11x in top 10 in WHIP (5x in top 3)
14x in top 10 in K/9 (9x in top 5)
11x in top 10 in innings
12x in top 10 in complete games, and 6x was either 1st or 2nd in shutouts
15x in top 10 in K/BB, with 5x either 1st or 2nd

So it's not as if he was merely an ok pitcher who pitched for a long time....he had many good/great seasons

 

[navamind]

Pretty much...looking at Blyleven's ranks...
10x finished in the top 10 in ERA, with 7x in the top 5, and 4x in the top 2 in ERA+
11x in top 10 in WHIP (5x in top 3)
14x in top 10 in K/9 (9x in top 5)
11x in top 10 in innings
12x in top 10 in complete games, and 6x was either 1st or 2nd in shutouts
15x in top 10 in K/BB, with 5x either 1st or 2nd

So it's not as if he was merely an ok pitcher who pitched for a long time....he had many good/great seasons

A career ERA+ of 118 is very good, especially for a guy with just under 5000 innings.