Jim Thome and the Hall of Fame!

[calsnowskier]

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

First ballot, unanimous inductee into the Hall of Very Good.

Not a HOFer.

 

[StanMarsh51]

First ballot, unanimous inductee into the Hall of Very Good.

Not a HOFer.

You think a pitcher with those ranks over seasons and a 96 WAR (11th all time) is not HOF material?

 

[calsnowskier]

In his 22 years, he only received CY votes in 4 of them. That means that the voters of the time almost never included him in the elite pitchers of the time. My AS comment is that if he were a HOFer, he would have gotten more love than 2 nods over 22 years. Pitchers are picked by the coaches, not the fans.

I am not saying that CY votes and ASGs are the end-all, be-all. Individual ASGs are pretty bogus. But the collection over a long career tell a story.

Would I have wanted him on the Giants? Absolutely. I am not saying the dude was a scrub. I am saying he was pretty fucking awesome.

The HOF, IMHO, is for the elite of the elite. Guys that the greats of the game get star-struck when they meet them. Blyleven does not meet that standard.

 

[calsnowskier]

And WAR is a cumulative stat. 96 WAR over 22 years equates to approx 4 per year.

Good, but not HOF.

 

[gunnarthor]

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

To play with those numbers a bit more, it's very hard for a pitcher to be top 10 in both ERA+ and IP in the same season, since rate stats tend to go up over a lot more innings. I think it's an easy short hand for a HOF season (not saying you need both to have a HOF season). Clemens did it 12x, Maddux and Walter Johnson 11x, Seaver 10x and Big Unit, Blyleven, Perry and Palmer all did it 8x. That's an impressive grouping of pitchers and ignores things like WAR.

 

[gunnarthor]

And WAR is a cumulative stat. 96 WAR over 22 years equates to approx 4 per year.

Good, but not HOF.

It's better than Neikro, Perry, Cartlon, Ryan, Roberts, Jenkins and Schilling to name a few. (And it's really 96 over 21 seasons since he only pitched 20 innings in 82). But even if you are using 22 seasons, he was top 10 in WAR 12x or 55% of the time. He had a 5 WAR or better 10x, or 45% of the time. Those numbers are pretty consistent with other HOF types.

 

[navamind]

It's better than Neikro, Perry, Cartlon, Ryan, Roberts, Jenkins and Schilling to name a few. (And it's really 96 over 21 seasons since he only pitched 20 innings in 82). But even if you are using 22 seasons, he was top 10 in WAR 12x or 55% of the time. He had a 5 WAR or better 10x, or 45% of the time. Those numbers are pretty consistent with other HOF types.

And even then, averaging 4+ WAR for 20+ years is pretty impressive if you ask me.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

In his 22 years, he only received CY votes in 4 of them. That means that the voters of the time almost never included him in the elite pitchers of the time. My AS comment is that if he were a HOFer, he would have gotten more love than 2 nods over 22 years. Pitchers are picked by the coaches, not the fans.

I am not saying that CY votes and ASGs are the end-all, be-all. Individual ASGs are pretty bogus. But the collection over a long career tell a story.

Would I have wanted him on the Giants? Absolutely. I am not saying the dude was a scrub. I am saying he was pretty fucking awesome.

The HOF, IMHO, is for the elite of the elite. Guys that the greats of the game get star-struck when they meet them. Blyleven does not meet that standard.

Why don't you go back, and look year-by-year at how he stacked up among the pitchers in his league. He was easily a top 5 pitcher in his league in 9 seasons. Maybe 11 or 12. There are so many pitchers in the Hall of Fame who don't have that kind of consistent excellence. *THAT* more than anything else, is what makes a player a Hall of Famer. Consistently outperforming your immediate peers.

Blyleven remains the most underrated pitcher in baseball history. Nolan Ryan got in on the first ballot with one of the highest vote percentages in history. Not to make this about Ryan, or knock him, but Bert Blyleven was a better, more consistent pitcher. It's fucking nauseating that people don't see it, and are blinded by the strikeouts and no-hitters.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

And WAR is a cumulative stat. 96 WAR over 22 years equates to approx 4 per year.

Good, but not HOF.

Are you fucking serious? 4 per year over 22 years? That's insanely good.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

The HOF, IMHO, is for the elite of the elite. Guys that the greats of the game get star-struck when they meet them. Blyleven does not meet that standard.

Then you better get about 80% of the guys in the HOF out. The HOF started watering down its standards within the first 5 years of its existence.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Are you fucking serious? 4 per year over 22 years? That's insanely good.

Isn't a WAR of 4-5 for a season generally considered all star caliber? So if he was getting a 4.4 WAR on average for 22 years, this guy thinks that's not great?

 

[calsnowskier]

Then you better get about 80% of the guys in the HOF out. The HOF started watering down its standards within the first 5 years of its existence.

I like this idea!!!

I admit my standards are too high. But they are what they are.

 

[calsnowskier]

Why don't you go back, and look year-by-year at how he stacked up among the pitchers in his league. He was easily a top 5 pitcher in his league in 9 seasons. Maybe 11 or 12. There are so many pitchers in the Hall of Fame who don't have that kind of consistent excellence. *THAT* more than anything else, is what makes a player a Hall of Famer. Consistently outperforming your immediate peers.

Blyleven remains the most underrated pitcher in baseball history. Nolan Ryan got in on the first ballot with one of the highest vote percentages in history. Not to make this about Ryan, or knock him, but Bert Blyleven was a better, more consistent pitcher. It's fucking nauseating that people don't see it, and are blinded by the strikeouts and no-hitters.

I agree that Ryan was not a HOFer based on his competitiveness. He got in because of his "bling" stats (Ks and no-no's).

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I like this idea!!!

I admit my standards are too high. But they are what they are.

That's cool. I wouldn't mind a more exclusive Hall, but the cat was let out of the bag over a half-century ago. But I think your standards are also a little too subjective. I mean, All-Star games? Cy Young votes? Whether or not you get excited when you meet them? Those are all subjective measures.

I like the idea of restructuring the HOF into a pyramid. At the top, you have the true icons. Your Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays. At the next level, you have guys like McCovey, Gwynn, Palmer who had long, great careers, but weren't quite those icons. At the next level, you have guys that are HOF-worthy, but don't jump off the page, like Willie Stargell or Paul Molitor. You also stick your managers on this level. Then, you have the bottom tier, which contains all the umpires, executives, sportswriters, and the "borderline" guys like Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Dick Allen, Bruce Sutter, Jack Morris.

I think that's a nice way to make the Hall both exclusive and inclusive at the same time. Then, of course, we'd all be arguing who belongs on what level.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I agree that Ryan was not a HOFer based on his competitiveness. He got in because of his "bling" stats (Ks and no-no's).

I never said he wasn't a HOFer. He definitely belongs. But so does Blyleven.

 

[Omar 382]

That's cool. I wouldn't mind a more exclusive Hall, but the cat was let out of the bag over a half-century ago. But I think your standards are also a little too subjective. I mean, All-Star games? Cy Young votes? Whether or not you get excited when you meet them? Those are all subjective measures.

I like the idea of restructuring the HOF into a pyramid. At the top, you have the true icons. Your Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays. At the next level, you have guys like McCovey, Gwynn, Palmer who had long, great careers, but weren't quite those icons. At the next level, you have guys that are HOF-worthy, but don't jump off the page, like Willie Stargell or Paul Molitor. You also stick your managers on this level. Then, you have the bottom tier, which contains all the umpires, executives, sportswriters, and the "borderline" guys like Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Dick Allen, Bruce Sutter, Jack Morris.

I think that's a nice way to make the Hall both exclusive and inclusive at the same time. Then, of course, we'd all be arguing who belongs on what level.

i like that idea... i would also be open to a player that has tested positive for ped use or has admitted to it cannot be ranked any higher than the third tier. this would be nearly impossible though, because guys like clemens, sosa, and bonds haven't admitted use and we have haven't seen any failed drug tests... but we all know they roided.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

i like that idea... i would also be open to a player that has tested positive for ped use or has admitted to it cannot be ranked any higher than the third tier. this would be nearly impossible though, because guys like clemens, sosa, and bonds haven't admitted use and we have haven't seen any failed drug tests... but we all know they roided.

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds were- at worst- 2nd tier players before they ever started juicing, so you gotta put them there. Both would be in the top tier for me. IMO, no PED can help *THAT* much. I think the main benefit to both of them is that it got them rededicated to their craft by focusing on their fitness and their approach. Bonds' approach at the plate simply became perfect. Steroids didn't cause that. He barely got anything to hit, wouldn't give in to pitchers, and crushed every mistake a pitcher threw him. Steroids didn't cause *ANY* of that. I think the main benefit is that it kept them healthy into their late 30s when their bodies might have otherwise broken down.

 

[Omar 382]

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds were- at worst- 2nd tier players before they ever started juicing, so you gotta put them there. Both would be in the top tier for me. IMO, no PED can help *THAT* much. I think the main benefit to both of them is that it got them rededicated to their craft by focusing on their fitness and their approach. Bonds' approach at the plate simply became perfect. Steroids didn't cause that. He barely got anything to hit, wouldn't give in to pitchers, and crushed every mistake a pitcher threw him. Steroids didn't cause *ANY* of that. I think the main benefit is that it kept them healthy into their late 30s when their bodies might have otherwise broken down.

i agree that steroids aren't some magical potion that can make you or me hall of famers. steroids can't lay off two curveballs an inch off the plate, and then turn on a 96 mph fastball. steroids can't track down a ball in the alley. steroids can't throw a nasty split-finger fastball. but they definitely did help extend the careers of these guys. pitchers generally don't have cy young award-caliber seasons at age 34 or older. hitters generally don't hit 35 home runs at age 34 or older. not saying that it doesn't ever happen but it's rare. this extra 7-10 years of high-level playing does definitely stat pad. don't get me wrong, i want these guys in the hall, but if that style was adopted, the second tier is the absolute highest i could go

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

i agree that steroids aren't some magical potion that can make you or me hall of famers. steroids can't lay off two curveballs an inch off the plate, and then turn on a 96 mph fastball. steroids can't track down a ball in the alley. steroids can't throw a nasty split-finger fastball. but they definitely did help extend the careers of these guys. pitchers generally don't have cy young award-caliber seasons at age 34 or older. hitters generally don't hit 35 home runs at age 34 or older. not saying that it doesn't ever happen but it's rare. this extra 7-10 years of high-level playing does definitely stat pad. don't get me wrong, i want these guys in the hall, but if that style was adopted, the second tier is the absolute highest i could go

That's perfectly reasonable and fair.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Ok, just seeing a piece by Kurkjian where he argues that Thome has Hall of Fame credentials. I am inclined to agree that he was a terrific player and should be a Hall of Famer not because he hit 600 home runs but because he was friggin' good for a long period of time.

However, Kurkjian writes this crappy line:

"Thome's numbers came without flair, flash or controversy, especially involving steroids."

Uh, Tim are you sure? Weren't you guys on ESPN the one's promoting how PURE A-Rod was and how great it would be when he passed Bonds and then the home run record would be clean again? :ss: Oooops. How did that work out for you? And then you guys told us it was only because of Texas. Clowns!

Now I am not saying that Thome used steroids but if everybody else is guilty by association why is Thome all of a sudden clean but so many others are dirty. And why is every player that the writers don't like personally all thrown in that mix as well?

Now frankly, I've always been a big Thome fan and thought he was vastly underrated as a player. I just think that Kurkjian should refrain from going on these little pious tangents and quit propping up people as saints or sinners when in the end none of it is going to matter.

I have always liked the guy. Always played hard and was consistently great throughout his career. He has always been a bigger guy, don't think he took roids. He would 100% have my vote in the HOF.