Jim Thome hits 600th home run

[SouthSideRyan]

I remember being terrified the Cubs were going to sign him for the 2003 season. And I never knew he was such a stand-up guy. Great moment.

 

Oh well, the guy we got to play 1B instead of Thome outperformed Thome from 04-09.

 

That and Thome was physically incapable of playing 1B about 4 days after he signed that contract.

[TruffleShuffle]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=14801

[OleMissCub]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=14801

 

Good article but I don't like the argument that I hear so often of "well a guy like Rabbit Maranville is in, so to keep a guy like Player X out is obscene." Just because there are weak HOF candidates already in the hall shouldn't be an excuse to put "Hall of Very Good" players in. I'm a small hall guy, so naturally that argument is flawed to me.

[Formerly Snayke]

I remember being terrified the Cubs were going to sign him for the 2003 season. And I never knew he was such a stand-up guy. Great moment.

 

Oh well, the guy we got to play 1B instead of Thome outperformed Thome from 04-09.

 

Hee Sop Choi wasn't THAT good.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=14801

 

Good article but I don't like the argument that I hear so often of "well a guy like Rabbit Maranville is in, so to keep a guy like Player X out is obscene." Just because there are weak HOF candidates already in the hall shouldn't be an excuse to put "Hall of Very Good" players in. I'm a small hall guy, so naturally that argument is flawed to me.

 

The phrase "Hall of Very Good" drives me nuts. The sentiment that they should only be honoring the unquestionably great players is fine, but it's not like it's called the "Hall of Unquestionably Great" either.

[XZero771679666304]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=14801

 

Good article but I don't like the argument that I hear so often of "well a guy like Rabbit Maranville is in, so to keep a guy like Player X out is obscene." Just because there are weak HOF candidates already in the hall shouldn't be an excuse to put "Hall of Very Good" players in. I'm a small hall guy, so naturally that argument is flawed to me.

 

I hear where you're coming from, but on the other hand it is hard to justify keeping some guys out when unquestionably inferior players are in. You can't all of a sudden start maintaining more stringent standards because you want a small hall. That ship has sailed.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Why have I never heard of Rabbit Maranville before now?

[SouthSideRyan]

I hear where you're coming from, but on the other hand it is hard to justify keeping some guys out when unquestionably inferior players are in. You can't all of a sudden start maintaining more stringent standards because you want a small hall. That ship has sailed.

 

So everyone better than Lloyd Waner automatically gets in? Can't wait for Bernard Gilkey's HOF induction

[OleMissCub]

You can't all of a sudden start maintaining more stringent standards because you want a small hall. That ship has sailed.

 

That's bullisht. Why can't you? If a ship is sinking I'm not going to keep pouring more water into it.

[BCVM22]

http://withleather.uproxx.com/2011/08/the-dugout-thome-at-600

[TruffleShuffle]

You can't all of a sudden start maintaining more stringent standards because you want a small hall. That ship has sailed.

 

That's bullisht. Why can't you? If a ship is sinking I'm not going to keep pouring more water into it.

 

yeah i think there's a happy medium between letting everyone who's better than the worst bum the vets committee let in, and leaving out terrific ballplayers.

 

to me, the guy who's 8th all time in hr, 80th in WAR, top 50 in offensive WAR, OBP and OPS+ 44th in offensive WAR, 50th in OBP, 23rd in runs created and 31st in WPA easily reaches the HOF standard.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Is this even a serious debate? Thome's in, easily.

[XZero771679666304]

You can't all of a sudden start maintaining more stringent standards because you want a small hall. That ship has sailed.

 

That's bullisht. Why can't you? If a ship is sinking I'm not going to keep pouring more water into it.

 

You can, but you'll have to deal with any fuss that ensues. I don't think scrubby guys should be let in, but if we're seriously going to debate the HOF merits of a guy like Thome given some of the guys who are in, that just ridiculous. The hypocrisy can only go so far.

[OleMissCub]

but if we're seriously going to debate the HOF merits of a guy like Thome given some of the guys who are in, that just ridiculous.

 

totally disagree with this statement.

[SouthSideRyan]

As I said earlier, if we're inducting, no questions asked, every guy clearly better than the worst, we're going to have to add 200 guys pretty much immediately. Edited August 17, 2011 by SouthSideRyan

[XZero771679666304]

but if we're seriously going to debate the HOF merits of a guy like Thome given some of the guys who are in, that just ridiculous.

 

totally disagree with this statement.

 

 

That's your right. You can debate it, but if after a minute or two of consideration you still wonder if he's worthy, I think that's absolutely nuts.

 

I think much of the post steroid era "statistics have been cheapened/we now need to be uber-stringent" backlash has gone way too far.

 

I'm not advocating for using a guy like Maranville as a baseline at all, but you can't just ignore the fact that many guys like him are in and then propose the maintenance of super-lite standards for admission, at least not without openly owning the hypocrisy of it all, at which point the whole affair becomes a joke.

 

There has to be some sort of middle ground, one where people don't wring their hands over the potential admission of a guy like Jim Thome, who clearly deserves it.

[SouthSideRyan]

Thome belongs, but he added a lot of counting stats due to the luxury of having a DH. He's sitting at ~1700 H and 430 HRs without those DH years.

[XZero771679666304]

Thome belongs, but he added a lot of counting stats due to the luxury of having a DH. He's sitting at ~1700 H and 430 HRs without those DH years.

 

The DH thing is tricky, IMO. It helps a lot of guys prolong their career, but at the same time I don't see guys like Thome, Thomas, Ortiz, etc. as losing massive chunks of their careers without it. You don't just consign guys like that to the scrap heap because they're awful defenders. Not having it would have diminished their numbers for sure, but I don't think you can just throw out several seasons because they were spent at DH.

 

I think they should scrap the DH, personally. Or institute it in the NL, but the inconsistency has to end at some point. But that's a whole other issue.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't think Ortiz could've stayed healthy in the field. Thomas and Thome both would have about 3-4 seasons chopped off their careers. When Philly was trading Thome they were only looking at AL teams because he was incapable of playing 1B at that point. Edited August 18, 2011 by SouthSideRyan

[Derwood]

I don't think you can count DH'ing against players. MLB implemented the rule/position, thus players play the position. Why then count it against them just because it didn't always exist?

[XZero771679666304]

I don't think Ortiz could've stayed healthy in the field. Thomas and Thome both would have about 3-4 seasons chopped off their careers. When Philly was trading Thome they were only looking at AL teams because he was incapable of playing 1B at that point.

 

 

Maybe so. Or maybe they hang around as part time/platoon player. The point is that it is all conjecture - we don't really know what would have happened.

 

I agree with Derwood in that you shouldn't hold a guy's position against him. Just because a guy was a DH doesn't mean they had to be. And if being a DH is essentially an asterisk on a guy's career, it needs to be done away with.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't think you can count DH'ing against players. MLB implemented the rule/position, thus players play the position. Why then count it against them just because it didn't always exist?

 

Because when you're talking Hall of Fame you're discussing their spot in baseball history. If the DH is the only thing keeping the guy on the field/stopping them from being an abomination in the field then it needs to be held against him.

[OleMissCub]

I agree with Derwood in that you shouldn't hold a guy's position against him. Just because a guy was a DH doesn't mean they had to be. And if being a DH is essentially an asterisk on a guy's career, it needs to be done away with.

 

But that's kind of inconsistent with your earlier views about comparing modern players to guys already in the Hall. If you are all about comparing players, then if an extra 3-4 years helps a modern player get a milestone stat, that's not fair to many guys who played earlier and achieved certain stats without the ability to go DH.

[Sammy Sofa]

So what? The game isn't static. It changes over time, and so should the standards of the HoF.

[XZero771679666304]

I agree with Derwood in that you shouldn't hold a guy's position against him. Just because a guy was a DH doesn't mean they had to be. And if being a DH is essentially an asterisk on a guy's career, it needs to be done away with.

 

But that's kind of inconsistent with your earlier views about comparing modern players to guys already in the Hall. If you are all about comparing players, then if an extra 3-4 years helps a modern player get a milestone stat, that's not fair to many guys who played earlier and achieved certain stats without the ability to go DH.

 

 

No, the point was we don't really know with certainty how things would have played out if the DH wasn't an option. That's why I don't like it being an issue.