Jim Thome hits 600th home run

[SouthSideRyan]

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

 

LFs have to perform at a much higher offensive level because they're relatively worthless with the glove. DHs are literally worthless defensively, therefore they should have to perform at absurd levels to be HOF-worthy.

[OleMissCub]

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

 

Correct, and a one-dimensional guy who hit most of his 600 HR in an era laughably dominated by power shouldn't be considered as "great" as similarly tooled players like Killebrew who put up their numbers in a pitcher's era.

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

Right. A guy like Thome should be judged based on the era(s) he played in, not hypothetical musings as to how players who died before he was even bored would have done with a DH. It's impossible to have any kind of flat base to judge all players in terms of the "ideal" player.

[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.

 

Right. A guy like Thome should be judged based on the era(s) he played in, not hypothetical musings as to how players who died before he was even bored would have done with a DH. It's impossible to have any kind of flat base to judge all players in terms of the "ideal" player.

 

Exactly. In contrast, we could speculate on what kind of diminished numbers the great players in the past would have put up had the talent pool not been an inch deep. Or how they might have benefited from modern nutrition and training. But that would be an endless waste of time. The game is constantly evolving, and the numbers are what they are.

 

Trying to balance them out in relation to their context is a fool's errand.

[davearm2]

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.

You can't assume "the DH is the only thing keeping the guy on the field/stopping them from being an abomination in the field". That isn't fair.

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

Right. A guy like Thome should be judged based on the era(s) he played in, not hypothetical musings as to how players who died before he was even bored would have done with a DH. It's impossible to have any kind of flat base to judge all players in terms of the "ideal" player.

 

Exactly. In contrast, we could speculate on what kind of diminished numbers the great players in the past would have put up had the talent pool not been an inch deep. Or how they might have benefited from modern nutrition and training. But that would be an endless waste of time. The game is constantly evolving, and the numbers are what they are.

 

Trying to balance them out in relation to their context is a fool's errand.

 

Yet you've got OMC doing precisely that above. There's no set standard. In varies from era to era and position to position.

[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.

You can't assume "the DH is the only thing keeping the guy on the field/stopping them from being an abomination in the field". That isn't fair.

 

I can certainly do it with people for whom the DH is the only thing keeping the guy on the field/stopping them from being an abomination in the field.

[Sammy Sofa]

A great DH is a great DH. It's part of the game. It automatically lets you know that player might have been a great player, but they weren't the "very best" due to their inability to play the field or the choice for them to not play the field. A DH has a built in caveat when being admitted to the Hall. How is that not enough?

[TruffleShuffle]

when thome was OPS'ing near 1.000 with the white sox (as DH), it's not like he would've been out of the game a generation ago. he would've just been playing 1b badly.

[SouthSideRyan]

He was physically incapable of playing 1B by that point.

[davearm2]

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.

You can't assume "the DH is the only thing keeping the guy on the field/stopping them from being an abomination in the field". That isn't fair.

 

I can certainly do it with people for whom the DH is the only thing keeping the guy on the field/stopping them from being an abomination in the field.

Surely you're aware that UZR had Thome as an above-average 1B his last few years playing there regularly.

 

You can assume Thome would be an abomination or whatever, but you'd be a fool to do so. Nobody knows how much, and how well he would have played 1B in the absence of the DH. So the most reasonable thing is not to make groundless assumptions.

[Sammy Sofa]

He was physically incapable of playing 1B by that point.

 

So what?

[davearm2]

He was physically incapable of playing 1B by that point.

 

So what?

Why are we accepting this as fact?

[TruffleShuffle]

ugh, once again i find myself agreeing (sort of) with davearm. what made him physically unable to play 1b? his elbow surgery? so imagine it's 1960; he gets the elbow surgery done (actually who knows if that was even an option back then, but i'll assume it was), sits out a couple of months and then starts playing again.

 

this raises another issue in my mind, though. if you're throwing out DH stats then don't you have to throw out the post-surgery stats of every pitcher who has ever had tommy john surgery? after all, those guys continued to be able to play at a high level because of a surgery that was not available to pitchers 50 years ago.

[SouthSideRyan]

Surely you're aware that UZR had Thome as an above-average 1B his last few years playing there regularly.

 

You can assume Thome would be an abomination or whatever, but you'd be a fool to do so. Nobody knows how much, and how well he would have played 1B in the absence of the DH. So the most reasonable thing is not to make groundless assumptions.

 

Surely you're aware that UZR for first basemen is a joke.

 

Surely you're aware that Thome suffered a season ending injury in his last year with the Phillies, and it was widely known that they were forced to trade him to the AL due to his inability to play the position.

 

Surely you're aware that he's played 4 games at the position since leaving Philadelphia (including zero games played at the position when he was traded to an NL team) instead giving backup starts to Ross Gload, Darin Erstad, Rob Mackowiak, a hated Nick Swisher, Brendan Harris, Jose Morales, Mark Kotsay, Josh Fields, a terrible Wilson Betemit, and Luke Hughes.

[SouthSideRyan]

ugh, once again i find myself agreeing (sort of) with davearm. what made him physically unable to play 1b? his elbow surgery? so imagine it's 1960; he gets the elbow surgery done (actually who knows if that was even an option back then, but i'll assume it was), sits out a couple of months and then starts playing again.

 

this raises another issue in my mind, though. if you're throwing out DH stats then don't you have to throw out the post-surgery stats of every pitcher who has ever had tommy john surgery? after all, those guys continued to be able to play at a high level because of a surgery that was not available to pitchers 50 years ago.

 

I never said throw them out, though I could see how that could be inferred from what I said about his counting stats. Offensive #s put up by a DH certainly aren't as valuable as those put up by somebody who's playing the field, no matter how terribly they're playing it. Could there be a circumstance of a guy being a slick first baseman, who happens to be on a team with another so he gets DH at bats? Sure are any of the DHs up for hall consideration one of those guys? Absolutely not.

[TruffleShuffle]

Surely you're aware that Thome suffered a season ending injury in his last year with the Phillies, and it was widely known that they were forced to trade him to the AL due to his inability to play the position.

 

that's not true at all. they traded him because ryan howard had been destroying the minors for 3 years, came up and played part time as thome struggled with injuries in 2005, then full time when thome went down for the year, and hit so well that he won the rookie of the year despite only playing about half the season. obviously howard and (age 35) thome were 1b only, so one of them had to go away, and the obvious choice was thome since the phillies weren't going to deal away a 24 year old who had emerged as a franchise cornerstone.

[davearm2]

Surely you're aware that UZR had Thome as an above-average 1B his last few years playing there regularly.

 

You can assume Thome would be an abomination or whatever, but you'd be a fool to do so. Nobody knows how much, and how well he would have played 1B in the absence of the DH. So the most reasonable thing is not to make groundless assumptions.

 

Surely you're aware that UZR for first basemen is a joke.

 

Surely you're aware that Thome suffered a season ending injury in his last year with the Phillies, and it was widely known that they were forced to trade him to the AL due to his inability to play the position.

 

Surely you're aware that he's played 4 games at the position since leaving Philadelphia (including zero games played at the position when he was traded to an NL team) instead giving backup starts to Ross Gload, Darin Erstad, Rob Mackowiak, a hated Nick Swisher, Brendan Harris, Jose Morales, Mark Kotsay, Josh Fields, a terrible Wilson Betemit, and Luke Hughes.

If you think Thome's career would have been over after 2005 if not for the DH, well then I'll just chuckle and move on.

 

If you don't think that, then I'll repeat what I said earlier -- speculating about how much, and how well he would have played at 1B is pointless.

 

The larger point remains, though -- as long as baseball uses a DH, then you can't demerit guys that play there.

[SouthSideRyan]

Surely you're aware that Thome suffered a season ending injury in his last year with the Phillies, and it was widely known that they were forced to trade him to the AL due to his inability to play the position.

 

that's not true at all. they traded him because ryan howard had been destroying the minors for 3 years, came up and played part time as thome struggled with injuries in 2005, then full time when thome went down for the year, and hit so well that he won the rookie of the year despite only playing about half the season. obviously howard and (age 35) thome were 1b only, so one of them had to go away, and the obvious choice was thome since the phillies weren't going to deal away a 24 year old who had emerged as a franchise cornerstone.

 

Ryan Howard is why they wanted to trade him, Thome's fielding (or lack thereof) is why he was heading to the AL.

[TruffleShuffle]

Surely you're aware that Thome suffered a season ending injury in his last year with the Phillies, and it was widely known that they were forced to trade him to the AL due to his inability to play the position.

 

that's not true at all. they traded him because ryan howard had been destroying the minors for 3 years, came up and played part time as thome struggled with injuries in 2005, then full time when thome went down for the year, and hit so well that he won the rookie of the year despite only playing about half the season. obviously howard and (age 35) thome were 1b only, so one of them had to go away, and the obvious choice was thome since the phillies weren't going to deal away a 24 year old who had emerged as a franchise cornerstone.

 

Ryan Howard is why they wanted to trade him, Thome's fielding (or lack thereof) is why he was heading to the AL.

 

it made the most sense to trade him to the AL because of his elbow injury (pretty sure he was suffering from back problems as well - playing the God-awful veterans stadium astropavement surely didn't help). it's hard to say what would've happened if he'd been in an mlb where he had to continue fielding... maybe he would've stayed out long enough to get healthy, maybe he would've been a part time player, maybe he never develops back problems in the first place because veterans' stadium/astroturf don't exist.

 

scott rolen was another guy who had persistent back trouble playing in philly and had it magically improve after leaving to play his home games in another ballpark.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A DH should be treated as a replacement level fielder and then compared to the other batters at his position. No need to put up "absurd" numbers.

[SouthSideRyan]

A DH should be treated as a replacement level fielder and then compared to the other batters at his position. No need to put up "absurd" numbers.

 

I already said Thome should be a hall of famer. Absurd is a subjective description of a person's #s. That said, putting a player as a replacement level fielder can give that DH too much defensive credit.

[SouthSideRyan]

The larger point remains, though -- as long as baseball uses a DH, then you can't demerit guys that play there.

 

They're demerited the same way you demerit LFs and 1B, only moreso because they don't even contribute that.

[OleMissCub]

 

Yet you've got OMC doing precisely that above. There's no set standard. In varies from era to era and position to position.

 

And that's why I'm starting to change my mind about Thome. Era's matter a great deal. It's why guys who if they had these stats today would be no doubt HOFers such as Ed Reulbach (a Cubby!) who had a 2.28 ERA in 2200 innings or Doc White with a 2.39 ERA in 3000+ innings aren't in the HOF.

 

Regarding era's, Thome hit over 40 homers in six seasons. In those six seasons, that feat was accomplished 57 times by 36 different players. Killebrew hit 40+ in eight seasons. In those eight seasons, it was accomplished 33 times but by only 16 different players. In Thome's top three HR seasons, 27 times people hit over 40. In Killebrew's top three HR seasons, it only happened 9 times.

 

Killebrew was a "great" for his era as a power hitter. He was a special player for his time and was a household name as a result. Thome just doesn't stand out enough to be a "great" of his era. Again, I'm a "small hall" (hate that cutesy term) guy. If I were like some of you and my friends who advocate for a wider hall then I'd definitely want Thome in there. But the fact is that he's only being talked about for the hall because he compiled stats the last few years and reached some milestones. The guy was only in the top 5 MVP voting ONE TIME. He was only voted to the All-Star game 5 times in 21 years. And yes, yes, I know that All Star games and other awards are just popularity contests, but they do matter to a degree in regards to the HOF. Then you look at how he really didn't contribute defensively or on the basepaths and then factor in the whole DH thing (which I know most of you don't want to hold against him but I will), and I just don't think he's a HOFer. Initially I was all aboard that bandwagon but I've jumped off the more I look at it and the more I'm starting to think about what I want out of the Hall of Fame.

[Sammy Sofa]

You're missing the point; bringing up Killebrew as you have been is pointless (yes, I know he's on BR's similar hitter list). Killebrew isn't any kind of standard as to who gets into the Hall. There's nothing that says anyone has to be as good as or better than Killebrew to be in the Hall if they're a power hitter. You started off potentially making a decent argument against Thome (though personally I don't think so; looking at 40+ seasons is similarly arbitrary and meaningless unless you can argue that a good portion of those 35 other hitters were as good as or better than Thome), but then spiraled off into what was seemingly an excuse to inexplicably fawn over Killebrew, as if he's some kind of metric that any prospective Hall of Famer is to be judged against.