Congrats, Thome! Wish you had done it as a Sox, but again, congrats on breaking it and being 5th on the all time list. Only 30 until you tie for 4th place!
Jim Thome made baseball relevant again in Philadelphia, became my older daughter's first ever favorite Phillie (she cried when I told her he'd been traded to the White Sox), and turned Citizens Bank Park into his personal plaything. And is there a nicer guy in MLB? He deserves every bit of the joy and pleasure of reaching 600 -- THE RIGHT WAY, ahem -- and every accolade that comes his way. Watching his postgame thanks to Charlie Manuel was incredibly touching.
Until you agree it would be fair play to exhume every player in Cooperstown and test them and abide by those results, this is just stupid. "For one thing, and perhaps this is the main thing, such a statement [is] manifestly untrue." Stolzenburg v. Ford Motor Co., (8th Cir. 1997).
Yes, I think he should be in Cooperstown, and it's not a hard call. But I should point out that Thome played slightly less than a third of his career as a DH and has exactly the same career OPS as Edgar Martinez. Thome overall is a more deserving candidate than Edgar (much longer peak, ~7 runs/season more value at 1B than Edgar at DH), but if you are the kind of person who thinks that Edgar Martinez should not be in the HOF, you should act as if Thome's career ended in 2005 and ignore the last 160 or so home runs of his career. Or, better yet, you should just get over your irrational dislike of the DH and let Edgar into the HOF too.
It also occurs to me that I was at the 2004 game here in Philly in which Jim hit HR #400, which landed about 50 yards away from where my friend and I were sitting in left center. It was a delicious kind of mayhem at CBP that night.
I like Jim Thome, I respect Jim Thome, and I think he has a strong case for the Hall of Fame -- but I'm not convinced it's a slam-dunk. For me, the Hall-of-Fame question is, "Was this player dominant at his position?" And as good as his statistics are, and as good as his peak seasons were, I don't think you can say that about Thome at any point in his career.
I don't think you can say [he was dominant] at any point in his career.
Thome, best year: .445/.677/1.122, 197 OPS+. Dominant. Thome, second-best year: .416/.624/1.040, 170. Dominant. Thome, best 10 years of OPS+ in seasons with >120 games played: 197, 170, 167, 157, 156, 155, 154, 153, 150, 144. Thome, seasons with at least 100 games played and 120+ OPS+: 14. Thome, seasons with at least 500 PA and OBP > .400: 9 Thome, seasons with top-10 league OBP: 10 Thome, seasons with top-10 league SLG: 10 Thome, seasons with top-10 OPS+: 9
He was one of the most dominant offensive players of his generation. I think the reason that it's hard to think of him that way is that he played for so much of his career in Cleveland.
The knock, such as it is, that I am seeing in the Thome appreciation articles over the past few days is a variant of Fred App's comment: he's always been very good but was never considered elite, never the best at his position, never the MVP, etc. To which my response (after I would cite Isaac's comment above) would be "So what?" Longevity and consistency count, doing it without the whiff of taint (hehheh hehhehheh) counts, and what a bunch of writers marked down on their MVP (or Cy Young, to broaden this rant) ballots from year to year is absolutely irrelevant to me, unless and until every last one of them finally accepts that RBI and Wins are not the categories that should be determinative of those votes.
A modest clarification: I do not care about a player's longevity; I care only about the length of a player's peak and productive years. I neither add nor subtract points for a player's unproductive years. It's a moot point with Thome, since he's still productive. I also am indifferent to the whiff of taint, please don't take that out of context.
With Thome, though, there is a helpful mental exercise that I like to do. I ask myself: "what would this guy's odds be if he played his entire career in a Red Sox or Yankees cap?" For Thome, I think the easy answer is that he would be a mortal lock. If you imagine how Boston fans would feel about Thome's value if he had played for them and how people at large actually feel about Thome, particularly his years in Cleveland, and then you averaged those two things, I think you'd get an accurate estimate of his true value.
Not to overkill multi-post here, but also: who was a better 1B over Thome's time? He's behind Pujols, right there with Frank Thomas (who was more of a DH than Thome), better than McGriff and Mattingly, and nobody knows what to do with McGwire. So, okay, he was not the absolute best 1B over his tenure; arguably one of the top three. But that's like saying that Randy Johnson doesn't deserve to be in the HOF because during his tenure Maddux and Clemens were better.
And Bagwell played his first 1317 games (61% of career) with the Astrodome as his home park. I'm happy to adjust Helton below Thome both on games played and park factor, but Bagwell may be close to a tie.
<span>Bagwell, best year: 451/.750/1.201, 213 OPS+. Dominant. </span><span> </span> <span>Bagwell, second-best year: .451/.570/1.021. 178 OPS+. Dominant. Bagwell, best 10 years of OPS+ in seasons with >120 games played: 213, 178, 168, 162, 158, 152, 144, 139, 139, 135. Bagwell, seasons with at least 100 games played and 120+ OPS+: 13 (all but the last two). Bagwell, seasons with at least 500 PA and OBP > .400: 7, and two just below (.399, .397) Bagwell, seasons with top-10 league OBP: 8 Bagwell, seasons with top-10 league SLG: 6 Bagwell, seasons with top-10 OPS+: 7</span>
You have to adjust the OPS+ numbers because Bags played in the NL, so performance relative to league average is slightly inflated (even assuming equal talent), and if I were doing the "just below" stuff I would have had more to say about Thome, but yeah, I get what you're saying. It's not like you adjust 213 down to like 160. I admit I have a huge Bagwell blind spot because he played his entire career for a team I don't follow in a league I don't follow. He certainly passes the "what if he played his entire career in a Red Sox or Yankees cap" test.
Congrats, Thome! Wish you had done it as a Sox, but again, congrats on breaking it and being 5th on the all time list. Only 30 until you tie for 4th place!
ReplyDeleteAs a fellow Sox fan, I completely agree, even if he does look like Mr. Incredible. I hate the Twins, but I always root for him.
ReplyDeleteJim Thome made baseball relevant again in Philadelphia, became my older daughter's first ever favorite Phillie (she cried when I told her he'd been traded to the White Sox), and turned Citizens Bank Park into his personal plaything. And is there a nicer guy in MLB? He deserves every bit of the joy and pleasure of reaching 600 -- THE RIGHT WAY, ahem -- and every accolade that comes his way. Watching his postgame thanks to Charlie Manuel was incredibly touching.
ReplyDeleteUntil you agree it would be fair play to exhume every player in Cooperstown and test them and abide by those results, this is just stupid. "For one thing, and perhaps this is the main thing, such a statement [is] manifestly untrue." Stolzenburg v. Ford Motor Co., (8th Cir. 1997).
ReplyDeleteNice thing is we don't have to exhume anyone, and one of them has already confessed so that's out of the way.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think he should be in Cooperstown, and it's not a hard call. But I should point out that Thome played slightly less than a third of his career as a DH and has exactly the same career OPS as Edgar Martinez. Thome overall is a more deserving candidate than Edgar (much longer peak, ~7 runs/season more value at 1B than Edgar at DH), but if you are the kind of person who thinks that Edgar Martinez should not be in the HOF, you should act as if Thome's career ended in 2005 and ignore the last 160 or so home runs of his career. Or, better yet, you should just get over your irrational dislike of the DH and let Edgar into the HOF too.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused. Are we exhuming and testing to see if they played for the Twins?
ReplyDeleteIt also occurs to me that I was at the 2004 game here in Philly in which Jim hit HR #400, which landed about 50 yards away from where my friend and I were sitting in left center. It was a delicious kind of mayhem at CBP that night.
ReplyDeleteIncluding CBP's first streaker.
ReplyDeleteI like Jim Thome, I respect Jim Thome, and I think he has a strong case for the Hall of Fame -- but I'm not convinced it's a slam-dunk. For me, the Hall-of-Fame question is, "Was this player dominant at his position?" And as good as his statistics are, and as good as his peak seasons were, I don't think you can say that about Thome at any point in his career.
ReplyDeleteSomeone want to run a Keltner test? Because the Hall has room both for the Pedro Martinezes and the Mike Mussinas of the world.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can say [he was dominant] at any point in his career.
ReplyDeleteThome, best year: .445/.677/1.122, 197 OPS+. Dominant.
Thome, second-best year: .416/.624/1.040, 170. Dominant.
Thome, best 10 years of OPS+ in seasons with >120 games played: 197, 170, 167, 157, 156, 155, 154, 153, 150, 144.
Thome, seasons with at least 100 games played and 120+ OPS+: 14.
Thome, seasons with at least 500 PA and OBP > .400: 9
Thome, seasons with top-10 league OBP: 10
Thome, seasons with top-10 league SLG: 10
Thome, seasons with top-10 OPS+: 9
He was one of the most dominant offensive players of his generation. I think the reason that it's hard to think of him that way is that he played for so much of his career in Cleveland.
The knock, such as it is, that I am seeing in the Thome appreciation articles over the past few days is a variant of Fred App's comment: he's always been very good but was never considered elite, never the best at his position, never the MVP, etc. To which my response (after I would cite Isaac's comment above) would be "So what?" Longevity and consistency count, doing it without the whiff of taint (hehheh hehhehheh) counts, and what a bunch of writers marked down on their MVP (or Cy Young, to broaden this rant) ballots from year to year is absolutely irrelevant to me, unless and until every last one of them finally accepts that RBI and Wins are not the categories that should be determinative of those votes.
ReplyDeleteHa! Forgot about that - just remembered the general giddiness.
ReplyDeleteA modest clarification: I do not care about a player's longevity; I care only about the length of a player's peak and productive years. I neither add nor subtract points for a player's unproductive years. It's a moot point with Thome, since he's still productive. I also am indifferent to the whiff of taint, please don't take that out of context.
ReplyDeleteWith Thome, though, there is a helpful mental exercise that I like to do. I ask myself: "what would this guy's odds be if he played his entire career in a Red Sox or Yankees cap?" For Thome, I think the easy answer is that he would be a mortal lock. If you imagine how Boston fans would feel about Thome's value if he had played for them and how people at large actually feel about Thome, particularly his years in Cleveland, and then you averaged those two things, I think you'd get an accurate estimate of his true value.
Not to overkill multi-post here, but also: who was a better 1B over Thome's time? He's behind Pujols, right there with Frank Thomas (who was more of a DH than Thome), better than McGriff and Mattingly, and nobody knows what to do with McGwire. So, okay, he was not the absolute best 1B over his tenure; arguably one of the top three. But that's like saying that Randy Johnson doesn't deserve to be in the HOF because during his tenure Maddux and Clemens were better.
ReplyDeleteHelton played at Coors pre-humidor, so I stand by what I said.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bagwell played his first 1317 games (61% of career) with the Astrodome as his home park. I'm happy to adjust Helton below Thome both on games played and park factor, but Bagwell may be close to a tie.
ReplyDelete<span>Bagwell, best year: 451/.750/1.201, 213 OPS+. Dominant. </span><span> </span>
ReplyDelete<span>Bagwell, second-best year: .451/.570/1.021. 178 OPS+. Dominant.
Bagwell, best 10 years of OPS+ in seasons with >120 games played: 213, 178, 168, 162, 158, 152, 144, 139, 139, 135.
Bagwell, seasons with at least 100 games played and 120+ OPS+: 13 (all but the last two).
Bagwell, seasons with at least 500 PA and OBP > .400: 7, and two just below (.399, .397)
Bagwell, seasons with top-10 league OBP: 8
Bagwell, seasons with top-10 league SLG: 6
Bagwell, seasons with top-10 OPS+: 7</span>
Seriously. I anticipate this same argument in 2015 from people who think Frank Thomas isn't a first-ballot candidate,=.
ReplyDeleteThomas won consecutive MVP awards; that will matter a lot to the voters you're worried about.
ReplyDeleteYou have to adjust the OPS+ numbers because Bags played in the NL, so performance relative to league average is slightly inflated (even assuming equal talent), and if I were doing the "just below" stuff I would have had more to say about Thome, but yeah, I get what you're saying. It's not like you adjust 213 down to like 160. I admit I have a huge Bagwell blind spot because he played his entire career for a team I don't follow in a league I don't follow. He certainly passes the "what if he played his entire career in a Red Sox or Yankees cap" test.
ReplyDeleteAnd should have won a third, if it weren't for Giambi using PEDs to win one.
ReplyDelete