PDA

View Full Version : Frank Thomas



Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 12:26 PM
The one thing that baffles my mind is people thinking that Frank Thomas won't get into the Hall of Fame or shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. I would like to put this argument to bed. His numbers are too impressive during his era (comparable to Ted Williams, Joe Dimaggio, Lou Gehrig) and one could argue that he is the greatest right-handed hitter of all-time now that Manny Ramirez and ARod are under the cloud of steriod use. He is a two-time MVP and should be three-time but admitted steriod user Jason Giambi finished first in the 2000 AL MVP race over Thomas.

Thomas was also a pioneer against steroids in the 90's when he and the White Sox planned to protest against a random one time testing so that the league would be over the threshold in order to have mandatory testing of all players every year. He was also one of only two players to speak with George mitchell about sterod use in baseball during congress' investigation a few years ago. He has never been linked to steriods including Jose Conseco's book.

From 2002:


Frank Thomas wants baseball to start testing for steroids, saying he feels "cheated" if other players are using drugs.

"I don't know who's on and who's not on," the two-time MVP said Wednesday before the Chicago White Sox played the New York Yankees. "There is definitely more activity in the weight room nowadays. I was hoping that it was just old guys working hard in the weight room.

"I really think it's time for testing. It really is."


I don't know how he's not a first ballot HOF'er.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 12:36 PM
He's a DH.

Nobody that only plays one aspect of the game for the clear majority of his career should be in the HOF. No doubt many people will disagree with me on that.


And I'm sure he will get in. The Hall Of Fame is rapidly becoming The Hall Of Pretty Good Or Really Popular.

But I'd never vote for him.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 12:44 PM
He's a DH.

Nobody that only plays one aspect of the game for the clear majority of his career should be in the HOF. No doubt many people will disagree with me on that.


And I'm sure he will get in. The Hall Of Fame is rapidly becoming The Hall Of Pretty Good Or Really Popular.

But I'd never vote for him.

He played his first 9 years in the league at first base, and won 2 mvp's while playing first base.

slickg
06-11-2009, 12:44 PM
He's a DH.

Nobody that only plays one aspect of the game for the clear majority of his career should be in the HOF. No doubt many people will disagree with me on that.


And I'm sure he will get in. The Hall Of Fame is rapidly becoming The Hall Of Pretty Good Or Really Popular.

But I'd never vote for him.

For a good number of seasons he played 1st Base for a good portion of the season so he did play the field and wasn't only a DH. By all means he deserves to be in the HOF, he was outstanding for majority of his career!

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 12:47 PM
969 games played at First Base
1310 games played at DH
45 games played as a Pinch Hitter

rmonte4
06-11-2009, 12:48 PM
HOF - 1st ballot.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 12:49 PM
969 games played at First Base
1310 games played at DH
45 games played as a Pinch Hitter

Like I said....a clear majority of his games as a DH.

cubsfanfw
06-11-2009, 12:50 PM
I don't think he is a 1st ballot, but he will eventually get voted in.

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 12:52 PM
He'll probably get in, since he eclipsed 500 homers and won back-to-back MVPs in the '90s. Being a DH for more than half his career hurts his cause. On the other hand, his OPS+ is 156, tied for 19th all-time.

Definitely not a first-ballot, but eventually he will.

cubsfanfw
06-11-2009, 12:53 PM
Like I said....a clear majority of his games as a DH.

I also don't think someone who spent the majority of his career at DH should get in the HOF....but I still think he does get in eventually.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 12:54 PM
Like I said....a clear majority of his games as a DH.

i wouldn't constitue 57% as CLEAR majority but okay.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 12:55 PM
*Thomas is on a short list of players who have hit 500 home runs while maintaining a career .300 batting average (joining Hall-of-Famers: Babe Ruth, Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, and later joined by Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramírez).

*Thomas is also on a short list of players to hit 500 career home runs and accrue at least 1600 Bases on Balls. The others are: Babe Ruth, Mel Ott, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, and Barry Bonds.

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 12:56 PM
i wouldn't constitue 57% as CLEAR majority but okay.

50.1% is a majority.

57% is a clear majority.

Sockeye
06-11-2009, 12:56 PM
It is not entirely a DH's fault if that is where the manager puts him....The fact that the game has a DH eliminates the argument. It would be like saying American League pitchers can't get in the hall because all they do is pitch and don't play the other aspect of the game...hitting...

As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, it was a major point of contention at the mid-way point in Thomas' career that he didn't want to DH and wanted to play 1st base, because he felt being on the field helped him in the batter's box. Whether or not there is any validity to his point is mute.

No brainer - Frank Thomas = 1st ballot
Anyone who thinks he should not be in the hall is just being moronic.....

scottythegreat1
06-11-2009, 12:56 PM
The Big Hurt certainly should be considered after time passes. Getting over 500 home runs and not using steroids certainly qualifies in my book.

Max Power
06-11-2009, 12:58 PM
He's in. Should be first ballot

I hate the moronic DH rule as much as anybody, but I can't punish him for it. He didn't make the rule, he just played by it.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 12:59 PM
50.1% is a majority.

57% is a clear majority.

you say potatos, i say pot-AH-tos

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 01:04 PM
you say potatos, i say pot-AH-tos

Fair enough. I don't care enough to belabor the point.

But in response to those saying it "wasn't his fault" that he was a DH...it probably was. If he had been a better fielder than whoever the guy playing 1B was, the manager would've thrown him out there.

Regardless of whose "fault" it is, the fact remains that Thomas only played half the game, and that makes a significant impact on his value to a team, no matter how good a hitter he was (and he was great for a long time). Knowing the BBWA, I think he'll still get in, but that's not what I'm concerned with so much as whether or not he actually deserves it.

t327
06-11-2009, 01:04 PM
The Big Hurt should be a Hall of Famer. Guy could rake.

sep11ie
06-11-2009, 01:05 PM
Anybody who says he is not a 1st ballot has no baseball IQ. He is one of the top right handed hitters of ALL TIME! Should closers not get in because all they do is pitch 1 inning? He was paid and played to HIT, which he did better than almost anybody during his career.

Pinstripe pride
06-11-2009, 01:06 PM
he is definetly a hall of famer. His offensive numbers tell me he should be fiurst ballot, but his lack of playing in the field will hold him back I think. He'll get in, but I doubt 1st ballot, even though he should.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 01:06 PM
*Thomas is on a short list of players who have hit 500 home runs while maintaining a career .300 batting average (joining Hall-of-Famers: Babe Ruth, Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, and later joined by Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramírez).

*Thomas is also on a short list of players to hit 500 career home runs and accrue at least 1600 Bases on Balls. The others are: Babe Ruth, Mel Ott, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, and Barry Bonds.

I don't think anyone has ever said the boy couldn't hit.


But hiding his often-crippled *** in the DH spot when his body clearly wasn't up to the task of truly playing a full season, both at the plate and in the field, takes some of the shine off of those numbers in my eyes.

I don't look favorably on compilers. Those folks that just hang around beyond their natural end to tack on to their stats.

He had a great run from 93-97, but only managed to get 500+ AB's in less than half of his seasons following that run, and those were the years he was sheltered by the DH spot.


I have nothing but contempt for the DH spot, and without it, Thomas's name doesn't even get brought up in a HOF discussion.



Like I said, I'm sure he'll get in at some point. There's a lot of people in the HOF that I don't think should be there. Thomas will just be another one of those guys.

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 01:09 PM
Anybody who says he is not a 1st ballot has no baseball IQ. He is one of the top right handed hitters of ALL TIME! Should closers not get in because all they do is pitch 1 inning? He was paid and played to HIT, which he did better than almost anybody during his career.

There's an argument to made that no, closers shouldn't get in. Very few have been granted entry, and that's the way it should be. Only the very best at the position should be in the Hall.

No one is questioning Thomas's bat, but last I checked, fielding was kinda important to a team's success.

EDIT: YNH makes another good point in the post above- how long could Thomas have played if he hadn't had the DH spot to hide in? Probably not long enough to reach the so-called "automatic" 500 HR benchmark. He still would've been a great hitter for several years, but not long enough to even be in the discussion.

DaSox_05
06-11-2009, 01:10 PM
He's a DH.

Nobody that only plays one aspect of the game for the clear majority of his career should be in the HOF. No doubt many people will disagree with me on that.


And I'm sure he will get in. The Hall Of Fame is rapidly becoming The Hall Of Pretty Good Or Really Popular.

But I'd never vote for him.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

His career numbers are comparable to Mickey Mantle, Willie McCovey, Reggie Jackson, Jimmie Foxx per baseball reference who are all in the HOF.

His career stats are .301/.419/.555/.974 521 HR's 1704 RBI's

His OPS in the 90's
.983
1.006
.975
1.033
1.217
1.061
1.085
1.067
.861
.885
1.061-2000

Pinstripe pride
06-11-2009, 01:11 PM
There's an argument to made that no, closers shouldn't get in. Very few have been granted entry, and that's the way it should be. Only the very best at the position should be in the Hall.

No one is questioning Thomas's bat, but last I checked, fielding was kinda important to a team's success.

Thomas was part of teh very best at his position. DH is a position, so he should get in.

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 01:13 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

His career numbers are comparable to Mickey Mantle, Willie McCovey, Reggie Jackson, Jimmie Foxx per baseball reference who are all in the HOF.

His career stats are .301/.419/.555/.974 521 HR's 1704 RBI's

His OPS in the 90's
.983
1.006
.975
1.033
1.217
1.061
1.085
1.067
.861
.885
1.061-2000

Once again, he was a great hitter. So were the guys you mentioned. The difference is that they all played the field.


Thomas was part of the very best at his position. DH is a position, so he should get in.

It's different when you're talking about pitchers, though. I'm ambivalent on closers getting in in the first place, but if you're going to let them in, only take the Eckersleys and Gossages.

The DH is a dealbreaker. Fielding is a much more important component of the game relative to a player's value than people realize.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:14 PM
This is pretty entertaining. He could have easily played first base if it was up to him. He despised DH'ing for years till he got used to it. I don't understand how people neglect to see that he played first base for the first half of his career and then go on to say that he is only a DH. He's not Edgar Martinez.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:15 PM
I guess people don't care if he was good or bad in the field, just as long as he was in the field which makes little sense. You think Ted Williams is in the hall of fame because of his glove, or Reggie Jackson? And countless others?

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 01:19 PM
This is pretty entertaining. He could have easily played first base if it was up to him. He despised DH'ing for years till he got used to it. I don't understand how people neglect to see that he played first base for the first half of his career and then go on to say that he is only a DH. He's not Edgar Martinez.

Who's neglecting to see it?

And I think you meant that he played 1B for the first less-than-half of his career.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:23 PM
Who's neglecting to see it?

And I think you meant that he played 1B for the first less-than-half of his career.

is there a difference between Edgar Martinez and Frank Thomas as far as position?

cubsfanfw
06-11-2009, 01:24 PM
I think the DH most definitly extended Frank's career...but the dude could rake. Lets say the DH never existed...I'm sure Frank would have been able to keep a job playing first base somewhere if not for the Sox. The question is...for how long and does he put up those same numbers as a position player. If he did, then there is no question that he is a first ballot HOFer. We all saw how fast his body broke down after he got hurt in the 05 season, he was never the same after that. I wonder how much quicker his body breaks down if he was an everyday position player his entire career. IMO these are things we have to take into consideration before we start putting him in the same catagory as Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Fox and Ott.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:25 PM
There are plenty of 1st ballot hall of famers that did only one thing well.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 01:25 PM
is there a difference between Edgar Martinez and Frank Thomas as far as position?

Of course there is.

Thomas started as a 1B. Edgar started as a 3B.

But both ended up as DH's.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:27 PM
I think the DH most definitly extended Frank's career...but the dude could rake. Lets say the DH never existed...I'm sure Frank would have been able to keep a job playing first base somewhere if not for the Sox. The question is...for how long and does he put up those same numbers as a position player. If he did, then there is no question that he is a first ballot HOFer. We all saw how fast his body broke down after he got hurt in the 05 season, he was never the same after that. I wonder how much quicker his body breaks down if he was an everyday position player his entire career. IMO these are things we have to take into consideration before we start putting him in the same catagory as Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Fox and Ott.

I agree, but I believe he was a first ballot hall of famer after the 2005 season anyways.

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 01:27 PM
This is pretty entertaining. He could have easily played first base if it was up to him. He despised DH'ing for years till he got used to it. I don't understand how people neglect to see that he played first base for the first half of his career and then go on to say that he is only a DH. He's not Edgar Martinez.

I guess people don't care if he was good or bad in the field, just as long as he was in the field which makes little sense. You think Ted Williams is in the hall of fame because of his glove, or Reggie Jackson? And countless others?

These are valid points, though no one said he was only a DH. It's simply that he spent the last half of his career as a DH...and while it's impossible to say definitively how many years the DH added to his career, we can say with confidence that he prolonged it.

For the sake of argument, let's look at Albert Belle, another great hitter from that era. Not quite as dominant as Thomas, but his OPS+ of 143 is tied with Harmon Killebrew and Eddie Matthews, who are both Hall of Famers. Do you know anyone who would argue the case for Belle to get in? No, because he didn't play long enough. It's not a perfect analogy because Belle couldn't even DH at the end of his career due to injury, but it does enough to illustrate my point- take a couple of years off Thomas's career and the case for him isn't as strong.

From what I can gather on Baseball Reference (I really wish we had UZR data for pre-2002 somewhere), Thomas was a pretty bad first baseman, checking in at -62.5 FRAA. So that's a definite strike against him. This does lend some credence to your point, though; Thomas would have been a hindrance in the field.

But that's precisely why he doesn't belong in the Hall. The Hall should be reserved for the best of the best, the guys who could do it all. Thomas could not, and did not, field. Therefore, there is an entirely valid argument against his candidacy.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 01:27 PM
There are plenty of 1st ballot hall of famers that did only one thing well.

Yes. But at least they did the other things too, even if they didn't do those other things at a HOF-level.

Thomas did one thing well, and for most of his career, it was the only thing he did. That has to count against him, it's as simple as that.

cubsfanfw
06-11-2009, 01:27 PM
I guess people don't care if he was good or bad in the field, just as long as he was in the field which makes little sense. You think Ted Williams is in the hall of fame because of his glove, or Reggie Jackson? And countless others?

Its not about being a good position player....its about weather or not he could take the pounding of any everyday player instead of sitting on the bench all game except when he hits.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:29 PM
Of course there is.

Thomas started as a 1B. Edgar started as a 3B.

But both ended up as DH's.

Edgar Martinez

552 games played at 3rd
1403 game played at DH

To me, thats a clear majority.

cubsfanfw
06-11-2009, 01:34 PM
I agree, but I believe he was a first ballot hall of famer after the 2005 season anyways.

But my question is...do you think he would have lasted that long and put up those same numbers if he was a career 1st baseman??

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:36 PM
Its not about being a good position player....its about weather or not he could take the pounding of any everyday player instead of sitting on the bench all game except when he hits.

then we should discount all first baseman because what kind of pounding do those guys get?

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:37 PM
But my question is...do you think he would have lasted that long and put up those same numbers if he was a career 1st baseman??

Yes, i don't think playing first base is a career-ender for old guys, especially for a guy that played tight end at Alburn.

cubsfanfw
06-11-2009, 01:38 PM
then we should discount all first baseman because what kind of pounding do those guys get?

at least they are playing a position instead of sitting on the bench for innings at a time.

Ron!n
06-11-2009, 01:39 PM
Another thing does the fact that he moaned about steroids mean he didnt take them?

Hes definitely a great hitter but how come his name is taken out of the steroid cloud just because he "complained" a bit.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:41 PM
at least they are playing a position instead of sitting on the bench for innings at a time.

okay, and i'm saying Thomas could have done that if he had to. And i am sure he would have played less games, but would still be a first ballot hall of famer.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 01:42 PM
Another thing does the fact that he moaned about steroids mean he didnt take them?

Hes definitely a great hitter but how come his name is taken out of the steroid cloud just because he "complained" a bit.

He actively boycotted testing in the 90's in order to get mandatory testing. I think that's a little more than complaining, and would be idiotic if was actually taking steriods.

bosox3431
06-11-2009, 02:05 PM
Yes. But at least they did the other things too, even if they didn't do those other things at a HOF-level.

Thomas did one thing well, and for most of his career, it was the only thing he did. That has to count against him, it's as simple as that.

43 percent is a large part of a career. Its not like it's split 70/30. Sure he played the mojority of his career as DH, but its not a significant amount compared to guys like Edagr Martinez or David Ortiz. He played 340 mores at DH then first, a little over two seasons, its not that significant he should be excluded

cubsfanfw
06-11-2009, 02:10 PM
okay, and i'm saying Thomas could have done that if he had to. And i am sure he would have played less games, but would still be a first ballot hall of famer.

I'm sure he could have too....but the questions lingers because he didn't.

IndiansFan337
06-11-2009, 02:10 PM
If reports or admissions of him using PED's don't come out, then he will get in on his first ballot. Even though he was pretty much an exclusive DH for the final decade of his career.

MooseWithFleas
06-11-2009, 02:12 PM
Big Hurt is 1st ballot IMO.

500 homers and .300 AVG and an OBP of .419. No doubt for me

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 02:38 PM
43 percent is a large part of a career. Its not like it's split 70/30. Sure he played the mojority of his career as DH, but its not a significant amount compared to guys like Edagr Martinez or David Ortiz. He played 340 mores at DH then first, a little over two seasons, its not that significant he should be excluded

agreed.

kbaxter34
06-11-2009, 02:40 PM
Juan Gonzalez (steroids) and Dale Murphy (career .260 avg) are the only 2 time MVP winners not in the HOF and Big Hurts numbers are far better then both of them. He is a HOFer easy. Only 9 players have ever won the MVP 3 times and all of them are in the HOF or will be. Thomas should have 3 MVPs if not for Giambi.

After his father died and his triceps tear in 2001 his numbers dipped but that was after 11 seasons that already put him in the HOF discussion the bulk of which were played at 1st base. He rebounded and finished 4th in MVP voting in 2005.

78% of Paul Molitor's career was spent as a DH and Thomas has better numbers then Molitor. Molitor never won a MVP. He was a first ballot HOFer with 85.2% of the vote.

Frank is in, that simple.

abe_froman
06-11-2009, 02:41 PM
yeah,hell get in,most likely first try

nl fans will bemoan the dh,but it wont stop anything

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 02:45 PM
I'm not making a case against Thomas based on who's in the Hall of Fame. I'm talking hypothetically here about whether or not he deserves induction to the Hall as it ought to be. Obviously, the Hall isn't up to these ideal standards.

Based on his production relative to other Hall of Famers, does Thomas deserve to get in? Yes. Based purely on his offensive prowess, does he deserve to get in? Of course. But if I were running the Hall of Fame, he would fall short, and so would every other player who spent the majority of his career as a DH.

That's all I'm saying. I conceded in my first post that he's got the necessary credentials for induction as they currently stand. Realistically, he will lose some votes based on having been a DH for so long. Whether it is enough to keep him out on the first try remains to be seen. I think it's close either way.

VenezuelanMet
06-11-2009, 02:50 PM
I hate the DH as much as anyone but for someone who was as good as The Big Hurt with the bat that shouldn't be a big deal overall. The guy was a beast, as a RH hitter I think he's as good as Manny in his prime.

sep11ie
06-11-2009, 02:52 PM
There's an argument to made that no, closers shouldn't get in. Very few have been granted entry, and that's the way it should be. Only the very best at the position should be in the Hall.

No one is questioning Thomas's bat, but last I checked, fielding was kinda important to a team's success.

EDIT: YNH makes another good point in the post above- how long could Thomas have played if he hadn't had the DH spot to hide in? Probably not long enough to reach the so-called "automatic" 500 HR benchmark. He still would've been a great hitter for several years, but not long enough to even be in the discussion.

Ok, AL starting pitchers, all they do is pitch. Why should they make it if they don't have to hit?

Method28
06-11-2009, 02:57 PM
He actively boycotted testing in the 90's in order to get mandatory testing. I think that's a little more than complaining, and would be idiotic if was actually taking steriods.

Actually it would be a great cover up. I dont get why more players dont aggressively attack steroids. If I was a big time ball player and didnt do steroids...id be at the front of the line to try to stop it. At least do what Ibanez did and say something back...sue or something geez!

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 02:57 PM
78% of Paul Molitor's career was spent as a DH and Thomas has better numbers then Molitor. Molitor never won a MVP. He was a first ballot HOFer with 85.2% of the vote.

Great point.

Method28
06-11-2009, 02:59 PM
Ok, AL starting pitchers, all they do is pitch. Why should they make it if they don't have to hit?

hmmmm...a smart ***** remark but an interesting one....decent point there

atl_braves_fan
06-11-2009, 03:00 PM
Saying that a DH shouldn't be in because he only contributed to the offense is like saying an AL pitcher shouldn't be because he only contributed to the defense. It makes no sense.

If a player is a DH and doesn't play the field, I think that means the standards have to be higher for the offense. Thus, Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz - No. Jim Thome and Frank Thomas - Yes

FarmioFan1
06-11-2009, 03:04 PM
Ok, AL starting pitchers, all they do is pitch. Why should they make it if they don't have to hit?

No, because they don't have to stand up at the plate once every 3 innings or so and waive a bat around for a few pitches.

Edit: It's not about quality. It's about the fact that they actually have the ability to stand in a batters box and hold a bat.

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 03:04 PM
Ok, AL starting pitchers, all they do is pitch. Why should they make it if they don't have to hit?

There's no need to be deliberately disingenuous. This is completely irrelevant, and you know it. Nobody cares how well a pitcher can hit. Batters don't pitch, maybe we should keep them out of the Hall, too. :rolleyes:

misterd
06-11-2009, 03:31 PM
Honestly, even without the DH I think teams would have bitten the bullet and put him at first for the offense. It's not like we haven't see it done before.

As for the Thomas quote... well, I don't think he did steroids, but the quote means nothing. Did you never read Hamlet? "The lady doth protest too much" could very well apply here. Well, not the lady part.

misterd
06-11-2009, 03:35 PM
There's no need to be deliberately disingenuous. This is completely irrelevant, and you know it. Nobody cares how well a pitcher can hit. Batters don't pitch, maybe we should keep them out of the Hall, too. :rolleyes:

How many first basemen made it into the hall on their defensive contributions? Where are the legends about Gherig's range, or Jimmie Foxx's ability to charge a bunt?

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 03:54 PM
How many first basemen made it into the hall on their defensive contributions? Where are the legends about Gherig's range, or Jimmie Foxx's ability to charge a bunt?

What's your point, exactly? It's apples and oranges. Pitchers are there to pitch, not to hit well. Position players are supposed to hit and field. DHs only play half the game. That's all there is to it.

I don't know good Gehrig was with the glove. It's also true that first base is the least important position defensively. But the fact remains that Thomas prolonged his career by way of the DH and didn't contribute at all to the team's fielding. To me, DHs don't deserve to be in the Hall, because they only do one thing well. If you feel differently, whatever.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 03:58 PM
78% of Paul Molitor's career was spent as a DH and Thomas has better numbers then Molitor. Molitor never won a MVP. He was a first ballot HOFer with 85.2% of the vote.

I wouldn't have voted for Molitor either.

And much like with Thomas, I'm probably pretty much alone on that view as well.

abe_froman
06-11-2009, 04:02 PM
I wouldn't have voted for Molitor either.

And much like with Thomas, I'm probably pretty much alone on that view as well.

your not alone,if you read the thread you'd know.but he'll still go in

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 04:10 PM
your not alone,if you read the thread you'd know.but he'll still go in

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

If you read the thread, you'd know I've been here since the beginning. I know where everyone here stands on Thomas, which is why I said "pretty much" alone, not "completely ****ing" alone.

sep11ie
06-11-2009, 04:13 PM
There's no need to be deliberately disingenuous. This is completely irrelevant, and you know it. Nobody cares how well a pitcher can hit. Batters don't pitch, maybe we should keep them out of the Hall, too. :rolleyes:

Well played sir, well played. You know what I'm saying though. If your dominate your era at what you do, you deserve to be in. Kinda like kickers/punters/goalies/coaches/managers. They should be awarded for what they do.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 04:15 PM
To me, DHs don't deserve to be in the Hall, because they only do one thing well. If you feel differently, whatever.

the "doing one thing well" argument doesn't convince me he shouldn't be in the hall of fame.

VenezuelanMet
06-11-2009, 04:20 PM
What's your point, exactly? It's apples and oranges. Pitchers are there to pitch, not to hit well. Position players are supposed to hit and field. DHs only play half the game. That's all there is to it.

I don't know good Gehrig was with the glove. It's also true that first base is the least important position defensively. But the fact remains that Thomas prolonged his career by way of the DH and didn't contribute at all to the team's fielding. To me, DHs don't deserve to be in the Hall, because they only do one thing well. If you feel differently, whatever.

I agree with you in general, but i think we're underrating Thomas here, he was a special hitter. When you are THAT good with the bat, the positional value shouldn't have much weight.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 04:24 PM
I agree with you in general, but i think we're underrating Thomas here, he was a special hitter. When you are THAT good with the bat, the positional value shouldn't have much weight.

My contempt for the DH knows no bounds.

My contempt for the continued degradation of the HOF into the HOPGOVP also knows no bounds.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 04:30 PM
Who was a better hitter in the 90's than Thomas not named Ken Griffey Jr?

Bears(*'-')4EVA
06-11-2009, 04:34 PM
There are tons of players already in the HoF now that were just good at one aspect of the game or mediocre at best on the other side. This is just absolutely ridiculous that this argument is even being made. People who like to argue just for the sake of arguing really make me sick sometimes because they are so stubborn to see what is clear as day.

Granted people may have their opinion, which is totally fine, but when you start using points that have no substance, just to argue. Then your just pretty arrogant in your way of thinking that you tend to become blind to facts and common sense.

I could easily come up with a specific list of all the players inducted into the HoF to make my case, but because this isn't even a real argument... I'd rather not waste my time.


Oh.. and to the person who mentioned not using people already in the HoF to compare... How else then do you have a measuring stick in which to gauge that players chances to make it to the Hall of Fame?

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 04:39 PM
There are tons of players already in the HoF now that were just good at one aspect of the game or mediocre at best on the other side. This is just absolutely ridiculous that this argument is even being made. People who like to argue just for the sake of arguing really make me sick sometimes because they are so stubborn to see what is clear as day.

Granted people may have their opinion, which is totally fine, but when you start using points that have no substance, just to argue. Then your just pretty arrogant in your way of thinking that you tend to become blind to facts and common sense.

I could easily come up with a specific list of all the players inducted into the HoF to make my case, but because this isn't even a real argument... I'd rather not waste my time.

apparently only 5-tool players should be considered Hall of Famers. :rolleyes:

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 04:42 PM
Who was a better hitter in the 90's than Thomas not named Ken Griffey Jr?

During the 90's, Thomas spent 1/3rd of his games at DH and raked like a madman.

During that same time, Piazza was playing the most demanding position on the field every****ingday, and put up very comparable numbers. AVG and SLG are nearly identical, with Thomas getting the upperhand in OBP.




And I'll say this again.....please read and remember it.

My beef is not with his bat.

Frank Thomas could hit. He was very very very very damn good at hitting. I don't see where anybody has disputed that.

DaSox_05
06-11-2009, 04:42 PM
What's your point, exactly? It's apples and oranges. Pitchers are there to pitch, not to hit well. Position players are supposed to hit and field. DHs only play half the game. That's all there is to it.

I don't know good Gehrig was with the glove. It's also true that first base is the least important position defensively. But the fact remains that Thomas prolonged his career by way of the DH and didn't contribute at all to the team's fielding. To me, DHs don't deserve to be in the Hall, because they only do one thing well. If you feel differently, whatever.

Ok so what happens when a NL Pitcher is a great starting pitcher lets say has all the pitching stats to be in the Hall ie. 300 wins 125 loses 3.50 Era 1.05 WHIP, but only got 1 hit in his career at the plate he was 1 for 1000. Would he be eligible for the Hall since he only did one thing well which was pitch?

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 04:42 PM
There are tons of players already in the HoF now that were just good at one aspect of the game or mediocre at best on the other side. This is just absolutely ridiculous that this argument is even being made. People who like to argue just for the sake of arguing really make me sick sometimes because they are so stubborn to see what is clear as day.

Granted people may have their opinion, which is totally fine, but when you start using points that have no substance, just to argue. Then your just pretty arrogant in your way of thinking that you tend to become blind to facts and common sense.

I could easily come up with a specific list of all the players inducted into the HoF to make my case, but because this isn't even a real argument... I'd rather not waste my time.

Why are you upset? This thread is actually one of the more enjoyable ones lately, both to read and to post in. I don't agree with the people who believe that Thomas deserves to be in the Hall, but that's because I have an ideal vision of the Hall that doesn't include DHs. I completely understand where they're coming from, and I have said several times that Thomas was an excellent hitter who, if he had not spent more than half his career DHing, would be a first-ballot guy to me.

I like how this thread has remained civil, its arguments mostly well-reasoned, and it's inspired questions that have led to new discussions: Do designated hitters deserve to be in the Hall? How long did Thomas prolong his career by DHing, and how should that factor into our evaluation of his career? Will he, in reality, get in on the first ballot? Do milestones like 500 home runs or 3,000 hits carry undeserved weight and if so, how much weight should they actually carry in deciding a player's candidacy?

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 04:44 PM
Ok so what happens when a NL Pitcher is a great starting pitcher lets say has all the pitching stats to be in the Hall ie. 300 wins 125 loses 3.50 Era 1.05 WHIP, but only got 1 hit in his career at the plate he was 1 for 1000. Would he be eligible for the Hall since he only did one thing well which was pitch?

I already addressed this fallacy. It's apples and oranges, again. Pitchers are not expected to hit well. Position players are expected to both hit and field. When they don't do one of those well, or at all (like the DH), I personally don't find them Hall-worthy.

Again, just because batters don't pitch doesn't mean we should keep them out of the Hall. You can't compare the two entities.

DaSox_05
06-11-2009, 04:47 PM
There are tons of players already in the HoF now that were just good at one aspect of the game or mediocre at best on the other side. This is just absolutely ridiculous that this argument is even being made. People who like to argue just for the sake of arguing really make me sick sometimes because they are so stubborn to see what is clear as day.

Granted people may have their opinion, which is totally fine, but when you start using points that have no substance, just to argue. Then your just pretty arrogant in your way of thinking that you tend to become blind to facts and common sense.

I could easily come up with a specific list of all the players inducted into the HoF to make my case, but because this isn't even a real argument... I'd rather not waste my time.


Oh.. and to the person who mentioned not using people already in the HoF to compare... How else then do you have a measuring stick in which to gauge that players chances to make it to the Hall of Fame?

:clap:


Juan Gonzalez (steroids) and Dale Murphy(career .260 avg) are the only 2 time MVP winners not in the HOF and Big Hurts numbers are far better then both of them. He is a HOFer easy. Only 9 players have ever won the MVP 3 times and all of them are in the HOF or will be. Thomas should have 3 MVPs if not for Giambi.

After his father died and his triceps tear in 2001 his numbers dipped but that was after 11 seasons that already put him in the HOF discussion the bulk of which were played at 1st base. He rebounded and finished 4th in MVP voting in 2005.

78% of Paul Molitor's career was spent as a DH and Thomas has better numbers then Molitor. Molitor never won a MVP. He was a first ballot HOFer with 85.2% of the vote.

Frank is in, that simple.

Post in the White Sox forum this is an excellent post.

Bears(*'-')4EVA
06-11-2009, 04:47 PM
apparently only 5-tool players should be considered Hall of Famers. :rolleyes:

lol. . . . (>_<)

While I do agree that the standard in which to make it into the HOF has disparity between many players. I think it's fair to say that Frank Thomas deserves to be in the HOF.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 04:50 PM
During the 90's, Thomas spent 1/3rd of his games at DH and raked like a madman.

During that same time, Piazza was playing the most demanding position on the field every****ingday, and put up very comparable numbers. AVG and SLG are nearly identical, with Thomas getting the upperhand in OBP.




And I'll say this again.....please read and remember it.

My beef is not with his bat.

Frank Thomas could hit. He was very very very very damn good at hitting. I don't see where anybody has disputed that.

actually, Thomas had a clear majority of at-bats at first during the 90's. ;)

Telios9
06-11-2009, 04:52 PM
Thomas=hall of fame

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 04:52 PM
actually, Thomas had a clear majority of at-bats at first during the 90's. ;)

Like I said....he spent 1/3rd of his games at DH.

DaSox_05
06-11-2009, 04:52 PM
I already addressed this fallacy. It's apples and oranges, again. Pitchers are not expected to hit well. Position players are expected to both hit and field. When they don't do one of those well, or at all (like the DH), I personally don't find them Hall-worthy.

Again, just because batters don't pitch doesn't mean we should keep them out of the Hall. You can't compare the two entities.

See the problem I have with the NL fans is that if the NL had the DH they would love it but since its not in the NL the fans look down on it. NL fans use the excuse its not real baseball or im a purist which is B.S. because once again if the NL had you would love it plain and simple.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 04:54 PM
I already addressed this fallacy. It's apples and oranges, again. Pitchers are not expected to hit well. Position players are expected to both hit and field. When they don't do one of those well, or at all (like the DH), I personally don't find them Hall-worthy.

Again, just because batters don't pitch doesn't mean we should keep them out of the Hall. You can't compare the two entities.

I think the better question is, what if Bob Gibson was an awful fielding pitcher, and in the last 5-6 years of his career, he would just get out of the way if a ball if it was hit to him. Would he still be in the Hall of Fame?

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 04:54 PM
See the problem I have with the NL fans is that if the NL had the DH they would love it but since its not in the NL the fans look down on it. NL fans use the excuse its not real baseball or im a purist which is B.S. because one again if the NL had you would love it plain and simple.

See the problem I have with AL fans is that they think the NL is missing something special or worthwhile, and look at themselves as superior because they use the DH.

We're not missing anything, and you aren't superior.

pf289
06-11-2009, 04:55 PM
If Edgar Martinez gets in Frank Thomas better be a 1st balloter.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 04:57 PM
If Edgar Martinez gets in Frank Thomas better be a 1st balloter.

If Edgar Martinez gets in, I may be forced to renounce baseball and become a hockey fan or something. Maybe cricket.


At that point, they should just change the name of the HOF to The Hall Of Some Of The People That Used To Play Baseball.

DaSox_05
06-11-2009, 04:58 PM
See the problem I have with AL fans is that they think the NL is missing something special or worthwhile, and look at themselves as superior because they use the DH.

We're not missing anything, and you aren't superior.

Never ever in my post did I say anything about the AL fans being superior or that the NL is missing something special or worthwhile. All I simply said is that if the NL had the DH you wouldnt have a problem with it.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Never ever in my post did I say anything about the AL fans being superior or that the NL is missing something special or worthwhile. All I simply said is that if the NL had the DH you wouldnt have a problem with it.

Actually, you said all of those things.

Contained in the false assumption that I would love the DH if the NL used it is that idea that because the NL doesn't use the DH, the NL is missing something awesome that they would love if they had.

And, following that logic.....because the NL doesn't have that awesome thing and the AL does, the AL must be superior.



But to cut right to the nutmeat of it......

Yes, I would still have a problem with the DH if the NL used it.

Bears(*'-')4EVA
06-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Why are you upset? This thread is actually one of the more enjoyable ones lately, both to read and to post in. I don't agree with the people who believe that Thomas deserves to be in the Hall, but that's because I have an ideal vision of the Hall that doesn't include DHs. I completely understand where they're coming from, and I have said several times that Thomas was an excellent hitter who, if he had not spent more than half his career DHing, would be a first-ballot guy to me.

I like how this thread has remained civil, its arguments mostly well-reasoned, and it's inspired questions that have led to new discussions: Do designated hitters deserve to be in the Hall? How long did Thomas prolong his career by DHing, and how should that factor into our evaluation of his career? Will he, in reality, get in on the first ballot? Do milestones like 500 home runs or 3,000 hits carry undeserved weight and if so, how much weight should they actually carry in deciding a player's candidacy?

I like your perspective and through my rant, I failed to see your points of view.
You do raise some valid questions of what it really takes to become a Hall of Famer. The way you come off is alot easier to communicate the difference in opinion we have than with others who seem a bit snippy when people don't see it their way.

I will add that while a being a DH can significantly make it harder to be inducted into the HOF. I also believe that if you were amongst the best to play at any given position (DH too) then you should be in the HOF, regardless.
Frank Thomas's stats over his career should give the voter a good idea of the things he accomplished and where he stands among the greats to play this game.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 05:01 PM
did anybody ever think that DH'ing could be a skill that not all players could be good at?

pf289
06-11-2009, 05:03 PM
Excuse my ignorance but they all hit so I dont think DHers should be praised.

Gibby
06-11-2009, 05:04 PM
i don't think being a DH will stop him from getting the HOF. It didnt stop Paul Molitor.

The argument that he only did one thing thing. I think if he did that one thing well, he should get in. We have seen good defensive players but who weren't great offensively get in. Ozzie Smith got in the hall of fame for his defensive capabilities.

There were all alot of hall of famers who were good hitters but poor defensively. Those players have been liability defensively and Thomas was not a liability. Those players could have cost a few runs on the field. The argument against him wasn't he didnt help the team on the field but that he didnt play a position for the sake of playing a position.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 05:05 PM
did anybody ever think that DH'ing could be a skill that not all players could be good at?

Of course.

Crappy hitters are very likely to be crappy DH's. Good hitters are likely to be good DH's. Don't see much of a point there.


Unless you are implying that playing only 15 minutes of a 3 hour ballgame is somehow more difficult than playing all 3 hours of a 3 hour ballgame.

pf289
06-11-2009, 05:06 PM
i don't think being a DH will stop him from getting the HOF. It didnt stop Paul Molitor.

The argument that he only did one thing thing. I think if he did that one thing well, he should get in. We have seen good defensive players but who weren't great offensively get in. Ozzie Smith got in the hall of fame for his defensive capabilities.

There were all alot of hall of famers who were good hitters but poor defensively. Those players have been liability defensively and Thomas was not a liability. Those players could have cost a few runs on the field. The argument against him wasn't he didnt help the team on the field but that he didnt play a position for the sake of playing a position.

Yes, Smith did get in but he was the absolute best fielder ever IMO an at least he still hit. Maybe not anything special but he did it. Edgar is the best DH ever which is awesome but he didnt field, he just didnt. So why should playing only 1 side of the game be rewarded?

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 05:07 PM
i don't think being a DH will stop him from getting the HOF. It didnt stop Paul Molitor.

The argument that he only did one thing thing. I think if he did that one thing well, he should get in. We have seen good defensive players but who weren't great offensively get in. Ozzie Smith got in the hall of fame for his defensive capabilities.

There were all alot of hall of famers who were good hitters but poor defensively. Those players have been liability defensively and Thomas was not a liability. Those players could have cost a few runs on the field. The argument against him wasn't he didnt help the team on the field but that he didnt play a position for the sake of playing a position.

Don't even get me started on that backflippin' nothing.

He's a prime example of the HOF being a popularity contest.

pf289
06-11-2009, 05:11 PM
But he was the best fielder ever. An also hit, average at best but still did it. Martinez didnt field at all.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 05:11 PM
Of course.

Crappy hitters are very likely to be crappy DH's. Good hitters are likely to be good DH's. Don't see much of a point there.


Unless you are implying that playing only 15 minutes of a 3 hour ballgame is somehow more difficult than playing all 3 hours of a 3 hour ballgame.

I'm thinking along the lines of being a pinch hitter. Not everybody is good at pinch hitting eventhough they may be a good hitter.

ccspence8
06-11-2009, 05:12 PM
This DH thing is really getting out of hand. Its the reason why Ortiz got cheated out of 2 MVP's

The Big Hurt is one of the most dominant hitters in the 90's. How is he not a HOF? You've got to be kidding me if you think he was only a pretty good player, give me a break. There are a bunch of old time players in the HOF who don't even have good numbers.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 05:12 PM
Don't even get me started on that backflippin' nothing.

He's a prime example of the HOF being a popularity contest.

they way you think, there would be 5 or 6 inductions every decade.

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 05:16 PM
See the problem I have with the NL fans is that if the NL had the DH they would love it but since its not in the NL the fans look down on it. NL fans use the excuse its not real baseball or im a purist which is B.S. because once again if the NL had you would love it plain and simple.

I don't hate the DH as an NL fan. I dislike the DH as a baseball fan, and it's not because I'm a purist. Purists don't like sabermetrics; I do. I simply object to the idea of one player getting to pick and choose what he does.

I will say, though, that the DH makes managing a lot easier because there's little in-game strategy involved. A half-blind chimp could manage an AL team if all he had to do was deal with strategy during the game.

pf289
06-11-2009, 05:16 PM
This DH thing is really getting out of hand. Its the reason why Ortiz got cheated out of 2 MVP's

The Big Hurt is one of the most dominant hitters in the 90's. How is he not a HOF? You've got to be kidding me if you think he was only a pretty good player, give me a break. There are a bunch of old time players in the HOF who don't even have good numbers.

Thomas should an will get in because he still was a fielder for 9 years an won 2 MVPs during that. Ortiz is a piece of **** an only good for 3-4 years. He in no way deserves HOF talk even if he was a field also.

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 05:21 PM
they way you think, there would be 5 or 6 inductions every decade.

Sounds about right. Maybe 10 if it's a strong decade.

It's the Hall Of Fame. Legendary players. Titans of the game.

Not every pretty good hitter, better-than-average pitcher, or fan favorite that's ever put on a jersey.

Southsideheat
06-11-2009, 05:27 PM
Sounds about right. Maybe 10 if it's a strong decade.

It's the Hall Of Fame. Legendary players. Titans of the game.

Not every pretty good hitter, better-than-average pitcher, or fan favorite that's ever put on a jersey.

Thomas is a legendary player though, he had his own video game for christ's sake!

pf289
06-11-2009, 05:28 PM
Sounds about right. Maybe 10 if it's a strong decade.

It's the Hall Of Fame. Legendary players. Titans of the game.

Not every pretty good hitter, better-than-average pitcher, or fan favorite that's ever put on a jersey.


So do you think Ripken was deserving, Dave Winfield, Goose, Eddie Murray?

Your Name Here
06-11-2009, 06:09 PM
So do you think Ripken was deserving, Dave Winfield, Goose, Eddie Murray?

Ripken - No. Among the most overrated players in history. My opinion of his streak is about as low as it could possibly be.

Goose - No. I like the guy, but no.

Winfield/Murray - Damn near the same guy. I'd probably leave them both out, but if I had to pick one of them, I'd go with Murray.

misterd
06-11-2009, 09:25 PM
What's your point, exactly? It's apples and oranges. Pitchers are there to pitch, not to hit well. Position players are supposed to hit and field. DHs only play half the game. That's all there is to it.

I don't know good Gehrig was with the glove. It's also true that first base is the least important position defensively. But the fact remains that Thomas prolonged his career by way of the DH and didn't contribute at all to the team's fielding. To me, DHs don't deserve to be in the Hall, because they only do one thing well. If you feel differently, whatever.

My point is that no one cares if Gehrig was good with the glove. You are trying to claim a DH can only do "one thing" well, but admit you have no idea if the same is true for Gerhig. Just because he played at first, doesn't mean he did it well (and the same is true of many first basemen). He could have been an atrocious fielder for all you know. It is not a factor that enters into the HoF candidacy of most 1st basemen, and due to his bat, Thomas would have almost certainly played 1st base most of his career, because 1st base defense is given a low priority.

Hell, I don't know if there is a defensive position more important than catcher, but Piazza's going to get in, even though he never really did that well either.

misterd
06-11-2009, 09:27 PM
Sounds about right. Maybe 10 if it's a strong decade.

It's the Hall Of Fame. Legendary players. Titans of the game.

Not every pretty good hitter, better-than-average pitcher, or fan favorite that's ever put on a jersey.

Hall of Fame, ie Hall of those who are Famous. Not Hall of the Legends or Hall of the Titans.

JAYZFAN9
06-11-2009, 10:04 PM
hes a first ballot boys

Gibby
06-11-2009, 10:17 PM
Ripken - No. Among the most overrated players in history. My opinion of his streak is about as low as it could possibly be.

Goose - No. I like the guy, but no.

Winfield/Murray - Damn near the same guy. I'd probably leave them both out, but if I had to pick one of them, I'd go with Murray.

Your standards are really high, i dont know what else i can say. I have know problem with how many players are elcted each year. By the standards of the hall of fame, Frank Thomas will get in. You have your own opinion as to how the hall of fame should be, and thats okay but i don't think they will be adopting your standards any time soon.

kbaxter34
06-11-2009, 10:24 PM
Ripken - No. Among the most overrated players in history. My opinion of his streak is about as low as it could possibly be.

Goose - No. I like the guy, but no.

Winfield/Murray - Damn near the same guy. I'd probably leave them both out, but if I had to pick one of them, I'd go with Murray.

Ripken is not a HOFer? .........ok im done with this thread He had the third highest voting percentage (98.53%) in Hall of Fame history

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 10:39 PM
My point is that no one cares if Gehrig was good with the glove. You are trying to claim a DH can only do "one thing" well, but admit you have no idea if the same is true for Gerhig. Just because he played at first, doesn't mean he did it well (and the same is true of many first basemen). He could have been an atrocious fielder for all you know. It is not a factor that enters into the HoF candidacy of most 1st basemen, and due to his bat, Thomas would have almost certainly played 1st base most of his career, because 1st base defense is given a low priority.

Hell, I don't know if there is a defensive position more important than catcher, but Piazza's going to get in, even though he never really did that well either.

I have no idea because there really isn't much data to look at from eighty years ago. I might be able to find some old newspaper columns about plays that he made, but that's subjective as hell. It doesn't matter how well he played at first as much as he actually played the entire game.

Thomas went up to bat, he ran the bases when he got hits, and then he spent the rest of the game sitting on his *** while his teammates took care of that minor fielding thing. Again, if you think designated hitters belong in the Hall, fine. I don't.

Dmac
06-11-2009, 10:47 PM
Juan Gonzalez (steroids) and Dale Murphy (career .260 avg) are the only 2 time MVP winners not in the HOF and Big Hurts numbers are far better then both of them. He is a HOFer easy. Only 9 players have ever won the MVP 3 times and all of them are in the HOF or will be. Thomas should have 3 MVPs if not for Giambi.

After his father died and his triceps tear in 2001 his numbers dipped but that was after 11 seasons that already put him in the HOF discussion the bulk of which were played at 1st base. He rebounded and finished 4th in MVP voting in 2005.

78% of Paul Molitor's career was spent as a DH and Thomas has better numbers then Molitor. Molitor never won a MVP. He was a first ballot HOFer with 85.2% of the vote.

Frank is in, that simple.


Well, I know that's not right, and I don't even have to research it. Roger Maris won back to back MVPs in 60 and 61 and he isn't in the hall of fame. I also don't know how Thomas would have ended up finishing 4th in MVP voting in 2005, considering he only played about a month that season.

I'm with YNH on this one. Alot of players that are in the hall of fame now, shouldn't be. Ozzie Smith certainly shouldn't be in. He was a mediocre hitter at best. HOF should be players that made an impact offensively and defensively.

Thomas will be a first ballot HOF though. I'm not saying he should be, but he will because the writers are all going to vote for him because they think that he is clean, and he is going to get the votes that clemens, Bonds, etc would have otherwise gotten.

TheRuckus
06-11-2009, 10:47 PM
Ripken is not a HOFer? .........ok im done with this thread He had the third highest voting percentage (98.53%) in Hall of Fame history

.340 OBP
.788 OPS
112 OPS+

Ripken had no run of dominance. He only really had three great offensive years, and "great" is being a bit generous with two of them. Other than his MVP year in 1991 (which, ironically, probably should have gone to Thomas) he had no seasons above a .900 OPS and had eight seasons with a .756 OPS or lower, including two sub-.700 seasons. He had a couple of great years defensively at shortstop, but for his career he was merely slightly above average.

Was the streak amazing? Yes. Doesn't make him a great player. He was good, not great. If not for the streak, there's no way he'd have gotten such a high percentage (which is irrelevant anyway, because it's just writers' opinions).

Dmac
06-11-2009, 10:54 PM
.340 OBP
.788 OPS
112 OPS+

Ripken had no run of dominance. He only really had three great offensive years, and "great" is being a bit generous with two of them. Other than his MVP year in 1991 (which, ironically, probably should have gone to Thomas) he had no seasons above a .900 OPS and had eight seasons with a .756 OPS or lower, including two sub-.700 seasons. He had a couple of great years defensively at shortstop, but for his career he was merely slightly above average.

Was the streak amazing? Yes. Doesn't make him a great player. He was good, not great. If not for the streak, there's no way he'd have gotten such a high percentage (which is irrelevant anyway, because it's just writers' opinions).

Yeah, I have to agree. Honestly, if Ripken would have had a few injuries and averaged around 150 games in his career instead of 162, he wouldn't have come close to getting inducted. His numbers are pretty mediocre.

Which is funny, because the knock on Sutton was his numbers were padded because he played so long, so it took him awhile to get in. Yet Ripkens numbers were padded because he was fortunate enough to play ever game, yet he gets the third highest vote total ever. He was a media darling though, and the HOF voting is partially a popularity contest.

Evolution=FACT
06-11-2009, 10:59 PM
craig biggio will be a hof'er, which is hilarious.

MooseWithFleas
06-11-2009, 11:39 PM
.340 OBP
.788 OPS
112 OPS+

Ripken had no run of dominance. He only really had three great offensive years, and "great" is being a bit generous with two of them. Other than his MVP year in 1991 (which, ironically, probably should have gone to Thomas) he had no seasons above a .900 OPS and had eight seasons with a .756 OPS or lower, including two sub-.700 seasons. He had a couple of great years defensively at shortstop, but for his career he was merely slightly above average.

Was the streak amazing? Yes. Doesn't make him a great player. He was good, not great. If not for the streak, there's no way he'd have gotten such a high percentage (which is irrelevant anyway, because it's just writers' opinions).

Agreed. He is still a HOF most likely, just because a SS/3B with 400 homers is pretty rare and he was decent with the glove as well. The streak is the most overrated record in sports. What I love is that he had so many big slumps and refused to take a day off even though he was hurting the team.

quade36
06-12-2009, 01:18 AM
Why are you upset? This thread is actually one of the more enjoyable ones lately, both to read and to post in. I don't agree with the people who believe that Thomas deserves to be in the Hall, but that's because I have an ideal vision of the Hall that doesn't include DHs. I completely understand where they're coming from, and I have said several times that Thomas was an excellent hitter who, if he had not spent more than half his career DHing, would be a first-ballot guy to me.

I like how this thread has remained civil, its arguments mostly well-reasoned, and it's inspired questions that have led to new discussions: Do designated hitters deserve to be in the Hall? How long did Thomas prolong his career by DHing, and how should that factor into our evaluation of his career? Will he, in reality, get in on the first ballot? Do milestones like 500 home runs or 3,000 hits carry undeserved weight and if so, how much weight should they actually carry in deciding a player's candidacy?

Just a quick question. Do you believe Paul Molitor should be in the Hall? You do realize you must answer 'No' to this. Do you?

The Hall is not just about the entire career, you can also look at portions. Another question, do you believe Kirby Puckett deserves to be in the hall? You have to answer 'No' to this as well based on your logic. Kirby Puckett was one of the best hitters of the late 80's and early 90's but his career was shortened due to eye problems. Kirby played only 12 seasons. So if you feel Puckett deserves to be in the Hall, Thomas certainly does from what he did between 91-97.

Frank Thomas played most of the 90s at 1B. From 91-97 where he predominantly played 1B, he put up his best stats. These stats weren't just good, they were some of the best in baseball history for that time period. Think about that for a second. From 91-97 his lowest BA was .308 and had an average over .330. He had over 100 walks every season. His OBP was well over .450. He only had one year where his OPS was under 1.000. He scored over 100 runs and drove in over 100 runs every year. Including both strike years.

I am not weighing the 500 HR or 3000 hit mark as an indication if you should make the hall. If Thomas doesn't get in after what he did in the 90s then even Joe Dimaggio shouldn't be in the Hall based just on stat logic. Heck even the great cubbie Gabby Hartnett should not be in the hall.

If you compare what Thomas did to all these players while he was playing 1B, he deserves to get in on that merritt alone. He was the best hitter of the 90's. He put up some of the best single season stats of all time. Regardless if he spent the last 10 years of his career as a DH, he deserves to be in.

I know you will probably come back and say you don't believe everyone in the hall should be there. But if you say Dimaggio shouldn't there would be a ton of people who would disagree. Heck, even if you say Puckett shouldn't many would disagree. What are your feeling about Hartnett?

I really really hope your feelings toward Thomas aren't because he was a White Sox player for so many years. That would be sad. I would hope you are a little more intelligent then that.

TheRuckus
06-12-2009, 03:32 AM
Just a quick question. Do you believe Paul Molitor should be in the Hall?

Another question, do you believe Kirby Puckett deserves to be in the hall?

If Thomas doesn't get in after what he did in the 90s then even Joe Dimaggio shouldn't be in the Hall based just on stat logic. Heck even the great cubbie Gabby Hartnett should not be in the hall.

I really really hope your feelings toward Thomas aren't because he was a White Sox player for so many years. That would be sad. I would hope you are a little more intelligent then that.

I don't believe Molitor or Puckett deserve to be in the Hall. Both were very good hitters for many years. Very good, not great. Let alone the fact that Molitor played a majority of his career as a DH.

Joe DiMaggio has a stronger case than both of them put together. Not only is his 155 career OPS+ in the top 25 of all time, he also posted a 1.000-plus OPS five times, including four in five seasons. He did all of this while actually playing the entire game, instead of only having to hit.

No clue where you got the idea that I have something against Thomas or the White Sox. I'm a Phillies fan, I have absolutely no bias or rooting interest in either player or team. My allegiance is irrelevant anyway because we're having an objective discussion.

MaHaRaJaH
06-12-2009, 03:52 AM
He's a DH.

Nobody that only plays one aspect of the game for the clear majority of his career should be in the HOF. No doubt many people will disagree with me on that.


I agree with you on the "one aspect of the game". If Player A has won a gold glove every year of his career, while batting say .230throughout his career, he would have less chance of getting into the HOF than Frank Thomas. He did one aspect of his job extremely well.

Big E
06-12-2009, 04:05 AM
Anybody who says he is not a 1st ballot has no baseball IQ. He is one of the top right handed hitters of ALL TIME!

This.
It's funny how all NL fans hate the DH rule enough to just dismiss Frank Thomas's great career.
If your favorite team is in the AL he's a first ballot HOFer
If your favorite team is in the NL he's not worthy of the hall of fame.

Should AL pitchers not be in the Hall of fame because they don't hit?
Your argument is idiotic.
You NL fans think your **** doesn't stink.

thefeckcampaign
06-12-2009, 07:49 AM
This.
It's funny how all NL fans hate the DH rule enough to just dismiss Frank Thomas's great career.
If your favorite team is in the AL he's a first ballot HOFer
If your favorite team is in the NL he's not worthy of the hall of fame.

Should AL pitchers not be in the Hall of fame because they don't hit?
Your argument is idiotic.
You NL fans think your **** doesn't stink.

I hate the DH but it's a rule so I do not hold it against any player.

kbaxter34
06-12-2009, 08:42 AM
Well, I know that's not right, and I don't even have to research it. Roger Maris won back to back MVPs in 60 and 61 and he isn't in the hall of fame. I also don't know how Thomas would have ended up finishing 4th in MVP voting in 2005, considering he only played about a month that season.

I'm with YNH on this one. Alot of players that are in the hall of fame now, shouldn't be. Ozzie Smith certainly shouldn't be in. He was a mediocre hitter at best. HOF should be players that made an impact offensively and defensively.

Thomas will be a first ballot HOF though. I'm not saying he should be, but he will because the writers are all going to vote for him because they think that he is clean, and he is going to get the votes that clemens, Bonds, etc would have otherwise gotten.

You are correct. I missed Roger Maris and Frank Thomas finished 4th in MVP voting in 2006 not 2005

Pinstripe pride
06-12-2009, 08:44 AM
they way you think, there would be 5 or 6 inductions every decade.

to be fair he does have a decent point. The hall of fame is becoming a popularity contest. If it really was the hall of fame, some years would have no inductees. instead the best avaialable, deserving or not , are sent in. I think Frank Thomas is and should be a hall of famer, but it is turning into a popularity contest.

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 10:17 AM
This.
It's funny how all NL fans hate the DH rule enough to just dismiss Frank Thomas's great career.
If your favorite team is in the AL he's a first ballot HOFer
If your favorite team is in the NL he's not worthy of the hall of fame.

Should AL pitchers not be in the Hall of fame because they don't hit?
Your argument is idiotic.
You NL fans think your **** doesn't stink.

You have completely failed to understand anything in this thread.

Congrats.

misterd
06-12-2009, 10:19 AM
to be fair he does have a decent point. The hall of fame is becoming a popularity contest. If it really was the hall of fame, some years would have no inductees. instead the best avaialable, deserving or not , are sent in. I think Frank Thomas is and should be a hall of famer, but it is turning into a popularity contest.

The Hall of Fame IS a popularity contest. That's what elections ARE.

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 10:23 AM
I agree with you on the "one aspect of the game". If Player A has won a gold glove every year of his career, while batting say .230throughout his career, he would have less chance of getting into the HOF than Frank Thomas. He did one aspect of his job extremely well.

I don't know.

I'll call Ozzie Smith the flipside of the Frank Thomas coin.

One could hit a ton, but didn't take the field for most of his career. The other couldn't hit for ****, but backflipped and cartwheeled all over the field.


Then again, Ozzie was insanely loved for some reason. I'm thinking it was because of the backflips.

quade36
06-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Joe DiMaggio has a stronger case than both of them put together. Not only is his 155 career OPS+ in the top 25 of all time, he also posted a 1.000-plus OPS five times, including four in five seasons. He did all of this while actually playing the entire game, instead of only having to hit.



OK. So when Thomas DID play 1B he had 6 seasons with a 1.000-plus OPS. More than Dimaggio. During this time, from 90-97 Thomas played 840 games at 1B as compared to 231 at DH. Thats almost 80% of his games at 1B. You just passed over the fact that I said he put up these numbers while predominantly playing 1B. Thomas' best years WERE WHEN HE PLAYED THE FIELD. Those years were amazing.

Please explain a little more why you feel that those years don't count in considering him because he played the second half of his career as a DH. Now if you feel he just didn't put up the numbers in those years, well I guess you have your opinion. 6 seasons with over a 1.000 OPS may not be good in your eyes.

sep11ie
06-12-2009, 10:46 AM
This.
It's funny how all NL fans hate the DH rule enough to just dismiss Frank Thomas's great career.
If your favorite team is in the AL he's a first ballot HOFer
If your favorite team is in the NL he's not worthy of the hall of fame.

Should AL pitchers not be in the Hall of fame because they don't hit?
Your argument is idiotic.
You NL fans think your **** doesn't stink.


I'm a baseball fan dickweed. By the way, great argument there yourself moron.

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 11:42 AM
OK. So when Thomas DID play 1B he had 6 seasons with a 1.000-plus OPS. More than Dimaggio. During this time, from 90-97 Thomas played 840 games at 1B as compared to 231 at DH. Thats almost 80% of his games at 1B. You just passed over the fact that I said he put up these numbers while predominantly playing 1B. Thomas' best years WERE WHEN HE PLAYED THE FIELD. Those years were amazing.

Please explain a little more why you feel that those years don't count in considering him because he played the second half of his career as a DH. Now if you feel he just didn't put up the numbers in those years, well I guess you have your opinion. 6 seasons with over a 1.000 OPS may not be good in your eyes.

Please explain where you get the idea that anyone is throwing those years away or discounting them from the discussion.

Sockeye
06-12-2009, 11:48 AM
I don't think anyone has ever said the boy couldn't hit.


But hiding his often-crippled *** in the DH spot when his body clearly wasn't up to the task of truly playing a full season, both at the plate and in the field, takes some of the shine off of those numbers in my eyes.

I don't look favorably on compilers. Those folks that just hang around beyond their natural end to tack on to their stats.

He had a great run from 93-97, but only managed to get 500+ AB's in less than half of his seasons following that run, and those were the years he was sheltered by the DH spot.


I have nothing but contempt for the DH spot, and without it, Thomas's name doesn't even get brought up in a HOF discussion.



Like I said, I'm sure he'll get in at some point. There's a lot of people in the HOF that I don't think should be there. Thomas will just be another one of those guys.
One can also argue that he was a victim of the DH rule......Without the DH rule he obviously plays 1st base for much longer than he did.....albeit subpar...

No one in their right mind sits an offensive force like Thomas, just because of his defensive woes. And BTW, since when does someone's defensive skills become evaluated during HOF voting? It is rarely brought up or considered so why the issue with the DH?

quade36
06-12-2009, 11:50 AM
Please explain where you get the idea that anyone is throwing those years away or discounting them from the discussion.

His logic is that Frank Thomas is a DH and should not get in the Hall. I look at his best years, when he did play 1st base as the reason why he should. Back in 2000 there was a debate if Thomas should get in the Hall just for what he did in the 90s. Before this talk of DH even was an issue. If Frank Thomas retired in 2000 does he make the Hall? Sure he didn't have the longevity, but he had the stats for that decade. Comparable to lets say Joe Dimaggio. My whole argument against him was that I am looking at his stats while he played 1B, not as a DH.

Yes Thomas played half his career as a DH. But the other half is what should be looked at to see if he is Hall creditable. He actually was just OK even as a hitter when he was a DH.

That was my whole point. Which was overlooked and probably will continue to be overlooked because of this whole DH talk.

So when I say throwing those years away, they should be a bigger factor if he makes the Hall than the fact that he is a DH. There isn't even talk here if he doesn't put up the numbers he did. Sadly, its just all DH talk :)

Southsideheat
06-12-2009, 12:21 PM
His logic is that Frank Thomas is a DH and should not get in the Hall. I look at his best years, when he did play 1st base as the reason why he should. Back in 2000 there was a debate if Thomas should get in the Hall just for what he did in the 90s. Before this talk of DH even was an issue. If Frank Thomas retired in 2000 does he make the Hall? Sure he didn't have the longevity, but he had the stats for that decade. Comparable to lets say Joe Dimaggio. My whole argument against him was that I am looking at his stats while he played 1B, not as a DH.

Yes Thomas played half his career as a DH. But the other half is what should be looked at to see if he is Hall creditable. He actually was just OK even as a hitter when he was a DH.

That was my whole point. Which was overlooked and probably will continue to be overlooked because of this whole DH talk.

So when I say throwing those years away, they should be a bigger factor if he makes the Hall than the fact that he is a DH. There isn't even talk here if he doesn't put up the numbers he did. Sadly, its just all DH talk :)

correct, if we look at his career numbers playing first base, he still is a hall of famer. I think people just forgot what a force he was or just got bored with 6-7 straight seasons of hitting .300, scoring 100, walking 100, hitting at least 30 hr's, ops over 1.000, obp over .400.

TheRuckus
06-12-2009, 12:26 PM
OK. So when Thomas DID play 1B he had 6 seasons with a 1.000-plus OPS. More than Dimaggio. During this time, from 90-97 Thomas played 840 games at 1B as compared to 231 at DH. Thats almost 80% of his games at 1B. You just passed over the fact that I said he put up these numbers while predominantly playing 1B. Thomas' best years WERE WHEN HE PLAYED THE FIELD. Those years were amazing.

Please explain a little more why you feel that those years don't count in considering him because he played the second half of his career as a DH. Now if you feel he just didn't put up the numbers in those years, well I guess you have your opinion. 6 seasons with over a 1.000 OPS may not be good in your eyes.

This is the best point anyone has made in favor of Thomas. Hat tip to you. But it's still not enough. He had nine more seasons of at least a 125 OPS+ in the second half of his career, when he played 90 percent of his games at DH. So those certainly added to his compiled stats but at the same time, for most of that period he fell into the "very good, not great" category.

So the question becomes, if Thomas had quit playing after the 1997 season, would he be worthy? No. We wouldn't even be having this discussion. Again I point to Thomas's former teammate, Albert Belle. He had a stretch in the '90s where he OPSed 1.000+ four of five years, and bookended that stretch with two .900+ OPS seasons. His 143 career OPS+ is just outside the top 50 all-time, so while he wasn't quite as good as Thomas, he had a similarly dominant stretch.

Where is the push for Belle to get in? It's nonexistent, because he didn't play long enough. True, DiMaggio only played one more season than Belle, but his OPS+ was 155 and, excepting his final seasons, he never OPSed below .875, which Belle did four times.

For the record, I wouldn't put Sandy Koufax in the Hall, either. Six seasons of ri-goddamn-diculous dominance don't make up for the first half of his career being a big bowl of meh. Had he stuck around and owned the league for a few more years, he'd be a shoo-in for me.

Call me crazy, but I believe an institution that exists as a monument to the greatest in the game's history should have extremely high standards.

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 01:37 PM
One can also argue that he was a victim of the DH rule......Without the DH rule he obviously plays 1st base for much longer than he did.....albeit subpar...

No one in their right mind sits an offensive force like Thomas, just because of his defensive woes. And BTW, since when does someone's defensive skills become evaluated during HOF voting? It is rarely brought up or considered so why the issue with the DH?

That's not remotely obvious.

Without the DH, it's entirely possible his constant aches and pains could have easily become something worse, forcing him on the DL far more often or maybe even ending his career far earlier.

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 01:45 PM
correct, if we look at his career numbers playing first base, he still is a hall of famer. I think people just forgot what a force he was or just got bored with 6-7 straight seasons of hitting .300, scoring 100, walking 100, hitting at least 30 hr's, ops over 1.000, obp over .400.

When you say "people", I've got no choice but to think you mean me specifically, since I'm pretty much the loudest voice against him being the HOF.

I don't know how many times I've said it already, but it's probably in triple digits by now. Maybe if I type it in caps you'll remember it.

FRANK THOMAS WAS A ****ING GREAT HITTER IN THE 90'S.




And no, if you just look at his numbers playing 1st base, he's not a HOFer either.

He played more games at 1st than he did at DH in just 8 of his 19 seasons. 8 seasons, even ****ing outstanding seasons, just isn't a long enough career to be a HOFer.

Southsideheat
06-12-2009, 02:09 PM
There's really no point to argue with those who standards for the Hall of Fame are so high that it will never be implemented (especially if those standards don't include Sandy Koufax). The point is that the Hall of Fame is what it is, and its not going to change no matter what people think or say. I think we should shift are attention to the current standards of the Hall of Fame and judge Thomas on those and those alone.

quade36
06-12-2009, 02:29 PM
This is the best point anyone has made in favor of Thomas. Hat tip to you. But it's still not enough. He had nine more seasons of at least a 125 OPS+ in the second half of his career, when he played 90 percent of his games at DH. So those certainly added to his compiled stats but at the same time, for most of that period he fell into the "very good, not great" category.

So the question becomes, if Thomas had quit playing after the 1997 season, would he be worthy? No. We wouldn't even be having this discussion. Again I point to Thomas's former teammate, Albert Belle. He had a stretch in the '90s where he OPSed 1.000+ four of five years, and bookended that stretch with two .900+ OPS seasons. His 143 career OPS+ is just outside the top 50 all-time, so while he wasn't quite as good as Thomas, he had a similarly dominant stretch.

Where is the push for Belle to get in? It's nonexistent, because he didn't play long enough. True, DiMaggio only played one more season than Belle, but his OPS+ was 155 and, excepting his final seasons, he never OPSed below .875, which Belle did four times.

For the record, I wouldn't put Sandy Koufax in the Hall, either. Six seasons of ri-goddamn-diculous dominance don't make up for the first half of his career being a big bowl of meh. Had he stuck around and owned the league for a few more years, he'd be a shoo-in for me.

Call me crazy, but I believe an institution that exists as a monument to the greatest in the game's history should have extremely high standards.

OK, thats respectable. Based on your belief probably more than half the HOFers shouldn't be. There is nothing wrong with that belief.

masalex1205
06-12-2009, 02:30 PM
can't understand why people don't think he's a HOFer?

hoggin88
06-12-2009, 02:43 PM
When you say "people", I've got no choice but to think you mean me specifically, since I'm pretty much the loudest voice against him being the HOF.

I don't know how many times I've said it already, but it's probably in triple digits by now. Maybe if I type it in caps you'll remember it.

FRANK THOMAS WAS A ****ING GREAT HITTER IN THE 90'S.




And no, if you just look at his numbers playing 1st base, he's not a HOFer either.

He played more games at 1st than he did at DH in just 8 of his 19 seasons. 8 seasons, even ****ing outstanding seasons, just isn't a long enough career to be a HOFer.

Just so I can be a *****, here's a hypothetical situation. Say Thomas didn't play at all from 2005-2008. That would mean the majority of his seasons would have been at 1B and his career line would have been .308/.429/.567/.996. That's a 162 OPS+ and he would have had 436 HR's. Would you still be saying he doesn't deserve the HOF and if not then what would your argument be?

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 02:43 PM
can't understand why people don't think he's a HOFer?

Am I typing in Swahili?


I'm pretty sure I've made my reasons clear. You might disagree with them, but there's not much excuse for not understanding them.

TheRuckus
06-12-2009, 02:46 PM
There's really no point to argue with those who standards for the Hall of Fame are so high that it will never be implemented (especially if those standards don't include Sandy Koufax). The point is that the Hall of Fame is what it is, and its not going to change no matter what people think or say. I think we should shift are attention to the current standards of the Hall of Fame and judge Thomas on those and those alone.

There's not much discussion there. Everyone here is pretty much in agreement that he was a fantastic hitter for many years and that he, with current standards for induction, he'll definitely get in. Most people seem to think he'll be in on the first ballot. I'm not sure. I think it'll be close either way.

The discussion of what the Hall of Fame standards are and what they ought to be is infinitely more interesting, complex and divisive.


Just so I can be a *****, here's a hypothetical situation. Say Thomas didn't play at all from 2005-2008. That would mean the majority of his seasons would have been at 1B and his career line would have been .308/.429/.567/.996. That's a 162 OPS+ and he would have had 436 HR's. Would you still be saying he doesn't deserve the HOF and if not then what would your argument be?

Unless my math is off, if you take away 2005-08, he has 971 games at 1B and 932 games at DH. Still too many games at DH for my taste. But it's a little more debatable.

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 02:49 PM
Just so I can be a *****, here's a hypothetical situation. Say Thomas didn't play at all from 2005-2008. That would mean the majority of his seasons would have been at 1B and his career line would have been .308/.429/.567/.996. That's a 162 OPS+ and he would have had 436 HR's. Would you still be saying he doesn't deserve the HOF and if not then what would your argument be?

You miscounted. Discarding his 05-08 seasons gives him 8 seasons as a mostly-DH and 7 as a mostly-1B. Majority is still on the DH side of that.


But instead of just leaving it at that, I'll go ahead and address the actual point.

Tossing out 05-08 would still leave him at pretty much a 50/50 split between 1B and DH for his career. Playing a significantly large number of games as a DH is my argument against him, so that argument doesn't change.

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 02:57 PM
There's not much discussion there. Everyone here is pretty much in agreement that he was a fantastic hitter for many years and that he, with current standards for induction, he'll definitely get in. Most people seem to think he'll be in on the first ballot. I'm not sure. I think it'll be close either way.

The discussion of what the Hall of Fame standards are and what they ought to be is infinitely more interesting, complex and divisive.

Exactly.

I mentioned in my first post in this thread that I'm sure Thomas will get in. 500 HR's is still a magic number.

Seamhead
06-12-2009, 03:01 PM
Hall of Fame, ie Hall of those who are Famous. Not Hall of the Legends or Hall of the Titans.

Is the World Series actually the world series? No, it's just the final, championship series of the league of the United States and one Canadian team.

flips333
06-12-2009, 03:02 PM
i wouldn't constitue 57% as CLEAR majority but okay.


Anything above 50% is a clear majoprity by definition...

regardless And this is from a Cubs fan. The guy is a definite Hall of Famer.

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 03:04 PM
Is the World Series actually the world series? No, it's just the final, championship series of the league of the United States and one Canadian team.

There's a world outside of the United States and it's territories?


Because honestly, Canada is just another of the US's territories.

hoggin88
06-12-2009, 03:14 PM
Unless my math is off, if you take away 2005-08, he has 971 games at 1B and 932 games at DH. Still too many games at DH for my taste. But it's a little more debatable.

Well that's what doesn't make sense to me. So you are saying if he would have just retired after 2004 you might be more open to the idea of him deserving the HOF? This whole DH:1B ratio can be an argument, but not when you use it like that.

hoggin88
06-12-2009, 03:15 PM
You miscounted. Discarding his 05-08 seasons gives him 8 seasons as a mostly-DH and 7 as a mostly-1B. Majority is still on the DH side of that.


But instead of just leaving it at that, I'll go ahead and address the actual point.

Tossing out 05-08 would still leave him at pretty much a 50/50 split between 1B and DH for his career. Playing a significantly large number of games as a DH is my argument against him, so that argument doesn't change.

Fair enough.

TheRuckus
06-12-2009, 03:18 PM
Well that's what doesn't make sense to me. So you are saying if he would have just retired after 2004 you might be more open to the idea of him deserving the HOF? This whole DH:1B ratio can be an argument, but not when you use it like that.

No. I'd be just as opposed to it. What I meant was with the ratio not as skewed toward DH, it makes him look a bit better. Still not good enough. And if you take away any more years, you start to get into "didn't play long enough" territory.

It's effectively pointless to speculate this way, regardless. What happened, happened, and as it stands, Frank Thomas does not qualify for my Hall of Fame. Hall of Really ****ing Good Hitters, yes. Hall of Fame, no.

human marvel
06-12-2009, 03:51 PM
Sounds about right. Maybe 10 if it's a strong decade.

It's the Hall Of Fame. Legendary players. Titans of the game.

Not every pretty good hitter, better-than-average pitcher, or fan favorite that's ever put on a jersey.

I agree 100%, the hall should only be open to the best of the best. And sadly there are players that should be in the hall that aren't, like Bert Blyleven, and players that should not be, like Ozzie Smith, and sadly they will continue to make mistakes.

Having said that, I still think Thomas should get in, growing up in the 90's I could tell how dominant a player he was and his offensive numbers are enough for me that he gets in, even though the years as a DH do hurt is eligibility, but not enough to keep in out. But of course there is bias as I am a Sox fan.

I also agree about the DH, and if it went away, meh, I could really care less.

Highcheese4U
06-12-2009, 05:14 PM
The Big Hurt will get in IMHO.... perhaps not 1st Bal but def and eventual inductee!

quade36
06-12-2009, 07:23 PM
You miscounted. Discarding his 05-08 seasons gives him 8 seasons as a mostly-DH and 7 as a mostly-1B. Majority is still on the DH side of that.


But instead of just leaving it at that, I'll go ahead and address the actual point.

Tossing out 05-08 would still leave him at pretty much a 50/50 split between 1B and DH for his career. Playing a significantly large number of games as a DH is my argument against him, so that argument doesn't change.

Wow, still with the DH part. I gave a big post about how is numbers while he played 1B could be questioned as HOF numbers. Lets talk about that. TheRutkus makes a good point in that there is not longevity. Therefore Thomas and many current HOFers don't deserve to be there. Puckett, Koufax, Gabby Harnett, to name a few.

I assume you agree with that. Again, that should be more of a discussion in this thread than the fact he played half his career as DH.

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 07:34 PM
Wow, still with the DH part. I gave a big post about how is numbers while he played 1B could be questioned as HOF numbers. Lets talk about that. TheRutkus makes a good point in that there is not longevity. Therefore Thomas and many current HOFers don't deserve to be there. Puckett, Koufax, Gabby Harnett, to name a few.

I assume you agree with that. Again, that should be more of a discussion in this thread than the fact he played half his career as DH.

Uh....it is my entire reasoning for not including him. Not sure why you think that would change now.

quade36
06-12-2009, 10:35 PM
Uh....it is my entire reasoning for not including him. Not sure why you think that would change now.

So, your logic is anyone who has played DH, regardless of what stats they put up while they didn't, shouldn't get into the Hall. Hmm....:eyebrow:

Your Name Here
06-12-2009, 10:46 PM
So, your logic is anyone who has played DH, regardless of what stats they put up while they didn't, shouldn't get into the Hall. Hmm....:eyebrow:

I've stated my logic and reasoning multiple times in this thread.

If that's really all you've picked up on, then so be it. I simply don't feel like correcting you anymore.

quade36
06-13-2009, 12:52 AM
I've stated my logic and reasoning multiple times in this thread.

If that's really all you've picked up on, then so be it. I simply don't feel like correcting you anymore.

There is nothing to correct. You have an opinion. And you stated it over, and over, and over, and over again. Doesn't mean others would find your opinion to be correct. There is nothing wrong with that. Others on this thread have argued against your opinion and gave very logical reasons to back their arguments up. Just like you have in yours. Doesn't mean they are wrong, just like you feel you aren't wrong.

Bottom line is no matter what anyone says about this, unless you are a baseball writer its a moot point. And we can debate all we want it won't change anything. The fact about all this is your argument does not hold merit in the baseball world. If it did, Paul Molitor wouldn't be in the hall. George Brett wouldn't be in the hall. Ozzie Smith wouldn't be in the hall. Anyone who wasn't an all around player wouldn't be in the hall.

Enough with this tonight, gotta spend time with my wife.

Your Name Here
06-13-2009, 01:26 AM
There is nothing to correct. You have an opinion. And you stated it over, and over, and over, and over again. Doesn't mean others would find your opinion to be correct. There is nothing wrong with that. Others on this thread have argued against your opinion and gave very logical reasons to back their arguments up. Just like you have in yours. Doesn't mean they are wrong, just like you feel you aren't wrong.

Bottom line is no matter what anyone says about this, unless you are a baseball writer its a moot point. And we can debate all we want it won't change anything. The fact about all this is your argument does not hold merit in the baseball world. If it did, Paul Molitor wouldn't be in the hall. George Brett wouldn't be in the hall. Ozzie Smith wouldn't be in the hall. Anyone who wasn't an all around player wouldn't be in the hall.

Enough with this tonight, gotta spend time with my wife.

There is something to correct. That being your understanding of my argument. And like I said, I don't feel like doing it. Go read it over and over and over and over again until you grasp it.

quade36
06-13-2009, 02:57 PM
There is something to correct. That being your understanding of my argument. And like I said, I don't feel like doing it. Go read it over and over and over and over again until you grasp it.

Wow, I understood your argument, just didn't agree with it.

I don't think you fully grasped my last post so I will try and make it simple.

Try to step out of the box for a second. What I am about to write has absolutely nothing to do with this subject. It is used for debates in general. Please keep that in mind when you read it. Thanks.

Every has opinions. They think they are right. Doesn't mean others do. An opinion isn't a fact. Your opinion isn't a fact because if it were then things would be different in regards to the topic of this thread. It is just an opinion.

Therefore, my opinion on this thread, which basically was the topic importance should have been what he did in the 90s when he predominantly played 1B, yours was he played more than half his career as a DH and shouldn't get in the Hall for that.

Think about that for a second before you respond in an angry fashion because I am not trying to debate your reasoning, but rather its importance compared to my reasoning and its importance on the decision if Thomas should go to the Hall.

The bottom line is we have two different opinions. There is nothing wrong with that, but its not like we are disagreeing, or at least I am not with you. My guess is you probably are with me because you probably don't feel Thomas was that good of a player in the 90's to warrant HOF status. I'd respond by look at the stats, but thats a whole different argument. Thats not this discussion we are having.

My whole point was that those years should be the big topic on if he should be in the Hall. Those years, you know when he DID play 1B. Not his final numbers. If he doesn't put up those numbers he did, he would never even be in consideration, regardless if he was a DH his entire career.

Basically, its a completely different argument than the argument on Edgar Martinez making the Hall. Edgar was a great hitter, but never put up stats like Thomas did in the 90's, again I reiterate when he DID play 1B.

Your Name Here
06-13-2009, 03:26 PM
Wow, I understood your argument, just didn't agree with it.

I don't think you fully grasped my last post so I will try and make it simple.

Try to step out of the box for a second. What I am about to write has absolutely nothing to do with this subject. It is used for debates in general. Please keep that in mind when you read it. Thanks.

Every has opinions. They think they are right. Doesn't mean others do. An opinion isn't a fact. Your opinion isn't a fact because if it were then things would be different in regards to the topic of this thread. It is just an opinion.

Therefore, my opinion on this thread, which basically was the topic importance should have been what he did in the 90s when he predominantly played 1B, yours was he played more than half his career as a DH and shouldn't get in the Hall for that.

Think about that for a second before you respond in an angry fashion because I am not trying to debate your reasoning, but rather its importance compared to my reasoning and its importance on the decision if Thomas should go to the Hall.

The bottom line is we have two different opinions. There is nothing wrong with that, but its not like we are disagreeing, or at least I am not with you. My guess is you probably are with me because you probably don't feel Thomas was that good of a player in the 90's to warrant HOF status. I'd respond by look at the stats, but thats a whole different argument. Thats not this discussion we are having.

My whole point was that those years should be the big topic on if he should be in the Hall. Those years, you know when he DID play 1B. Not his final numbers. If he doesn't put up those numbers he did, he would never even be in consideration, regardless if he was a DH his entire career.

Basically, its a completely different argument than the argument on Edgar Martinez making the Hall. Edgar was a great hitter, but never put up stats like Thomas did in the 90's, again I reiterate when he DID play 1B.


You guess wrong.

He was a fantastic hitter when he played 1B. But 7 years of fantastic hitting isn't a long enough period of time for him to HOF material.

So it's not that he wasn't good enough during his peak in the 90's while playing 1B. It's that he didn't do it for long enough.




And from my very first post in this thread....


No doubt many people will disagree with me on that.

I've got no problem with someone disagreeing with me.

But if you are going to do it, at least make sure you are disagreeing with my actual argument, not what you think my argument is.

quade36
06-14-2009, 10:36 AM
You guess wrong.

He was a fantastic hitter when he played 1B. But 7 years of fantastic hitting isn't a long enough period of time for him to HOF material.

So it's not that he wasn't good enough during his peak in the 90's while playing 1B. It's that he didn't do it for long enough.




And from my very first post in this thread....



I've got no problem with someone disagreeing with me.

But if you are going to do it, at least make sure you are disagreeing with my actual argument, not what you think my argument is.

Uh.... This is starting to get repetitive as I don't think you are still following. Thats OK. All I will say was I AM NOT disagreeing with your logic as to the DH and the Hall. I don't know how much clearer I can say that. But you seem to think I am. I am disagreeing with the importance of what Thomas did in the 90's. Your opinion on this thread should have just been the first sentence in your last post. Thats it. You feel 7 great years doesn't warrant HOF status. Thats cool. That was the argument I had. I thought the numbers he had in those 7 years could have. I don't understand why you fail to see that being the most important factor in determining if he makes the Hall. Especially when you have a strong opinion about the fact that 7 years isn't long enough.

Anyways I suppose you feel there are a lot of HOFers not deserving based on only 7 years of greatness. Sandy Koufax, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Hack Wilson, Hank Greenberg, Ralph Kiner, and Jackie Robinson all should not be in the Hall based on your first sentence. Is that correct? It has to be. Otherwise you are either bias or hypocritical. But thats where our disagreement over the 7 year topic is. Again, thats a different argument.

Your Name Here
06-14-2009, 11:10 AM
Uh.... This is starting to get repetitive as I don't think you are still following. Thats OK. All I will say was I AM NOT disagreeing with your logic as to the DH and the Hall. I don't know how much clearer I can say that. But you seem to think I am. I am disagreeing with the importance of what Thomas did in the 90's. Your opinion on this thread should have just been the first sentence in your last post. Thats it. You feel 7 great years doesn't warrant HOF status. Thats cool. That was the argument I had. I thought the numbers he had in those 7 years could have. I don't understand why you fail to see that being the most important factor in determining if he makes the Hall. Especially when you have a strong opinion about the fact that 7 years isn't long enough.

Anyways I suppose you feel there are a lot of HOFers not deserving based on only 7 years of greatness. Sandy Koufax, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Hack Wilson, Hank Greenberg, Ralph Kiner, and Jackie Robinson all should not be in the Hall based on your first sentence. Is that correct? It has to be. Otherwise you are either bias or hypocritical. But thats where our disagreement over the 7 year topic is. Again, thats a different argument.


Jackie Robinson probably gets a little extra consideration for the whole color barrier thing, which is certainly a landmark event for the game itself.

But strictly looking at his stats and career length, he and everyone else you mentioned would be out.




And the DH is the more important thing to me, because I personally would never put anyone that was strictly/primarily a DH in the HOF, regardless of his numbers. Dude could have a career OPS+ of 400, but if he never once took the field, then **** him.

Yes, Thomas's best years were as a 1B, but for his career, he was primarily a DH.

Southsideheat
06-14-2009, 01:39 PM
And the DH is the more important thing to me, because I personally would never put anyone that was strictly/primarily a DH in the HOF, regardless of his numbers. Dude could have a career OPS+ of 400, but if he never once took the field, then **** him.

This just doesn't make sense to me. If you have a problem with the rule that's fine, but Thomas didn't make the rule. If the DH wouldn't of existed, he would be a hall of famer. He would certainly have played at least 2-3 more years if he had to play first. If you can't see that, you're just not being realistic. The fact that he is still in shape in 2009 ready to play should say a lot.

Your Name Here
06-14-2009, 01:49 PM
This just doesn't make sense to me. If you have a problem with the rule that's fine, but Thomas didn't make the rule. If the DH wouldn't of existed, he would be a hall of famer. He would certainly have played at least 2-3 more years if he had to play first. If you can't see that, you're just not being realistic. The fact that he is still in shape in 2009 ready to play should say a lot.

You can't just say it as though it is a fact.

There's no telling how much of a toll playing everyday would have taken on him, and he might not have held up through it. Or he could have been stepped on at the bag while playing 1st, blown his knee out, and never fully recovered.

There's just no way to know what would have happened without the DH. So the argument is meaningless.

DownInHouston
06-14-2009, 02:16 PM
May as well open up another 'can of worms' and include in this chat if people think Jim Thome will be in the hall. I would be curious to see what people say about him also.

JAYZFAN9
06-14-2009, 02:22 PM
May as well open up another 'can of worms' and include in this chat if people think Jim Thome will be in the hall. I would be curious to see what people say about him also.

Umm Jim is gonna end his career with likely 600+ home runs. If anyone truly believes he shouldnt be in the HOF, I dont know what to tell you

DownInHouston
06-14-2009, 03:16 PM
Umm Jim is gonna end his career with likely 600+ home runs. If anyone truly believes he shouldnt be in the HOF, I dont know what to tell you

Oh trust me I believe so too. I think he will be a first ballot. But he has amassed 123 HRs as a DH and probably would not be sniffing 600 if there was no DH. Seems like if you spend any time DH'ing, your offensive stats should not be considered. Not trying to start anything, I am just curious.

No matter what is said here, Frank Thomas will more than likely be in the hall. Thome even moreso.

Your Name Here
06-14-2009, 03:20 PM
Oh trust me I believe so too. I think he will be a first ballot. But he has amassed 123 HRs as a DH and probably would not be sniffing 600 if there was no DH. Seems like if you spend any time DH'ing, your offensive stats should not be considered. Not trying to start anything, I am just curious.

No matter what is said here, Frank Thomas will more than likely be in the hall. Thome even moreso.

Maybe you should re-read the thread. You've clearly missed something, and I'm not inclined to repeat myself for the eleventymillionth time just for you.



And Thome isn't sniffing 600. He's at 550 and 38 years old. He might not even make it to 600.

DownInHouston
06-14-2009, 03:28 PM
Maybe you should re-read the thread. You've clearly missed something, and I'm not inclined to repeat myself for the eleventymillionth time just for you.



And Thome isn't sniffing 600. He's at 550 and 38 years old. He might not even make it to 600.

Chill bro you do not need to repeat yourself. Only thing I care about is if people do not think Thomas should be in the hall what about Thome.

quade36
06-15-2009, 08:51 AM
I think it may be time to close this thread as the arguments are going in circles now. By "your-name-here's" standards, no there is no way Thome should make the hall. We can all agree that is his opinion and there is nothing wrong with that. However, as I have stated before, its just an opinion. It is not a fact.

And as for the Jackie Robinson thing, based on your opinion, you can't think he should make the Hall, regardless of color barriers. You can say he broke the barrier, but if you solely base the Hall on stats like you keep saying you do, he should not be in it. BTW, Larry Doby broke the color barrier in the American League too, I think that is almost as important as what Robinson did. But you feel he shouldn't be in the Hall for that? Or maybe its not that important in your eyes. I guess where do you draw the lines?

Anyways, lets just agree to disagree in the end. We are not going to change each others OPINIONS so its just going to continue to circle.

Your Name Here
06-15-2009, 09:30 AM
I think it may be time to close this thread as the arguments are going in circles now. By "your-name-here's" standards, no there is no way Thome should make the hall. We can all agree that is his opinion and there is nothing wrong with that. However, as I have stated before, its just an opinion. It is not a fact.

And as for the Jackie Robinson thing, based on your opinion, you can't think he should make the Hall, regardless of color barriers. You can say he broke the barrier, but if you solely base the Hall on stats like you keep saying you do, he should not be in it. BTW, Larry Doby broke the color barrier in the American League too, I think that is almost as important as what Robinson did. But you feel he shouldn't be in the Hall for that? Or maybe its not that important in your eyes. I guess where do you draw the lines?

Anyways, lets just agree to disagree in the end. We are not going to change each others OPINIONS so its just going to continue to circle.

Actually, I'd put Thome in.

He doesn't have a chunk of years of insane production like Thomas had in the 90's, but from '95 to '08, he's only played 2 full seasons in which he put up an OPS under .950. That's playing the game at a very high level for a very long time. And with a .921 OPS so far this year, even at 39 he's not exactly falling off a cliff offensively.


As for why you think I'd leave him out.....he's spent better than 2/3rds of his career in the field instead of hiding in the DH spot. That's VERY different from Thomas.




As for Jackie, my exact words were...

"strictly looking at his stats and career length, he and everyone else you mentioned would be out."

favre_4life
06-15-2009, 10:04 AM
I think Frank Thomas deserves to be in the HOF. For one the guy never took steroids(allegedley), and he wasn't affraid to call out all the *****es who where on steroids. And he hit a **** ton of HR's, regardless of his position.

Southsideheat
06-15-2009, 02:44 PM
As for why you think I'd leave him out.....he's spent better than 2/3rds of his career in the field instead of hiding in the DH spot. That's VERY different from Thomas.

Comments like this makes your opinion useless. He hid in the DH spot? Talk about saying something that isn't a fact, that's one right there. Did you ever think DH can be a skill that not all players are able to do?

Your Name Here
06-15-2009, 03:28 PM
Comments like this makes your opinion useless. He hid in the DH spot? Talk about saying something that isn't a fact, that's one right there. Did you ever think DH can be a skill that not all players are able to do?

Questions like that make your opinion useless.


Of course Trevor Hoffman would have been a horrible DH, because he couldn't hit worth a damn.

The DH doesn't require any skill except for the ability to hit, and preferably their AVG would be higher than their weight.

donnie23
06-15-2009, 03:33 PM
I'm sorry, did you compare Frank Thomas to Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, and Lou Gehrig? You should be ashamed of yourself.

AsfanSince99
06-15-2009, 10:21 PM
The one thing that baffles my mind is people thinking that Frank Thomas won't get into the Hall of Fame or shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. I would like to put this argument to bed. His numbers are too impressive during his era (comparable to Ted Williams, Joe Dimaggio, Lou Gehrig) and one could argue that he is the greatest right-handed hitter of all-time now that Manny Ramirez and ARod are under the cloud of steriod use. He is a two-time MVP and should be three-time but admitted steriod user Jason Giambi finished first in the 2000 AL MVP race over Thomas.

Thomas was also a pioneer against steroids in the 90's when he and the White Sox planned to protest against a random one time testing so that the league would be over the threshold in order to have mandatory testing of all players every year. He was also one of only two players to speak with George mitchell about sterod use in baseball during congress' investigation a few years ago. He has never been linked to steriods including Jose Conseco's book.

From 2002:

I don't know how he's not a first ballot HOF'er.
He's a 1st ballot HOF in my book, but just because he hasn't been linked to anything yet doesn't mean he's in the clear. His generation of ballers are all SUSPECT until the proof is revealed.

degnor
06-15-2009, 11:07 PM
I dont know if I like too many DHs getting in, but if any do, it's Thomas. Also, he did play plenty of games at 1st

TheRuckus
06-16-2009, 12:28 AM
Actually, I'd put Thome in.

He doesn't have a chunk of years of insane production like Thomas had in the 90's, but from '95 to '08, he's only played 2 full seasons in which he put up an OPS under .950. That's playing the game at a very high level for a very long time. And with a .921 OPS so far this year, even at 39 he's not exactly falling off a cliff offensively.

As for Jackie, my exact words were...

"strictly looking at his stats and career length, he and everyone else you mentioned would be out."

I agree on Thome, but I wouldn't keep Jackie Robinson out. Yes, he only played ten seasons, but he didn't start his career in the majors until he was already 28 due to circumstances completely beyond his control. And even though his career was short, he still checks in third all-time in wOBA among second basemen behind Hornsby and Eddie Collins. When you throw in breaking the color barrier*, I can't deny him a spot. He helped change the game forever.

*I know what you said earlier in the thread didn't take this into account. Just sayin'.

nasthemasta
06-16-2009, 09:22 AM
He's a DH.

Nobody that only plays one aspect of the game for the clear majority of his career should be in the HOF. No doubt many people will disagree with me on that.


And I'm sure he will get in. The Hall Of Fame is rapidly becoming The Hall Of Pretty Good Or Really Popular.

But I'd never vote for him.


He played first base for almost his whole career bro!!

Your Name Here
06-16-2009, 09:48 AM
He played first base for almost his whole career bro!!

Not even close.

Southsideheat
06-16-2009, 04:54 PM
I'm sorry, did you compare Frank Thomas to Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, and Lou Gehrig? You should be ashamed of yourself.

reading is a skill apparently.


Questions like that make your opinion useless.


Of course Trevor Hoffman would have been a horrible DH, because he couldn't hit worth a damn.

The DH doesn't require any skill except for the ability to hit, and preferably their AVG would be higher than their weight.

so there's absolutely no transition from being a positional player to being strickly a DH?

Your Name Here
06-16-2009, 05:39 PM
so there's absolutely no transition from being a positional player to being strickly a DH?

What?

Of course there's transition. There's transition in everything.

That doesn't make the DH some specialized skill that only a small handful of people in the history of the game are capable of performing.

Anybody can be a DH, assuming they can put the bat on the ball at an acceptable rate. You are trying to make it sound far more difficult than it is.

Southsideheat
06-16-2009, 05:46 PM
What?

Of course there's transition. There's transition in everything.

That doesn't make the DH some specialized skill that only a small handful of people in the history of the game are capable of performing.

Anybody can be a DH, assuming they can put the bat on the ball at an acceptable rate. You are trying to make it sound far more difficult than it is.

right, but at the same time, you're not putting any value in it either. Maybe putting the bat on the ball while not playing in the field the whole game makes it tougher at some point. Not saying its rocket science, but simple being out there at first is not much more of a skill than being a DH.

Cheezombie
06-16-2009, 05:47 PM
Frank Thomas for Prez!

Your Name Here
06-16-2009, 05:52 PM
right, but at the same time, you're not putting any value in it either. Maybe putting the bat on the ball while not playing in the field the whole game makes it tougher at some point. Not saying its rocket science, but simple being out there at first is not much more of a skill than being a DH.

That's among the more ridiculous things I've heard.

Playing a position, any position, takes FAR more skill than just stepping up to the plate a few times a game. I can't see any rational argument to the contrary.

JAYZFAN9
06-16-2009, 05:52 PM
man theres a couple haters in here... look at the guys career stats.. i dont give a **** where he played.. you cant keep big frank outta the hall.. he is a first ballot HOFer without a doubt

Your Name Here
06-16-2009, 05:54 PM
man theres a couple haters in here... look at the guys career stats.. i dont give a **** where he played.. you cant keep big frank outta the hall.. he is a first ballot HOFer without a doubt

Just out of curiosity.....since you disagree with my opinion, can I legally call you a "hater"? That seems to be the only requirement for usage of that word.

Southsideheat
06-16-2009, 05:55 PM
That's among the more ridiculous things I've heard.

Playing a position, any position, takes FAR more skill than just stepping up to the plate a few times a game. I can't see any rational argument to the contrary.

Being in the swing of the game was one of the reasons why Thomas hated playing DH. The fact that he had to sit on the bench the whole time was detrimental to his at bats.

Your Name Here
06-16-2009, 05:58 PM
Being in the swing of the game was one of the reasons why Thomas hated playing DH. The fact that he to sit on the bench the whole time was detrimental to his at bats.

Says who?

And if he really hated playing DH so much, it doesn't make much sense to play his entire career in the AL. He had plenty of opportunities over 19 years to go to an NL team at some point.

Southsideheat
06-16-2009, 06:02 PM
Says who?

And if he really hated playing DH so much, it doesn't make much sense to play his entire career in the AL. He had plenty of opportunities over 19 years to go to an NL team at some point.

Frank Thomas said that.

There was a transition, and he got used to it.

Your Name Here
06-16-2009, 06:07 PM
Frank Thomas said that.

There was a transition, and he got used to it.

Of course there was a transition. I've already covered that.

It still doesn't equate to the DH requiring any special skill, other than the ability to hit the ball. It's an obviously easier "position" to play, since it doesn't require actually playing a position.

Southsideheat
06-16-2009, 06:13 PM
Of course there was a transition. I've already covered that.

It still doesn't equate to the DH requiring any special skill, other than the ability to hit the ball. It's an obviously easier "position" to play, since it doesn't require actually playing a position.

why is there a transition. For something that takes no skill, there would be no transition.

I just think you're putting too much value of playing a position. What if he was standing in the dugout the whole time, would that change anything?

Your Name Here
06-16-2009, 06:23 PM
why is there a transition. For something that takes no skill, there would be no transition.

I just think you're putting too much value of playing a position. What if he was standing in the dugout the whole time, would that change anything?

Any change = transition. It doesn't matter if the change is to a position that requires more skill or less skill.

What do you mean, what if? Standing in the dugout is exactly what a DH does, except when he sits in the dugout.



As for putting too much value in playing a position, I completely disagree. As far as the HOF is concerned, playing anywhere on the field, even as a below-average defender, is superior to not playing the field at all.

And you'll never change my mind on that.

Southsideheat
06-17-2009, 10:53 AM
As for putting too much value in playing a position, I completely disagree. As far as the HOF is concerned, playing anywhere on the field, even as a below-average defender, is superior to not playing the field at all.

And you'll never change my mind on that.

I don't dissagree with that, but for me, that shouldn't be the determining factor since in many cases, its not much of a difference. You just hate the rule itself.

nasthemasta
06-18-2009, 08:02 PM
Not even close.

Well i mean it was almost 10 years right?

whitesoxfan83
06-18-2009, 08:13 PM
Thomas is one of only four players in baseball history to have at least a...

.300 average
500 home runs
1,000 runs
1,500 walks
1,500 RBI

The others are Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams.

Career Splits:

.301/.419/.555/.974

Yea hes totally not a Hall of Famer :rolleyes:

sugarrayray
06-18-2009, 09:23 PM
It is not entirely a DH's fault if that is where the manager puts him....The fact that the game has a DH eliminates the argument. It would be like saying American League pitchers can't get in the hall because all they do is pitch and don't play the other aspect of the game...hitting...

As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, it was a major point of contention at the mid-way point in Thomas' career that he didn't want to DH and wanted to play 1st base, because he felt being on the field helped him in the batter's box. Whether or not there is any validity to his point is mute.

No brainer - Frank Thomas = 1st ballot
Anyone who thinks he should not be in the hall is just being moronic.....

very well said

pf289
06-18-2009, 11:11 PM
Thomas is one of only four players in baseball history to have at least a...

.300 average
500 home runs
1,000 runs
1,500 walks
1,500 RBI

The others are Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams.

Career Splits:

.301/.419/.555/.974

Yea hes totally not a Hall of Famer :rolleyes:


Thank you. Everyone needs to stop the hate please.

Habs n Jays Fan
06-18-2009, 11:43 PM
Frank Thomas, in my books, is a definite Hall Of Famer.

I've spent the last 45 minutes reading every post for this because I was curious and to my surprise, Thomas got some props. I was honestly kind of shocked. For the most part everyone from both sides put some very solid points together.

Now, I'll throw some of my own out here. When Hurt became a full time DH in 1998, his numbers began to suffer a bit. Believe it or not, being a DH is harder then it seems. Not physically but mentally. I remember when Hurt became a DH he said he didn't feel like he contributed to the team as a DH. He's not the first one, George Bell refused to play DH for the Jays in the 80's for the same reason. Their are several players who refuse to DH for that exact reason. I think some of us forget that if a hitter isn't in it mentally, they look terrible at the plate and DH's need a certain mentality just like a closer needs a certain mentality.

After 1998, Thomas hit over .300 just twice(1999 and 2000) but in both those seasons he still got to play First(63 games at 1st and 229 games at DH). After that, his best Avg was a .277 season in 2007 with the Jays.

It seems some believe Thomas would have broken down had he been forced to play 1st through the latter part of his career. Did you know that Thomas didn't suffer his first serious injury until he tore his triceps tendon 2001, his 3rd season as a DH? Fact is, as a DH, you aren't as warmed up as when you take the field, making you more suseptible to injuries. When Thomas played 1st, he stayed healthy and it wasn't until he was forced to DH that he started getting hurt.

Also, I'm getting the impression that everyone is of the belief that Hurt was a below average fielder and that is fair to say and I'd be inclined to agree. So I checked the stats and Hurt had a career Fielding Percentage of .991, which is right on par with HOF'ers Lou Gehrig(.991), Jimmie Foxx(.992), Hank Greenberg(.991), Harmon Killebrew(.992), Orlando Cepeda(.990), George Kelly(.992), Willie McCovey(.987), Johnny Mize(.992), Eddie Murray(.993), Tony Perez(.992) and George Sisler(.987).

All in all, I still believe Hurt will be a HOF and I think what will hurt him most in 1st Ballot talk are his feuds with White Sox and Jays management(for some reason, writer's tend to hold things like this against players in all sports)

hoggin88
06-19-2009, 12:10 AM
Frank Thomas, in my books, is a definite Hall Of Famer.

I've spent the last 45 minutes reading every post for this because I was curious and to my surprise, Thomas got some props. I was honestly kind of shocked. For the most part everyone from both sides put some very solid points together.

Now, I'll throw some of my own out here. When Hurt became a full time DH in 1998, his numbers began to suffer a bit. Believe it or not, being a DH is harder then it seems. Not physically but mentally. I remember when Hurt became a DH he said he didn't feel like he contributed to the team as a DH. He's not the first one, George Bell refused to play DH for the Jays in the 80's for the same reason. Their are several players who refuse to DH for that exact reason. I think some of us forget that if a hitter isn't in it mentally, they look terrible at the plate and DH's need a certain mentality just like a closer needs a certain mentality.

After 1998, Thomas hit over .300 just twice(1999 and 2000) but in both those seasons he still got to play First(63 games at 1st and 229 games at DH). After that, his best Avg was a .277 season in 2007 with the Jays.

It seems some believe Thomas would have broken down had he been forced to play 1st through the latter part of his career. Did you know that Thomas didn't suffer his first serious injury until he tore his triceps tendon 2001, his 3rd season as a DH? Fact is, as a DH, you aren't as warmed up as when you take the field, making you more suseptible to injuries. When Thomas played 1st, he stayed healthy and it wasn't until he was forced to DH that he started getting hurt.

Also, I'm getting the impression that everyone is of the belief that Hurt was a below average fielder and that is fair to say and I'd be inclined to agree. So I checked the stats and Hurt had a career Fielding Percentage of .991, which is right on par with HOF'ers Lou Gehrig(.991), Jimmie Foxx(.992), Hank Greenberg(.991), Harmon Killebrew(.992), Orlando Cepeda(.990), George Kelly(.992), Willie McCovey(.987), Johnny Mize(.992), Eddie Murray(.993), Tony Perez(.992) and George Sisler(.987).

All in all, I still believe Hurt will be a HOF and I think what will hurt him most in 1st Ballot talk are his feuds with White Sox and Jays management(for some reason, writer's tend to hold things like this against players in all sports)

I'm no expert on defensive stats and metrics, but I do know fielding percentage is one of the worst ways to evaluate a player defensively. Although, I don't know, maybe he was a decent fielder. But there's just no way to tell by looking at fld pct. He might have had the range of my grandma for all we know.

I liked your post though. And if I were a HOF voter, he would get my vote.

Iantheoriole
06-19-2009, 12:16 AM
Become a member to get baseball emails sent to you, find out about the Orioles Player, and post a comment in the Blog. At "The Ground Rule Double" you can do all of these things! Check it out and Enjoy the website! orioles-of-baltimore.webs.com (http://orioles-of-baltimore.webs.com) :clap:

hoggin88
06-19-2009, 12:39 AM
Become a member to get baseball emails sent to you, find out about the Orioles Player, and post a comment in the Blog. At "The Ground Rule Double" you can do all of these things! Check it out and Enjoy the website! orioles-of-baltimore.webs.com (http://orioles-of-baltimore.webs.com) :clap:

Please give me a day to think about it. I have to weigh the positives and negatives that would result from such a decision. Sounds like a swell time though! I would love to find out more about the Orioles, particularly at the Ground Rule Double! This is just what I need to keep me off the streets at night!

:worthy::worthy::worthy:Thank you Iantheoriole! :worthy::worthy::worthy:

Habs n Jays Fan
06-19-2009, 12:49 AM
I'm no expert on defensive stats and metrics, but I do know fielding percentage is one of the worst ways to evaluate a player defensively. Although, I don't know, maybe he was a decent fielder. But there's just no way to tell by looking at fld pct. He might have had the range of my grandma for all we know.

I liked your post though. And if I were a HOF voter, he would get my vote.

Yeah I know FPct is a bad way to compare players but it's all I could find on The Baseball Cube(guess I should of used Baseball Reference). While I'm at it, I'll do a quick check.

Thomas' Range Factor per 9 innings according to Baseball Reference was 9.03. The League average was 8.27(not sure if that's for just 1st basemen or for every position). His Range Factor per game was 8.66 and the League average was 7.56(again, not sure if that's 1st base only or every position).

Ok, now I'll start comparing with Gehrig, Foxx and Greenberg(only stat I can use is RF/Game):

Frank Thomas- 8.66 RF/Game
Lou Gehrig- 9.64 RF/Game
Hank Greenberg- 9.92 RF/Game
Jimmie Foxx- 9.60 RF/Game

So, by their standards he was below average.

Now I have to admit, I have no clue what Range Factor even means so for all I know, Thomas' 8.66 could be very good or it could be very bad. But according to Baseball Reference, it's when you combine a defenders assists and putouts and divide them by the total number of innings or games.