Is Big Hurt Hall-bound?

So Frank Thomas is no longer a Toronto Blue Jay.

In a rather stunning move, the Jays — turned off by Thomas' slow start and perhaps fearful of his $10 million vesting option for 2008 — cut bait on the venerable slugger. On a certain level, nothing's shocking when the terminally clueless J.P. Ricciardi is involved, but the sudden end to Thomas' days in Toronto was nonetheless unexpected.

He probably won't be unemployed for very long (the Seattle Mariners should be making breathless overtures on the double), but even if Thomas never plays another game he's had a career of rare distinction.

Let's be more candid about this: Frank Thomas is a first-ballot, no-debate-permitted Hall of Famer.

First and foremost, Thomas is among the most dominant hitters ever to play the game. To justify that claim, let's take a walking tour of his accomplishments at the plate:


His 516 career home runs ranks 18th on the all-time list.

His career on-base percentage of .420 ranks 20th on the all-time list.

His career slugging percentage of .559 ranks 22nd on the all-time list.

His career OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) of .979 is the 12th-best mark ever.


His 489 career doubles rank 53rd on the all-time list.

His 1,639 walks rank ninth on the all-time list.

He ranks 39th all-time in total bases with 4,478.

He ranks 22nd all-time in RBI (1,685) and 70th all-time in runs scored (1,474).

He's 24th on the all-time list for extra-base hits with 1,016.

He's 31st all-time in times on base (4,143).

He's fifth all-time with 120 sac flies.

He ranks 23rd all-time in at-bats per home run (15.5).

He ranks 19th all-time in Adjusted OPS, which is OPS scaled to reflect park and league environments.

His career batting average of .302 ranks 16th among active players.
As you can see, Thomas has the counting stats (homers, RBI, doubles, etc.) that qualify him for Cooperstown, and he also thrives in terms of the rate stats (OBP, SLG, etc.). The strength of his numbers is simply undeniable.

Need more?

OK: He's won two MVP awards and finished in the top 10 on seven other occasions (his 1994 campaign is on the short list of greatest seasons ever by a hitter); claimed four Silver Sluggers; made five All-Star teams; won a batting title; led the league in OBP four times; led the league in SLG once; led the league in OPS four times; and led the league in Adjusted OPS three times. When you think of better hitters during Thomas' era, you've got Barry Bonds and ... that's it.

Certainly, some will oppose Thomas' Hall-of-Fame candidacy because he spent the majority of his career as a designated hitter. To be sure, DH detail should entail some kind of qualitative penalty (for instance, this is probably why the otherwise deserving Edgar Martinez won't make it), but in Thomas' case the offensive numbers are too overwhelming.

The idea is to help your team win games, and Thomas, DH or no, did that better than all but the most elite players in baseball history. More specifically, few can match Thomas' prowess when it comes to the two most important things a hitter can do: get on base and hit for power. He's simply one of the 25 most productive hitters ever to play the game, and that fact alone is enough to grant him "inner circle" status at Cooperstown.

For those fond of character arguments, there's also the fact that Thomas throughout his career spoke out early and often against the use of performance-enhancing drugs. He also voluntarily cooperated with Mitchell Report investigators, making him the only active player to do so.

If you're one of those who enjoys wading into the thicket of "what would his numbers have been if he were clean" thought experiments, then you can rejoice in the knowledge that Thomas was on the level.

Of course, the real reason that Thomas is a Hall of Famer is that he knocked the snot out of the ball and did so with striking regularity. That's the case regardless of whether he ever steps on a field again.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8...hat's-next

Yes!!! Hof Here He Comes!!!!!!!!

Definitely.

An easy YES

He was a cross town rival for years with the Sox, was not always the greatest team player but could he hit and hit and hit and hit. Early in his career he was a adequate 1B, if not slightly above average. I think some back and knee problems led to some mobility problems.

When I think of the White Sox, I think of Thomas and Baines.

If Thomas doesn't make the Hall of Fame, it might as well just be demolished.

Is this seriously even a question?

of course

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Is this seriously even a question?

---

You know there will be idiots that say "He was a one-dimensional player!"

Frank Thomas began his career with 8 consecutive seasons of a 170 OPS+ or better, 7 seasons if you don't count his 190 at bat rookie season.

The only players to string together 7 straight 170 OPS+ seasons are Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and Frank Thomas.

Ted Williams would've done it if not for the war. Roger Hornsby would've had a streak of 10 if not for a down (125 OPS+) 1925. Lou Gehrig would've done it but had a 164 OPS+ in the middle. Barry Bonds' streak was interrupted by an injury-shortened 1999 with a 155 OPS+.

That just goes to show how incredibly difficult a feat it is to string together that long of a streak with an OPS+ above 170. Thomas is one of just 3 players in all of history to do it. Such a streak shows true offensive dominance.

I cant believe this is even a discussion, about whether one of the best and most feared hitters of the 90s will make it ot the hall. Some may punish him for being a DH and having a "not a team guy" image,which make no sense, he will almost definably make it 1st ballot.

Either way not only does he deserve to be there but he will.

Amazingly he finsihed the top 10 MVP voting 9 times and didnt make an allstar same in 4 of those! including th 00 seasone where he went 328/436/625 with 43HR 143 RBI and agian didnt make the AS ... wierd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

I cant believe this is even a discussion, about whether one of the best and most feared hitters of the 90s will make it ot the hall. Some may punish him for being a DH and having a "not a team guy" image,which make no sense, he will almost definably make it 1st ballot.

Either way not only does he deserve to be there but he will.

---

Yeah. Also, Frank Thomas has long been an outspoken player when it comes to steroids. If I'm not mistaken, he's been calling for testing since the mid-90's. That, plus his playing record, plus the fact that he voluntarily talked to the Mitchell Report, will easily get the BBWAA to vote him in first ballot.

However, I really feel that without the anti-steroid image, he'd get a lot less support from some of the dumber BBWAA members. And that's sad.

asking if Thomas is a HOFer is like asking if an Orange is an Orange

I wish Edgar was in the HOF :( He's one of my top 5 favorite players.

But asking if Thomas will be in the HOF, like Ohms said, shouldn't even be a question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

I wish Edgar was in the HOF :( He's one of my top 5 favorite players.

---

Edgar hasn't yet been eligible because he retired in 2004. He's on the ballot in 2010. So, you have hope.

The Big Hurt!

Black Ink: Batting - 21 (99) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 200 (38) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 61.4 (24) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 194.0 (43) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

I was about to post that. Looks pretty decisive to me.



Similar Batters

Jeff Bagwell (887)
Fred McGriff (857)
Manny Ramirez (838)
Gary Sheffield (835)
Mickey Mantle (833) *
Ken Griffey (819)
Jim Thome (811)
Willie McCovey (808) *
Jimmie Foxx (800) *
Willie Stargell (799) *

4 of 10 in the HoF looks marginal, but...

Similar Batters through Age 39

Fred McGriff (859)
Reggie Jackson (789) *
Rafael Palmeiro (784)
Willie McCovey (779) *
Mike Schmidt (774) *
Willie Stargell (772) *
Ted Williams (770) *
Eddie Murray (760) *
Harmon Killebrew (750) *
Frank Robinson (732) *

8 of 10. Yep, he should be in. Maybe not first ballot, I'm sure some people will look at the letters "DH" and go eww....but he'll be in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatKnight

8 of 10

---

And the other two are one guy who would get in first ballot if not for steroid issues, and a guy who is going to draw a good amount of support when hes on the ballot (although I don't think he'll get elected, at least not for a while).

for similar batters, I would say that every one of those batters may make it to the HOF, including the Crime Dog, Bags...

Palmeiro won't. He's the poster boy for the steroid issue.

yes but he is HOF caliber

definitely.

I'm undecided on McGriff. He was undoubtedly a very good player, but a 134 career OPS+ isn't anything superbdly remarkable for a first basemen, although he did have a very good peak from 1988 to 1994. I lean towards yes though.

Black Ink: Batting - 9 (243) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 105 (203) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 47.9 (87) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 100.0 (148) (Likely HOFer > 100)

He's definitely on the fence. The All Star appearances, silver slugger awards, and fairly constant consideration for MVP ought to help him out. He has good name recognition. I think he'll make it.

I like Mcgriff. I hope he makes it.

I think that we're all just waiting for someone to vote no... and admit it.
lol

I'll give the Big Hurt a pass on the roids issue I suppose, but Bagwell upsets me because he's gotten a pass and I feel 100% sure this guy roided big time. I watched him as a skinny 3B for the AA New Britain Red Sox. He was to take over for Wade Boggs at the time, was traded in the infamous Larry Anderson trade and about 9 months later was in the pros looking massive slugging HR's. I was only 14 years old or so and remember thinking at that time that Bagwell was on steroids and everyone I conversed with who went with me to see bags in the minors a year prior thought the same. Imagine that, a bunch of 14 year old kids in 1990 watching one of their favorites roid up. There is now a conspiracy theory that Bagwell was a ring leader in the Roids movement. Check out this thread;

http://baseballevolution.com/asher/b...onspiracy.html

Of the mid-90's sluggers, Thomas and Griffey are the two I am 100% certain never juiced.

Out of that list you have where only 4 of 10 are in, another 4 are still active, and neither of the 2 retired are eligible yet. I think 9 of the 10 will be in for certain (McGriff is the question mark). Griffey is as much of a lock as any active player; Sheffield might have steroid questions, but he should be in; Manny will easily hit 600 HR, Thome might get there.

As for Bagwell juicing, it's not at all uncommon for players to bulk up early in their careers. A guy in his early 20's (as Bagwell was in the Sox organization) can very easily build muscle mass naturally and put on weight. In addition, the move from third to first tends towards bulking up--first basemen are just bigger, bulkier players than third basemen as a rule. The suspcion about Bonds began not because he bulked up, but because he did so late in his career, in his mid-30's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

http://baseballevolution.com/asher/b...onspiracy.html

---

Quote:

---

So, when the Reds acquired Ken Griffey, Jr. in 2000, the Reds players welcomed Griffey with open arms, ready to share their locker room and their juice. But Griffey's juicing proved to be ill-fated. An already legendary slugger in his own right, Griffey didn't need steroids. But he was eager to impress the fans in his new city. From the first moment he started pumping 'roids into his body, he went from a nimble, athletic, power-hitting centerfielder to a fragile burden on his team, serving more time on the disabled list with strains, pulls, ruptures, and tears, than he would on the field, and derailing what at one time was a surefire Hall of Fame career.

---

Griffey didn't use roids and this article is farce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boomboom

Griffey didn't use roids and this article is farce.

---

Well, I think that that article is a load of bull, and it's wrong for saying definitively that Griffey used steroids, but we can't also say that he didn't use steroids. There's no proof of steroid use, and he's never been connected to steroid use, but we cannot definitively state which players did or didn't use steroids, unless we have something on them (connection, positive test, etc.)

You know, it's funny. Ken Griffey and Sammy Sosa both have the exact same "steroid record"...which is, none. Neither have been connected to any shady dealers. Neither have tested positive. Nobody with intimate knowledge of either has accused either of them. Yet, everybody just says Sosa roided up while Griffey didn't. And yet, if in 1997 or 1998, 6 more of Griffey's flyballs ended up in the seats, he'd be fingered as a steroid user too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

No way Griffey jr juiced. No way at all. If anything, he underperformed his potential because of nagging injuries steroids might have helped him recover faster from.

---

But, how do you know he didn't juice? How can you state that with 100% accuracy?

Now, like I said, there's nothing to indicate that he DID juice, so assuming that he didn't is what we should do, but there's also nothing to indicate that Sammy Sosa juiced, yet people assume he did, evne though we shouldn't.

That's the problem with this whole issue. Too often we assume who did or didn't do something based on what we think of that player. Griffey's a well-liked guy, so people assume he didn't do steroids. Sammy Sosa and Jeff Bagwell are thought of in a lesser light when it comes to their character, so people assume they did do steroids, even though no actual evidence exists, just as with Griffey.

I think the best way to approach the topic is this - Assume that every player did not do steroids unless there is substantial evidence that they did. You cannot run into any hypocrisy if you approach the steroid issue that way, as you can when you base your judgments on what you personally feel about the guy. For example of the hypocrisy which can be ran into, and I'm not pointing out anybody in this thread as nobody here has stated what they think about Sosa, there are very few people that think Griffey did steroids, yet there are numerous people that think Sosa did. Maybe hypocrisy is the incorrect term, but thinking that Griffey didn't juice and Sosa did is following irrational logic. No evidence of any sort exists against either player.

It is a simple fact, he didn't get bigger from the age of 21-35. He still has the same arms and legs....He wears long sleaves because he is soo self conscience about his arms...

The reason he hit homeruns is because of his beautiful swing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boomboom

It is a simple fact, he didn't get bigger from the age of 21-35. He still has the same arms and legs....He wears long sleaves because he is soo self conscience about his arms...

The reason he hit homeruns is because of his beautiful swing.

---

He most certainly did get bigger, see attachments. And this is another thing I hate about deciphering who did or didn't do steroids without any actual evidence. Nearly every human being is bigger in their 30's than they were in their early 20's. Nevermind the fact that it's easily possible to get bigger without drugs. Getting bigger is not evidence of steroid use. Not getting bigger is not evidence that a player didn't use steroids.

It looked like he got fat.

On Ken Griffey's rookie card, his weight his listed as 195 lbs. Today, he's listed as 230 pounds. As a comparison, Bonds was 185 on his rookie card and listed at 240 today.

See? But this all just judgments now. A player can get big and if you don't want to think he did steroids, you can just say "He looked like he got fat". A player can get big because he got fat but if you want to say he did steroids, you can just say "Look he got big!"

I agree with you that I personally don't think Griffey did steroids, but I'm not going to state with certainty that he didn't. The only players for which I will talk about with certainty are those that have loads of evidence (Barry Bonds) or those that have tested positive (Rafael Palmeiro). Any player with no evidence or positive tests, I will assume didn't do steroids.

I never claimed Sosa juiced. I think Bonds did (well, he supposedly admitted it to the grand jury). I'm pretty sure at this point Clemens did. Palmeiro tested positive. Giambi admitted it. Andy Pettite did too. McGwire may as well have.

Sosa's corked bat was an issue. He had some rather odd injuries. And beyond all that, he struck out a **** of a lot.

You can tell a lot, however, by a player's public character. Bonds was an arrogant jerk (by all accounts), who was so obsessed with becoming the greatest hitter of all time that he was willing to do anything to enlarge his own legend. Sad part about that is, he was a first ballot HOFer beforehand.

Griffey has always been self-effacing, polite, respectable, and modest about his accomplishments. He seems to recognize that he's done enough on the field to make himself one of the greats of the game, and he lacks the burning over-ambition (and thinly veiled racial prejudice) that fueled Bonds.

Bonds seemed the type to take steroids, because he was willing to do anything else to become great. Griffey recognized that he was great, and didn't seem to feel the need to be anything more than he was already (which is a first-ballot HOFer).

For what it's worth, I think Sosa was clean. He had some holes in his game, though, and nagging injury problems. The corked bat didn't help, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuckwillard

I never claimed Sosa juiced.

---

I know. I never said anybody here claimed that.

Quote:

---

I think Bonds did (well, he supposedly admitted it to the grand jury).

---

He admitted that he used a cream substance and a clear substance which he didn't think were steroids.

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure at this point Clemens did. Palmeiro tested positive. Giambi admitted it.

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Andy Pettite did too.

---

HGH, not steroids.

Quote:

---

You can tell a lot, however, by a player's public character....etc.

---

Yes, I agree, and I don't mind using public character to form an opinion on whether or not you think a player did steroids. I just think that using public character as a basis to factually establish whether or not a player did steroids is a foolish thing to do. It's my opinion that Griffey didn't do steroids, and his public persona is part of the reason I have that opinion, but I think claiming with 100% certainity that he definitely did not do steroids is a stretch, as I don't think you can say that with any player from this era (except, perhaps, a guy like Frank Thomas who was calling for testing before it even became a big issue, if I recall correctly).

Public persona has its issues. For example, Andy Pettite was well-liked and loved by fans and the media, and yet he did HGH. Now, I don't think the HGH, which he says he took, while injured, a couple times, did anything to help his performance, but still

OKAY! WHO VOTED NO!? :mad:

Next time, make it so you can see who voted for which option! :p

OK, who voted "no"?

lol