View Poll Results: Will Jim Thome make the Hall of Fame

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yup, and he deserves it too

    18 75.00%
  • Yup, though I don't think he deserves to be there

    5 20.83%
  • No, but I think he should

    1 4.17%
  • No, and he does not deserve to make it either

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs

    Jim Thome - Hall of Famer?

    So, last night Thome hit his 12th career walk-off homerun which ties him for the most in major league history. The other guys on the list he is tied with are a who's who of big-time Hall of Famers. We are talking about Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Frank Robinson, Jimmie Foxx -- guys who are the legends of the game. And now Thome joins them on that list.

    Anyway, on ESPN's First Take today they got into a debate about whether Thome should go into the Hall of Fame. Skip Bayless was loudly against it. The other folks all said he would make it.

    So, lets have the debate here.

    --Jason "I am setting up a poll too" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  2. #2
    he seems like a no brainer to me. he will likely have 600+ homeruns by the time he retires. He was one of the most feared hitters for the better part of a decade and a half, and has never really endured a multi-year home run drought.
    My Quick Smells Like French Toast.

  3. #3
    I used to be in the camp that thought Thome was a possible Hall of Famer, but that he'd be hurt by being perceived as one-dimensional, not playing in the field the latter half of his career (and being a liability in the field before that), and the glut in power numbers during the era in which he played. Now I'm in the "he'll make it" camp. Perhaps my mind is being clouded by finally getting to watch him mash 'taters for my team instead of the 70-some he hit against them up until this year. Or by the warm fuzzies of last night's result.

    His numbers don't scream "lock," but he has some things going for him: (i) the media loves him, (ii) related to the foregoing, he's seen as a paragon of virtue untainted by even a hint of steroids talk - this perception that some guys like Griffey, Thomas and Thome would have stood out more had everyone been playing as "naturally" as them throughout the '90s and early '00s is starting to take hold in the conventional wisdom and will serve them well at voting time; and (iii) he's still putting up numbers, and dingers, and looks fairly assured of reaching 600 now - whether that should mean anything or not is another conversation, but in the minds of voters, I think some of the milestones do still matter, and 600 means you're 8th all-time (and joined by Rodriguez, Sosa and Bonds, which makes you 5th on the all-time "no steroid taint home run list"). Combine that with a career 147 OPS+, lifetime OBP over .400, five full seasons of OPS above 1.00, and the fact he's sporting 17 homers in just 209 at-bats as he closes in on age 40, and I think he's pushing above "borderline." I think of the borderline for hitters right now being defined by guys like Sheffield, McGriff, and Edgar Martinez, and I think Thome's a bit above each of them at this point.

  4. #4

    thome

    I agree with most of what Mel said about Thome.

    I think his credentials are bolstered by playing in the greatest power-friendly era in baseball history. Just because he's closing in on 600 home runs doesn't make him a lock in my book.

    Thome actually brings up a interesting debate -- he's an extremely one-dimensional player. He has very little career defensive value (he had almost 500 games as a terrible third-baseman, 1000 games as an average first baseman, 800 games as a DH).

    But he does have a superb .558 career slugging average and an excellent .400-plus career on base percentage.

    His career OPS is .961 -- the 17th best in baseball history. He's not that good ... his OPS is inflated by his era, but his adjusted OPS (OPS plus) is 147 and that's still 41st best in baseball history. That's more like it.

    Professor Michaen Hoban -- my favorite commentator on the HOF issue -- issued a list of 10 no-brainer Hall of Famers that were active in 2009. He had Thome seventh on that list -- just behind Griffey, Chipper and Jeter.

    Of course, the clincher is that Thome is perceived as clean in a steroid era. There are other reasons for the power explosion in the last 15-plus years (smaller parks, body armor, small strike zones), but steroids are clearly a part of it. The guys like Thome (and Griffey, Thomas, Chipper and Jeter) who were untainted will get the benefit of the doubt).

    PS Even though I think Thome deserves to be in and I voted that way, I'm surprised its unanimous so far in our poll. If two voters can vote against Pedro, who is MUCH more deserving than Thome, how can Thome be unanimous?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    PS Even though I think Thome deserves to be in and I voted that way, I'm surprised its unanimous so far in our poll. If two voters can vote against Pedro, who is MUCH more deserving than Thome, how can Thome be unanimous?
    I voted yes, but I don't think he deserves it, which I will explain in more detail later.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Is anyone really above suspicion as being a steroid user?

    I know this board had a lot to say about Chipper Jones recently and the consensus seemed
    to be that he was a clean player, however playing the Devils Advocate. I wonder how a guy
    goes from batting .364 in 2008 and then falls off the face of the earth, with averages of .264
    and currently .265. When you also throw in the fact that his body has suddenly betrayed him
    you really have to wonder. I guess it's part of the times we live in, but I'm not sure we can
    ever say someone was really clean and drug free.

    As for the issue of Thome and whether or not he is a HOF'er. I would have to say yes. I can
    only judge a player on what he does in the era, which he plays and based on that, his
    numbers say he deserves to be in.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by ncexnyc View Post
    Is anyone really above suspicion as being a steroid user?

    I know this board had a lot to say about Chipper Jones recently and the consensus seemed
    to be that he was a clean player, however playing the Devils Advocate. I wonder how a guy
    goes from batting .364 in 2008 and then falls off the face of the earth, with averages of .264
    and currently .265.
    What, you mean aside from turning 37?

    Guys get old, and their skills decline. Sometimes it happens quickly.

    When you also throw in the fact that his body has suddenly betrayed him
    you really have to wonder. I guess it's part of the times we live in, but I'm not sure we can ever say someone was really clean and drug free.
    Well, yeah.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    I voted yes, but I don't think he deserves it, which I will explain in more detail later.
    As promised, my more detail. My primary reason for thinking that Thome does not belong in the Hall is that during his career, he was never really the best player at his position. He's been a regular for 17 years. He made only 5 all-star teams. He finished no higher than 4th in the MVP voting, and was in the top 10 only 4 times. He won a Silver Slugger as a 3rd baseman way back in 1996, but never at 1st. Over the course of his career, he was second-fiddle to guys like Thomas, McGwire, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Giambi, Helton, Delgado, Pujols, Lee, Teixeira, Morneau, Ortiz, and Howard. Aside from 2002, I'm not sure I would ever take Jim Thome first among first basemen/DHs for a single season.

    The obvious counter to this argument is that I'm comparing him to guys who a) will also be Hall of Famers; b) had better peaks but far worse career consistency; or c) were juiced. And the second counter to this argument is that the things he did well - HRs, getting on base - he did very well. Both of these points are true. His HR numbers are great (top 10) and his OBP/SLG/OPS+ numbers are very good - he'll finish in the top 50 career in those three metrics. All of these things make it an extremely close call. But the subjective part of my Hall of Fame voter tendencies (you know, if I could actually vote) still tips me against - Thome was always overshadowed by better players (and worse players on a career basis who had better seasons) throughout his career.

    Now, all that said, I do believe he'll get in, for a few reasons: 1) HRs, 2) perception of being "clean," and 3) he was a very, very good player for a long time.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Watching carolina Go To HELL!
    Quote Originally Posted by ncexnyc View Post
    I wonder how a guy
    goes from batting .364 in 2008 and then falls off the face of the earth, with averages of .264
    and currently .265. When you also throw in the fact that his body has suddenly betrayed him
    you really have to wonder. I guess it's part of the times we live in, but I'm not sure we can
    ever say someone was really clean and drug free.
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    What, you mean aside from turning 37?

    Guys get old, and their skills decline. Sometimes it happens quickly.



    Well, yeah.
    With today's training methods, including diet, guys don't "get old" in their mid 30's anymore. That's why so many are able to play into their 40's and still have high levels of proficiency - see Bret Favre, Jamie Moyer, etc.

    While I was never an elite athlete, and I never trained seriously and could certainly stand to lose 25+ pounds, I didn't notice a significant reduction in athletic capabilities, or start to see more than nagging injuries, until the last 2 or 3 years. When I tore the short-end tendon in my right bicep 3 years ago when I swung and hit solid line drive to left, that was the first sign. And my back just didn't like me pitching slow pitch softball this spring. It didn't like it at all. Even though I still love it, I'm not sure I'll play next season. And as a further example, this year I've lost about 20 yards on my drive, using the same 3 year old technology (Taylormade r7 425cc) I've been using for the last 3 years. The big hits just don't go as far, dammit.

    Oh, I voted yes.
    Ozzie, your paradigm of optimism!

    Go To Hell carolina, Go To Hell!
    9F 9F 9F
    http://www.EGLEW.com


  10. #10

    chipper

    Quote Originally Posted by ncexnyc View Post
    Is anyone really above suspicion as being a steroid user?

    I know this board had a lot to say about Chipper Jones recently and the consensus seemed
    to be that he was a clean player, however playing the Devils Advocate. I wonder how a guy
    goes from batting .364 in 2008 and then falls off the face of the earth, with averages of .264
    and currently .265. When you also throw in the fact that his body has suddenly betrayed him
    you really have to wonder. I guess it's part of the times we live in, but I'm not sure we can
    ever say someone was really clean and drug free.

    As for the issue of Thome and whether or not he is a HOF'er. I would have to say yes. I can
    only judge a player on what he does in the era, which he plays and based on that, his
    numbers say he deserves to be in.
    I'm a little baffled by this arguement -- suggesting that Chipper's dropoff after 2008 might somehow suggest the use of PEDS (whether steroids, growth hormes, etc.).

    Usually, it's the opposite -- when guys show a sudden jump at a late age (as Bonds did as a home run hitter and Clemens did after slumping late in his tenure in Boston), that's perceived as drugs.

    Now, baseball began its serious crackdown on steroids after the 2005 season (there was testing as early as 2003, but it was anonymous and the penalties were a joke). There has been a major drop in overall homerun production since then ... and when an admitted steroid user such as Jason Giambi sees his power decline, that could offer evidence that he is using.

    But neither Chipper's career or his body type suggest any evidence of PED use. He never bulked up (compare photos of the early Bonds with the post-steroid Bonds). His career followed a normal progression -- yes the decline after 2008 was steep, but that's not characteristic of PED use. Interesting, his power remained fairly consistent through 2007 -- two years AFTER serious steroid testing began.

    Most off all, Chipper has been badly plagued by injuries in the last third of his career. One of the benefits of steroids seems to be that it helps recovery time for steroids. That's a benefit that Chipper has never enjoyed.

    I know it's easy to be cynical and to suggest that because a lot of players in that era cheated, that everybody cheated (or we should suspect that they had). But I don't believe that. I think that argument is like a Kentucky fan defending Cal's transgressions by suggesting that everybody does it.

    Right now, I don't believe that Pujols, Frank Thomas, Derek Jeter, Greg Maddox or Chipper Jones ever used PEDs. They show none of the signs (Pujols and Thomas have the bulk, but they had it at a very young age). The people that write best about baseball would list those players as the least likely doper.

    If evidence emerges linking them to PEDs, I'll be willing to change my mind. But until such evidence emerges, I think it's wrong to smear them with suspcion. I'd rather honor them for rising above the temptations of their era.

  11. #11
    I don't think Thome should get in, but HOF writers have been pretty self-righteous lately so they might vote him in based on his clean appearance and just general "like" of Thome. Baseball writer Bob Ryan said he was president the Thome fan club...a lot of people see him as a good guy in the league.

    However, his game just doesn't match up. If you are going to be useless on the playing field/as a DH for 800 games you had better put up Ruthian numbers. But unfortunately, Thome has put up pedestrian batting averages, and other than a great 3-yr stretch from 2001-2003 (which he only led the league once in HRs btw).

    Someone like Pujols hits HRs, but he does it with a high average, also crams a bunch of doubles down your face, and does it as a gold glove caliber player.

    Lets not pretend Thome didnt have his advantages either -- he became really good in the late 90s....when ballparks and strike zones were shrinking just like players' balls from PED use.

  12. #12
    I want Jack Morris in the Hall.

  13. #13

    thome

    Quote Originally Posted by theAlaskanBear View Post
    I don't think Thome should get in, but HOF writers have been pretty self-righteous lately so they might vote him in based on his clean appearance and just general "like" of Thome. Baseball writer Bob Ryan said he was president the Thome fan club...a lot of people see him as a good guy in the league.

    However, his game just doesn't match up. If you are going to be useless on the playing field/as a DH for 800 games you had better put up Ruthian numbers. But unfortunately, Thome has put up pedestrian batting averages, and other than a great 3-yr stretch from 2001-2003 (which he only led the league once in HRs btw).

    Someone like Pujols hits HRs, but he does it with a high average, also crams a bunch of doubles down your face, and does it as a gold glove caliber player.

    Lets not pretend Thome didnt have his advantages either -- he became really good in the late 90s....when ballparks and strike zones were shrinking just like players' balls from PED use.
    Agree with the last graph (and I think I mentioned those advantages earlier).

    But I strongly disagree with your characterization "unfortunately, Thome has put up pedestrian batting averages"

    While we can debate the value of many of the "new stats" it's clear that NOTHING is more overrated than batting average -- a stat that has ver6y little delationship to actual runs scored.

    In the FAR more important categoy of on-base percentage (which does correspond closely to actually runs scored), Thome is a career .404 -- the 49th best total in baseball history. Coupled with his career .557 sluggiing percentage (not quite as important as OBP, but still a far better gauge than batting average) -- the 21st best SLUG in baseball history -- Thome might not have Ruthian numbers, but he has very similar career offensive production to guys such as Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio and Johnny Mize.

    Now, I know -- and I've argued before -- that Thome's raw numbers are helped by his era and I agree with your that only a part of that era-adjustment is due to PEDs. But even it we adjust for era, his offensive numbers compare very favorably to Harmon Killebrew, Willie Stargell, Eddie Matthews and Willie McCovey.

    Is that good enough to offset his lack of defensive value?

    I don't know, but using the WIN sysem, which combines offensive and defensive contribution, factors in era adjustments and compensates for length of career, Thome's career value is most similar to Tony Gwynn, Duke Snider, Johnny Mize and Yogi Berra.

    I think those are legit Hall of Famers ... and so is Thome.

  14. #14
    Let me try to counter some of the thoughts pfr and AlaskanBear put up. Again, I'm not in a camp that would consider it a travesty if Thome doesn't get inducted. I think he's deserving, but not by any landslide (although he's as or more deserving than Andre Dawson and Jim Rice in my mind), so I don't have much of a personal stake in this.

    AlaskanBear (in passing, I know - not the crux of the argument) compares Thome to a guy who will, when his career is over, probably go down as one of the 3 or 4 greatest hitters in the history of the game. Comparing favorably to Pujols is not the standard. And while 425+ doubles isn't Tris Speaker, it's not completely something to sneeze at, either. It's more than Willie Stargell, among others, had.

    As to the mediocre batting average point, .277 is fairly low; however, there are plenty of Hall of Famers with career averages below .300. I think hitting 600 homers excuses a level of batting average deficiency and strikeout accumulation. And as Olympicfan and I pointed out separately above, Thome's lifetime on-base percentage is over .400. That's impressive, and most analysts are in agreement these days that high batting average, unless it's combined with either high on-base percentage or high slugging, is a fairly misleading stat. Ichiro, for instance, has a crazy high career batting average, but he hits so many singles his OBP is much more indicative of his total value at the plate.

    Finally, AlaskanBear, can we take the word "lately" out of your statement about the self-righteousness of baseball writers? Or add "even more...than usual"?

    Pfr mentions a number of factors in the "not dominant enough" case, which I agree is the most likely argument we'll hear against Thome. I tend to shy away from the subjective items when it comes to my own hypothetical All-Star voting, but there is something to be said for the "best in the game for some period" thing, and it hurts Thome. I do think, however, that pfr overstates the case a bit. For one, Thome was never overshadowed by a couple of the examples stated - I never thought of him as a lesser player than Delgado, Palmeiro, or Lee, for instance. In the late '90s-early '00s, there were two guys I feared seeing more than any others in the American League - Frank Thomas and Jim Thome.

    In addition, if we're to take the "was he ever the best at his position" road, I think All-Star appearances and MVP (or Cy Young) voting are terrible yardsticks. All-Star appearances are in large part a product of fan voting, which is never, ever going to help someone playing in Cleveland. And from '95-'00, the AL All-Star team seemed to typically be about 50% Yankees, as Joe Torre was never shy about rewarding his guys with reserve selections. And MVP voting is just ridiculous (and I say this as someone who's a big fan of Justin Morneau). Consider:

    - 1996: Thome played almost exactly league-average defense at third base, hit .311/.450(!)/.612, third highest OPS in the AL, and hit 38 homeruns, which I imagine is probably far and away the highest for any AL 3B. He was the best 3B in the majors that year, including Chipper Jones. MVP voting: 15th. 15th! Did he deserve to win? No. Was he overly punished by hitting behind Albert Belle, who soaked up all his RBI chances? Absolutely. There's no way Molitor, Pudge or Palmeiro were more valuable that year.

    - 2002: .304/.445/.677, highest OPS in the majors other than Bonds; 52 homers. 7th in MVP vote. Garrett Anderson, with his .871 OPS as a corner outfielder, finished 4th.

    In '97, Thome probably should have finished above either or both of Randy Myers and Tino Martinez to be in the top 5 in voting, but again didn't. MVP voting is no way to judge a player's actual impact.

    In the end, I think it's a valid criticism of Thome that he was never clearly the best 1B in the game, and that you need some monster numbers if you're going to be a DH for half your career. On the other hand, the only thing keeping Thome from having a couple of those massive stat compiling seasons that win you MVP awards was lack of RBI. It's hard to hit 40-50 homeruns year after year and not at some point break through for 140 RBI in a season. That probably speaks more to the value of RBI as a stat and overrating of it by MVP voters than anything, but still.

    However, at some point the arguments for Thome turn to the "career compiler" theory. He'll be seen as a guy who was one of the 10-12 most dangerous hitters in the game for a solid decade, who went on to be in the top 8 all-time in homeruns and top 30 all-time in RBI. That's pretty compelling, even with all the modern power age discounts and the DH issue. He's essentially Harmon Killebrew transported to the steroid era.

    Edit - didn't see Olympic's recent post while composing this; sorry for any redundancies!

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    I'm a little baffled by this arguement -- suggesting that Chipper's dropoff after 2008 might somehow suggest the use of PEDS (whether steroids, growth hormes, etc.).



    Right now, I don't believe that Pujols, Frank Thomas, Derek Jeter, Greg Maddox or Chipper Jones ever used PEDs. They show none of the signs (Pujols and Thomas have the bulk, but they had it at a very young age). The people that write best about baseball would list those players as the least likely doper.
    What about Griffey, Jr? I doubt very much that he used PEDs

  16. #16

    griffey

    Quote Originally Posted by NashvilleDevil View Post
    What about Griffey, Jr? I doubt very much that he used PEDs
    Sorry ... my mistake. I should haven't included Ken Griffey (and maybe Pedro, Tom Glavine and Randy Johnson) among the best "clean" players of the steroid era.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    However, at some point the arguments for Thome turn to the "career compiler" theory. He'll be seen as a guy who was one of the 10-12 most dangerous hitters in the game for a solid decade, who went on to be in the top 8 all-time in homeruns and top 30 all-time in RBI. That's pretty compelling, even with all the modern power age discounts and the DH issue. He's essentially Harmon Killebrew transported to the steroid era.

    Edit - didn't see Olympic's recent post while composing this; sorry for any redundancies!
    I agree with Mal's basic point. Unfortunately, a lot of people look at Killebrew's low lifetime BA and see him as a one-trick pony (hitting HR's). Obviously he did that well, but he also drew a ton of walks. Killebrew was about as feared a hitter as there was during the 1960's in the AL. And, of course, he played a defensive position; several of them, in fact (1B, 3B, and OF), although he was no glove wizard. The DH came in Killer's last few years.

    My basic HOF yardstick has always been purely subjective: "Let's go to the ballpark tonight. ______ is in town (or is pitching)." Thome has never been that guy, and he's probably the exception to my yardstick. I'd probably vote for him. Killebrew, on the other hand, was a no-brainer.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Agree with the last graph (and I think I mentioned those advantages earlier).

    But I strongly disagree with your characterization "unfortunately, Thome has put up pedestrian batting averages"

    While we can debate the value of many of the "new stats" it's clear that NOTHING is more overrated than batting average -- a stat that has ver6y little delationship to actual runs scored.

    In the FAR more important categoy of on-base percentage (which does correspond closely to actually runs scored), Thome is a career .404 -- the 49th best total in baseball history. Coupled with his career .557 sluggiing percentage (not quite as important as OBP, but still a far better gauge than batting average) -- the 21st best SLUG in baseball history -- Thome might not have Ruthian numbers, but he has very similar career offensive production to guys such as Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio and Johnny Mize.

    Now, I know -- and I've argued before -- that Thome's raw numbers are helped by his era and I agree with your that only a part of that era-adjustment is due to PEDs. But even it we adjust for era, his offensive numbers compare very favorably to Harmon Killebrew, Willie Stargell, Eddie Matthews and Willie McCovey.

    Is that good enough to offset his lack of defensive value?

    I don't know, but using the WIN sysem, which combines offensive and defensive contribution, factors in era adjustments and compensates for length of career, Thome's career value is most similar to Tony Gwynn, Duke Snider, Johnny Mize and Yogi Berra.

    I think those are legit Hall of Famers ... and so is Thome.
    I understand that BA is overrated and that OPS is a more telling predictor of offensive value. My point was to show that he was a one trick pony. His HRs and walks boosts his OPS tremendously, as they should.

    I think it is important, as someone else brought up, to compare him to players in his era. You can't look at all old guys he is passing in HRs as proof of his worthiness, lets also remember HRs were much rarer in those days. Any player before '69 had to contend with a higher mound, pitchers who will throw at you (hello, Bob Gibson), and larger ballparks

    Basically, there is only one year (2002) where Thome led the league in anything. Except for a short 3-4 year span of excellence he was a very good player in the most HR prolific era of baseball. I just think he is a borderline Hall of Famer and that is ineptitude on the field (thats half the game, you know) should count against him. I am an NL guy, so I think the DH is an abomination.

    Secondly, I HATE HATE HATE to hear you compare him to Stan Musial...that is wildly inaccurate, they are vastly different players and I can't see how you would think they are similar. Take a look at

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...01.shtml?redir

    and check out his similar players and HOF Statistics toward the bottom of the page -- they apply different statistical tests to see how well he would fit into the Hall. I grant that is likely Thome will get in the Hall, and that some of his numbers are deserving...I just don't think he distinguished himself enough during his era.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Again, I'm not in a camp that would consider it a travesty if Thome doesn't get inducted. I think he's deserving, but not by any landslide (although he's as or more deserving than Andre Dawson and Jim Rice in my mind), so I don't have much of a personal stake in this.
    [/I]
    Mal

    I see the point you are making and don't completely disagree. However, did you ever see Jim Rice play? There was a roughly 10 year period (mid70s-mid80s) when he may have been the most feared hitter in the American League.
    He was really badly hurt by the fact that he couldn't get along with the media (even the Boston media).

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    lives near a number of big white buildings

    IN

    Nearing 600 taters AND a great clubhouse guy. How many wins does that latter actually add per year through firing up his teammates?

    Pretty close to a likely HOFamer in my book....at least according to contemporary HOF standards. Yes, I'd prefer the HOF to be limited to all-time greats, but let's face it, it isn't.

    Seems pretty clutch too.

    And team(s) play better with him in the lineup. An outstanding leader in his own manner. And with impressive stats objectively.
    Last edited by SmartDevil; 08-21-2010 at 12:48 AM. Reason: expansion

Similar Threads

  1. Laettner a Hall of Famer?
    By mr. synellinden in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-21-2010, 06:13 PM
  2. The newest Hall of Famer
    By Olympic Fan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 12:59 PM
  3. Skip Carey - Hall of Famer?
    By EarlJam in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-07-2008, 07:53 AM
  4. Art Monk is a hall of famer
    By rthomas in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 01:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •