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.