PDA

View Full Version : Thomas vs. Dawson


hold2dibber
01-08-2002, 02:21 PM
After reading various Hall Of Fame voters touting the HOF credentials of Andre Dawson recently, I was curious to see how the much revered Dawson career stacks up against Big Frank's. Not surprisingly, Dawson's couple of good years with the Flubs gets him much more credit than he deserves while Big Hurt's consistently outstanding career remains overlooked by many. Although Dawson played 21 years (whereas Frank has only 12 under his belt) and therefore has better "add-'em-up" career numbers, a comparison of their average output per 162 games is illustrative:

Stats: H R HR BB SO AVG. OBP. SLG.

Thomas 185 114 36 125 89 .319 .438 .577
Dawson 171 85 27 36 93 .278 .323 .482

Also, in 21 years, Dawson won 1 MVP and finished in the top 10 in voting 4 times. In 12 years, Thomas has won 2 MVPs and finished in the top 10 8 times. If Dawson makes the Hall of Fame, Frank is a shoo-in (or should be).

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 02:32 PM
I would think Dawson or no Dawson Frank is a shoo in.

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 02:46 PM
Dawson doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Of course, I don't think Winfield belongs, either.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Dawson doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Of course, I don't think Winfield belongs, either.

You don't think Winfield belongs? That's tough standards. I agree about Dawson and his career .323 OBP.

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


You don't think Winfield belongs? That's tough standards. I agree about Dawson and his career .323 OBP.

If it were up to me, I would allow 100 ballplayers in the Hall. the 100 greatest of all time. In order to induct someone, they would have to remove someone else. At the very least, it would make the sportswriters think very hard about who they vote for.

I liked Bill Simmons' (on ESPN.com) idea of setting up a multi-tiered HOF, so that we can differentiate between Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson. Okay, Jackson was good, but Aaron was really, really good.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


If it were up to me, I would allow 100 ballplayers in the Hall. the 100 greatest of all time. In order to induct someone, they would have to remove someone else. At the very least, it would make the sportswriters think very hard about who they vote for.

I liked Bill Simmons' (on ESPN.com) idea of setting up a multi-tiered HOF, so that we can differentiate between Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson. Okay, Jackson was good, but Aaron was really, really good.

Putting guys in and out the Hall would be a huge slap in the face to the players. Imagine a guy goes in, 20 years later he's an old man getting put out the hall? Everyone would lose respect for the Hall if they did something like that. On the other side of the coin you don't take out the guy and you don't ahve room for a guy who maybe deserves to be there. Or maybe you take out a long dead player... Does this seem right to you?

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Putting guys in and out the Hall would be a huge slap in the face to the players. Imagine a guy goes in, 20 years later he's an old man getting put out the hall? Everyone would lose respect for the Hall if they did something like that. On the other side of the coin you don't take out the guy and you don't ahve room for a guy who maybe deserves to be there. Or maybe you take out a long dead player... Does this seem right to you?

Maybe you're right. I think at least they should increase the waiting period from 5 years to 10, so that at least they should have time to think about these things. See, a lot of sportswriters I think vote for guys they personally know and like (Kirby Puckett, Reggie Jackson) rather than guys they really think are great.

I know it's subjective, but my thinking on the Hall is that guys in the HOF should be the guys who scared you, the guys that you didn't want to come up against the Sox, or pitch against them. I remember when Winfield, Puckett, and Blyleven played, and none of them scared me, the way that say Roger Clemens or Dennis Eckersley used to scare me.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Maybe you're right. I think at least they should increase the waiting period from 5 years to 10, so that at least they should have time to think about these things. See, a lot of sportswriters I think vote for guys they personally know and like (Kirby Puckett, Reggie Jackson) rather than guys they really think are great.

I know it's subjective, but my thinking on the Hall is that guys in the HOF should be the guys who scared you, the guys that you didn't want to come up against the Sox, or pitch against them. I remember when Winfield, Puckett, and Blyleven played, and none of them scared me, the way that say Roger Clemens or Dennis Eckersley used to scare me.

You don't think Reggie doesn't belong in the Hall do you? Kirby is pretty marginal but Reggie I mean, the guy is 8th all time on the homer list and he played his best years in the 70s, not exactly a high offense era.

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


You don't think Reggie doesn't belong in the Hall do you? Kirby is pretty marginal but Reggie I mean, the guy is 8th all time on the homer list and he played his best years in the 70s, not exactly a high offense era.

That's all Reggie could do, is hit homers. He was slow, he couldn't field, and his average wasn't very good. Home run hitters get too much glory as it is. I don't think McGwire belongs, either, but he'll make it in.

I've said this before - there are two differences between Reggie Jackson and Dave Kingman - 1) Reggie Jackson played for the Yankees and 2) Dave Kingman was a jerk, while Jackson was a nice guy. That's it.

irish rover
01-08-2002, 04:15 PM
I think a better comparison on Dawson being in the HOF is how he stands up to Harold

Harold BA.289 SLG. 465 OBP. 356 HR 384

Andre BA. 279 SLG. 482 OBP .323 HR 438 plus 1 MVP

irish rover
01-08-2002, 04:17 PM
I was going over stats and I found something what I consider or shows
frank as one of THE best overall hitters. In his 12 season(including last
year) Frank has had only 1 season where he has had 100or more k's and
that was in 1992 with 112. While a certain someone has had at least 134k's
9 of his 13 seasons

PaleHoseGeorge
01-08-2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by irish rover
In his 12 season(including last year) Frank has had only 1 season where he has had 100or more k's and that was in 1992 with 112. While a certain someone has had at least 134k's 9 of his 13 seasons

:shammy
"You Sox fans never give up, do you?!"

:moron
"Smut Sox fans, Sammy. Smut Sox."

Jerry_Manuel
01-08-2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I liked Bill Simmons' (on ESPN.com) idea of setting up a multi-tiered HOF, so that we can differentiate between Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson. Okay, Jackson was good, but Aaron was really, really good.

Here is the article, it's a good read. I'd like to hear your thought's on it Kermit.


Pyramid scheme could really help Hall (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020108.html)

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


That's all Reggie could do, is hit homers. He was slow, he couldn't field, and his average wasn't very good. Home run hitters get too much glory as it is. I don't think McGwire belongs, either, but he'll make it in.

I've said this before - there are two differences between Reggie Jackson and Dave Kingman - 1) Reggie Jackson played for the Yankees and 2) Dave Kingman was a jerk, while Jackson was a nice guy. That's it.

Jeez do you think ANYONE belongs int he Hall? McGwire is really one of the best 3 first basemen of all time. You're leaving out one of the big things Reggie and McGwire both did and that's walk, a lot. Especially McGwire who was good for 100 walks a year. Reggie actually was fast when he was young, career he stole 228 bases with a career high of 28.

And dude come on, there is a bigass difference between Jackson and Kingman. Jackson hit 26 poitns higher for his career, hit 121 more homers and had over twice as many career walks and stolen bases than Kingman. Jackson was in the top ten in slugging yearly, Kingman was only three times. Jackson won an MVP (In 1973 before he was a Yankee), Kingman never did. Jackson was an All Star 14 times, Kingman 3 times. Kingman hit .236 for his career and only managed a .302 career OBP! I'd say the difference between Reggie Jackson and Dave Kingman is about equal to the different between Carlos Lee and Vlad Guerrero.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Here is the article, it's a good read. I'd like to hear your thought's on it Kermit.


Pyramid scheme could really help Hall (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020108.html)

Man that would open up a whole new can of worms. I think it would be a bad idea because then you have to decide who goes on what level which would become a tough task that would get debated to no end. Also it is a bit of a disrespect to some of the palyers. You go into the hall, you're one of the best of the best of the best and then after a while they decide you're only level one of five levels of the best of the best. I mean, who wants to tell Bill Mazeoroski after his big emotional speech last year oh sorry Bill you're in but you're just part of level one along with guys like Rube Marquad and Rick Ferrell. Some people might say it's not about what the players feel like but it really is. The Hall of Fame is just as much there to honor baseball players as it is a musuem or tourist attraction. So you have to think about things like that.

FarmerAndy
01-08-2002, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by irish rover
I was going over stats and I found something what I consider or shows
frank as one of THE best overall hitters. In his 12 season(including last
year) Frank has had only 1 season where he has had 100or more k's and
that was in 1992 with 112. While a certain someone has had at least 134k's
9 of his 13 seasons

Frank has numerous stats like that, which are very impressive. While making a case for Frank, there is one fact that people don't bring up enough: career on base percentage. At .440, Frank currently has the 6th best career OBP of any player in the history of the game. The only players ahead of him are Lou Gehrig, Billy Hamilton, John McGraw, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams. That's some pretty impressive company if you ask me.

Is there really anybody, besides Cub fans, that think Frank isn't worthy of the Hall?

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Man that would open up a whole new can of worms. I think it would be a bad idea because then you have to decide who goes on what level which would become a tough task that would get debated to no end. Also it is a bit of a disrespect to some of the palyers. You go into the hall, you're one of the best of the best of the best and then after a while they decide you're only level one of five levels of the best of the best. I mean, who wants to tell Bill Mazeoroski after his big emotional speech last year oh sorry Bill you're in but you're just part of level one along with guys like Rube Marquad and Rick Ferrell. Some people might say it's not about what the players feel like but it really is. The Hall of Fame is just as much there to honor baseball players as it is a musuem or tourist attraction. So you have to think about things like that.

Well, Bill Mazeroski should feel lucky to be in the Hall of Fame at all. That's the main problem I have with the HOF - is that there's a big difference in quality between Kirby Puckett and Babe Ruth. I think a lot of writers feel that way, as well, which is why guys like Goose Gossage and Gary Carter aren't in the hall - is that they don't want to compare these guys to Ruth and Aaron. If instead they were comparing them to Mazeroski and Sutter and Puckett, more, not less, guys would get into the hall. And I don't think it would be an insult to be compared to Bill Mazeroski or Rube Marquart, those guys were good, just not as good as Cy Young or Babe Ruth.

Well, Kermit, here's the list of active players I'd vote for to get into the hall if they were to retire tomorrow -

Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Kevin Brown
Barry Bonds
Frank Thomas
Rafael Palmeiro
Tony Gwynn (I know he's already retired, but I'll throw him on this list).

Guys I would vote for if they put together a couple more good seasons the way they have -

Pedro Martinez
Mike Piazza
Sammy Sosa
Ivan Rodriguez
Mike Mussina
Mariano Rivera

Guys that are just getting started, but definitely have HOF potential -

Alex Rodriguez
Nomar Garciaparra
Tim Hudson
Keith Foulke
Magglio Ordonez
Andruw Jones

I know I'm leaving off names, but this is the caliber of ballplayer that I think deserve HOF consideration.

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Jeez do you think ANYONE belongs int he Hall? McGwire is really one of the best 3 first basemen of all time. You're leaving out one of the big things Reggie and McGwire both did and that's walk, a lot. Especially McGwire who was good for 100 walks a year. Reggie actually was fast when he was young, career he stole 228 bases with a career high of 28.

And dude come on, there is a bigass difference between Jackson and Kingman. Jackson hit 26 poitns higher for his career, hit 121 more homers and had over twice as many career walks and stolen bases than Kingman. Jackson was in the top ten in slugging yearly, Kingman was only three times. Jackson won an MVP (In 1973 before he was a Yankee), Kingman never did. Jackson was an All Star 14 times, Kingman 3 times. Kingman hit .236 for his career and only managed a .302 career OBP! I'd say the difference between Reggie Jackson and Dave Kingman is about equal to the different between Carlos Lee and Vlad Guerrero.

I won't argue with you about Jackson - sportswriters liked him because he gave them really good quotes and he would talk for as long as they wanted, so they voted for him.

About McGwire - Mark McGwire had 4 really good seasons - 1987 (the first Year of the Homer) and 1996-1998. Other than that, he was decent if he wasn't on the DL, but not spectacular. Sure, he could draw a walk, but he was too slow to take advantage of it, and his low BA made it so that his OBP was only good, not great.

If McGwire had produced even two more seasons like those four, I would agree with you. But he wasn't good enough for long enough for me to consider him a Hall of Famer. If Maris doesn't deserve it, then neither does McGwire.

nut_stock
01-08-2002, 07:51 PM
Help me out here guys...

They always used to talk about Frank's numbers over a 7 year period.

It was something like: The only player to hit .300, have 100 rbi, 100 bb, and 20 hr for 7 straight seasons.

Paulwny
01-08-2002, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by nut_stock
Help me out here guys...

They always used to talk about Frank's numbers over a 7 year period.

It was something like: The only player to hit .300, have 100 rbi, 100 bb, and 20 hr for 7 straight seasons.



http://www.baseballreference.com/t/thomafr04.shtml

longshot7
01-08-2002, 08:01 PM
Good discussion today guys.... I've begun to wonder about Frank's chances because he gets very little press outside of Chicago, despite his numbers 1990-1997. Don't you think 1998, 99, and 01 will hurt him?

and btw, McGwire has a ring. That helps.

Daver
01-08-2002, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
Good discussion today guys.... I've begun to wonder about Frank's chances because he gets very little press outside of Chicago, despite his numbers 1990-1997. Don't you think 1998, 99, and 01 will hurt him?

and btw, McGwire has a ring. That helps.

The only problem Frank might have getting into the hall is the fact that he has been primarily a DH for a good bit of his career,and the stodgy,self important ,anal retentive,old as dirt writers that make up the majority of the vote don't recoginize that position existing in the game of baseball.


But then again what the hell do I know?

Paulwny
01-08-2002, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
Good discussion today guys.... I've begun to wonder about Frank's chances because he gets very little press outside of Chicago, despite his numbers 1990-1997. Don't you think 1998, 99, and 01 will hurt him?

and btw, McGwire has a ring. That helps.

The attitude of some sports writers, who have HOF voting rights, will have to change. Some still don't consider a dh as a complete player.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Well, Bill Mazeroski should feel lucky to be in the Hall of Fame at all. That's the main problem I have with the HOF - is that there's a big difference in quality between Kirby Puckett and Babe Ruth. I think a lot of writers feel that way, as well, which is why guys like Goose Gossage and Gary Carter aren't in the hall - is that they don't want to compare these guys to Ruth and Aaron. If instead they were comparing them to Mazeroski and Sutter and Puckett, more, not less, guys would get into the hall. And I don't think it would be an insult to be compared to Bill Mazeroski or Rube Marquart, those guys were good, just not as good as Cy Young or Babe Ruth.

Well, Kermit, here's the list of active players I'd vote for to get into the hall if they were to retire tomorrow -

Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Kevin Brown
Barry Bonds
Frank Thomas
Rafael Palmeiro
Tony Gwynn (I know he's already retired, but I'll throw him on this list).

Guys I would vote for if they put together a couple more good seasons the way they have -

Pedro Martinez
Mike Piazza
Sammy Sosa
Ivan Rodriguez
Mike Mussina
Mariano Rivera

Guys that are just getting started, but definitely have HOF potential -

Alex Rodriguez
Nomar Garciaparra
Tim Hudson
Keith Foulke
Magglio Ordonez
Andruw Jones

I know I'm leaving off names, but this is the caliber of ballplayer that I think deserve HOF consideration.

Considering the shorstops of the past I'd say Arod and possibly Jeter should be in the couple more seasons class maybe even, if they retired tomorrow they should go in the hall class.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I won't argue with you about Jackson - sportswriters liked him because he gave them really good quotes and he would talk for as long as they wanted, so they voted for him.

About McGwire - Mark McGwire had 4 really good seasons - 1987 (the first Year of the Homer) and 1996-1998. Other than that, he was decent if he wasn't on the DL, but not spectacular. Sure, he could draw a walk, but he was too slow to take advantage of it, and his low BA made it so that his OBP was only good, not great.

If McGwire had produced even two more seasons like those four, I would agree with you. But he wasn't good enough for long enough for me to consider him a Hall of Famer. If Maris doesn't deserve it, then neither does McGwire.

Okay your own definition of a Hall of Famer was somebody you feared. Well from about 1996 through 1999 McGwire was both healthy and without question the most feared hitter in baseball. In that 4 year span he averaged 61 homers a season with a .437 OBP and a .704 slugging average. In 2000 he was still the most feared hitter in baseball but only played about half the season. Without even considering the rest of his career, for 4 years he completely dominated. In 1992 and 1987 he had two more great years and a few good ones to go along with it. That's 6 great seasons. The only two first basemen in history that were really better than McGwire were Gehrig and Foxx.

I would say his .394 career OBP is great. A few players within 5 points up or down:

Luke Appling
Joe DiMaggio
Ralph Kiner
Johnnie Mize
Joe Morgan
Honus Wagner

So he's great at getting on base and he's unquestionably got power among the all time greats. The walk is twice as important as whether you can steal second or go from first to third after it. Getting on base is the most basic objective the batter has.

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Okay your own definition of a Hall of Famer was somebody you feared. Well from about 1996 through 1999 McGwire was both healthy and without question the most feared hitter in baseball. In that 4 year span he averaged 61 homers a season with a .437 OBP and a .704 slugging average. In 2000 he was still the most feared hitter in baseball but only played about half the season. Without even considering the rest of his career, for 4 years he completely dominated. In 1992 and 1987 he had two more great years and a few good ones to go along with it. That's 6 great seasons. The only two first basemen in history that were really better than McGwire were Gehrig and Foxx.

I would say his .394 career OBP is great. A few players within 5 points up or down:

Luke Appling
Joe DiMaggio
Ralph Kiner
Johnnie Mize
Joe Morgan
Honus Wagner

So he's great at getting on base and he's unquestionably got power among the all time greats. The walk is twice as important as whether you can steal second or go from first to third after it. Getting on base is the most basic objective the batter has.

McGwire still falls about one or two good seasons short of being a hall-of-famer, IMO. I know injuries held him back, but they held back Brien Taylor, too. McGwire was indeed incredibly feared for a few years, but I remember the pre-strike years, between '87 and '94, when everyone was talking about how Mark McGwire never lived up to his potential, that he was settling into mediocrity. He broke out of that, and had monster, dominant seasons, but for just a little too short of a time. Close, but no cigar, IMO. If he belongs in, there's no question that Dale Murphy belongs in. I'd put them in the same category, if you adjust for era and period played in.

FarWestChicago
01-08-2002, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


McGwire still falls about one or two good seasons short of being a hall-of-famer, IMO. I know injuries held him back, but they held back Brien Taylor, too. McGwire was indeed incredibly feared for a few years, but I remember the pre-strike years, between '87 and '94, when everyone was talking about how Mark McGwire never lived up to his potential, that he was settling into mediocrity. He broke out of that, and had monster, dominant seasons, but for just a little too short of a time. Close, but no cigar, IMO. If he belongs in, there's no question that Dale Murphy belongs in. I'd put them in the same category, if you adjust for era and period played in. McGwire also had a somewhat successful rookie year. :smile:

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
McGwire also had a somewhat successful rookie year. :smile:

I remember. He had a great rookie year ('87). He had decent seasons in '88, '89, and '90, where he built his reputation here in the Bay Area as Marco Solo - a lot of home runs, but not a lot of real productivity. He just about fell off the map in '91, slowed considerably by injuries, came back with a good season in '92 (42 HRs), then spent most of '93 and '94 on the DL. He started to have a great season in '95, hitting 39 homers in only 104 games before getting hurt once again. If he hadn't been hurt so much, he could have been great, but ifs and buts don't mean a thing.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 09:37 PM
I think Dale Murphy probably belongs in the Hall but he's nowhere near McGwire's caliber.

Here's a good way to compare Murphy and McGwire's best years, runs above position. How many runs were they better than an average player at their position in a given year. I'm taking their six best years:

McGwire's 6 best: 1998 (106 RAP), 1996 (70), 1999 (61), 2000 (49), 1995 (47), 1987 (45)
Total: 378
Murphy's 6 best: 1983 (49 RAP), 1987 (43), 1985 (41), 1982 (34), 1984 (30), 1980 (18)
Total: 215

Well first thing you notice is that Murphy's best season in RAP is only as good as McGwire's 4th best and isn't even half of what McGwire did in 1998. Also notice McGWire's 3 best are better than Murphy's 6 best. Now of course Murphy deserves a lot of credit for defense since he was considered a very good defensive centerfielder and McGwire was considered an adequate first baseman. But to tie McGwire in value over their 6 best years Murphy would have to be worth close to 30 defensive runs a year. That's like Ozzie Smith in his prime.

That's just 6 seasons too, Murphy only has one other season in his career with a RAP above 0 while McGwire has 4. Dale Murphy just isn't in Mark McGwire's league. McGwire was damn good. Top five first basemen of all time good.

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I think Dale Murphy probably belongs in the Hall but he's nowhere near McGwire's caliber.

Here's a good way to compare Murphy and McGwire's best years, runs above position. How many runs were they better than an average player at their position in a given year. I'm taking their six best years:

McGwire's 6 best: 1998 (106 RAP), 1996 (70), 1999 (61), 2000 (49), 1995 (47), 1987 (45)
Total: 378
Murphy's 6 best: 1983 (49 RAP), 1987 (43), 1985 (41), 1982 (34), 1984 (30), 1980 (18)
Total: 215

Well first thing you notice is that Murphy's best season in RAP is only as good as McGwire's 4th best and isn't even half of what McGwire did in 1998. Also notice McGWire's 3 best are better than Murphy's 6 best. Now of course Murphy deserves a lot of credit for defense since he was considered a very good defensive centerfielder and McGwire was considered an adequate first baseman. But to tie McGwire in value over their 6 best years Murphy would have to be worth close to 30 defensive runs a year. That's like Ozzie Smith in his prime.

That's just 6 seasons too, Murphy only has one other season in his career with a RAP above 0 while McGwire has 4. Dale Murphy just isn't in Mark McGwire's league. McGwire was damn good. Top five first basemen of all time good.

I agree that McGwire was good, for a brief period incredible. But for me not a long enough period of time to consider him a hall-of-famer. For me, those years he lost to injury and the fact that he's a one-dimensional ballplayer (and he wouldn't have drawn all those walks if he didn't hit the homers) outweigh the couple of years where he was dominant. For you, and for most other people, it doesn't.

Perfect example of why I don't like Mark McGwire - in 1998, far and away McGwire's best year, he reached base 314 times - 162 walks, 70 homers, 61 singles, and 21 doubles. He scored 130 times. Subtract the number of times that he drove himself in (70)
and he scored 60 times out of the 244 chances he had - he scored 24.5% of the times he reached base safely. Now, McGwire wasn't a speed demon, so i won't compare him to Ichiro, but let's compare him to Frank Thomas.

Thomas, that same year, probably had his worst season ever. Thomas reached base safely 265 times - 110 walks, 89 singles, 35 doubles, 29 homers, and 2 triples. (I don't have the data on HBP or reached on error for either player, sorry.) Thomas scored 109 runs. Again, subtract the 29 times he drove himself in, and you get 80 runs in 236 chances, or 34.9% of the time, and Thomas wasn't exactly a speed burner.

Now, I realize that Albert Belle, who batted behind Thomas, had a better season that year than Ray Lankford, who batted behind McGwire, but my point is that although reaching base safely is very important, it's only step 1 in the equation. Step 2 is coming around to score, and McGwire sucked at that.

DVG
01-09-2002, 08:42 AM
I believe that Frank belongs in the HOF. Hell,
Ryne Sandberg was touted as a HOF'er after his
game against St. Louis in 1984 so I don't think
it is premature at all to say frank belongs.

There is, of course, a downside. That is that
Ricky and Jay and all the other lower life forms
who throw out their garbage in the S-T sports
section will froth at the lips at the thought
that a guy who spent a few years as a DH will
even get a HOF vote. So they will campaign
vigorously against his inclusion. And they will
influence voters, too. Do not for one moment
believe that they won't.

Mariotti, BTW, doesn't believe that sports-
writers should vote for the HOF. Yet he has
already spoken out against the inclusion of
Thomas on his radio show. He is offended that
a guy who was a DH for a few years could get
in.

Conclusion: Sanberg, because he was nominated
for sainthood in 1984, will get in. (I will
state that I believe he deserves to be included.)
Frank is equally deserving, but because he played
for the White Sox and committed the unpardonable
sin of being a DH (the only position that many
feel was not decreed by God when created baseball)
he will not get in. A shame, but it will happen
that way. Mark the day.

irish rover
01-09-2002, 08:49 AM
did some mention that those infamous 7 years of Franks were only match by ruth and gerhig? wasn't sure if it was here or some place else

hold2dibber
01-09-2002, 01:09 PM
The first problem with the DH argument as it applies to Thomas, is that he has played much more first base than he has DH'd during his career. Nonetheless, the bias some people have against DHs is entirely ludicrous. I am sure (and maybe someone has some examples) there are great offensive players who were lousy defensively, before the DH era, and are in the HOF. Would Marisnotti and his ilk think Frank was appropriate for HOF induction if he played first base, but played it poorly, through out his career? Is someone who is awesome (and Frank has been awesome, by any standards) offensively and horrible defensively better or more valuable than someone who is awsome offensively and doesn't play defense? I don't think so. I'm sure there are plenty of HOFers who, if they played today, would be DHs and played the field only because they had no choice. To penalize those who play DH now, when they serve as DH in the best interest of the team under the rules that now govern, is absolutely asinine.

ihatethecubs
01-10-2002, 02:23 AM
i hope dawson and santo never make the hall of fame they dont deserve it

longshot7
01-10-2002, 03:38 AM
correct me if I'm wrong, but Jim Rice, who played a good amount of DH, came up 3rd in the balloting this year. Don Baylor, if he's ever elected, will be the first player who primarily was a DH to get in.

yes, there's definitely a bias against the DH's, but when it comes time, do you really think there will be any argument over Edgar Martinez, who definitely deserves it. Has he ever played the field?

IMHO, I believe that the best way to rectify this (which will never happen) is to eliminate the DH altogether.

czalgosz
01-10-2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by longshot7
correct me if I'm wrong, but Jim Rice, who played a good amount of DH, came up 3rd in the balloting this year. Don Baylor, if he's ever elected, will be the first player who primarily was a DH to get in.

yes, there's definitely a bias against the DH's, but when it comes time, do you really think there will be any argument over Edgar Martinez, who definitely deserves it. Has he ever played the field?


Edgar Martinez came up as a 3B, then he was switched to 1st, then became a DH. Just an FYI...

rmusacch
01-10-2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Jeez do you think ANYONE belongs int he Hall? McGwire is really one of the best 3 first basemen of all time. You're leaving out one of the big things Reggie and McGwire both did and that's walk, a lot. Especially McGwire who was good for 100 walks a year. Reggie actually was fast when he was young, career he stole 228 bases with a career high of 28.

And dude come on, there is a bigass difference between Jackson and Kingman. Jackson hit 26 poitns higher for his career, hit 121 more homers and had over twice as many career walks and stolen bases than Kingman. Jackson was in the top ten in slugging yearly, Kingman was only three times. Jackson won an MVP (In 1973 before he was a Yankee), Kingman never did. Jackson was an All Star 14 times, Kingman 3 times. Kingman hit .236 for his career and only managed a .302 career OBP! I'd say the difference between Reggie Jackson and Dave Kingman is about equal to the different between Carlos Lee and Vlad Guerrero.

I can't believe you used the All Star apperance argument. We all know that being in the All Star Game is pretty much a joke, based on popularity and reputation.

Ray

kermittheefrog
01-10-2002, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by rmusacch


I can't believe you used the All Star apperance argument. We all know that being in the All Star Game is pretty much a joke, based on popularity and reputation.

Ray

We all know all star games aren't a great way to compare players but seriously, do you think there is a single player who has made just a couple all star games who is as good as a given guy who has made 10+?

voodoochile
01-10-2002, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


We all know all star games aren't a great way to compare players but seriously, do you think there is a single player who has made just a couple all star games who is as good as a given guy who has made 10+?

Just using this quote to make a point about the McGwire argument.

He goes in the HOF for one simple reason: The man hit 583 HR. Juiced ball or not, that is one heck of a total. If that doesn't get you in the HOF, than we need a new standard, IMO. Geez... people get so f'n picky. McGwire was an amazing player who would have broken Aaron's record if injuries hadn't severly limited his playing time and career length. Isn't he second in HR/AB for his career?

The HOF is supposed to be about honoring players who stood out head and shoulders above their contemporaries. McGwire clearly fits that description.

Daver
01-10-2002, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Just using this quote to make a point about the McGwire argument.

He goes in the HOF for one simple reason: The man hit 583 HR. Juiced ball or not, that is one heck of a total. If that doesn't get you in the HOF, than we need a new standard, IMO. Geez... people get so f'n picky. McGwire was an amazing player who would have broken Aaron's record if injuries hadn't severly limited his playing time and career length. Isn't he second in HR/AB for his career?

The HOF is supposed to be about honoring players who stood out head and shoulders above their contemporaries. McGwire clearly fits that description.

Had McGwire chosen too he could have went back to the AL and DH'ed his way to the record,but I think he chose the classier way to end his career,unlike Harold.