Even in the 1995-2000 stretch, I would have to pick Jeff Bagwell over Thome.
-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
Jim Thome hits 600th homer
- Thread starter Da Coach
- Start date
Even in the 1995-2000 stretch, I would have to pick Jeff Bagwell over Thome.
For a comparison- Bagwell was eligible for this year's Hall of Fame ballot- and he was named on a surprisingly low number of ballots- only 41.7%, barely more than Tim Raines!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/7367000.html
An analysis of votes made public prior to Wednesday??™s formal announcement indicated Bagwell??™s candidacy was hindered by a number of factors, including suspicion of performance-enhancing drug use as well as first-ballot hesitation and some concern about his statistics simply not meeting the mark.
75% is needed to make it into the HOF. The rumors of possible steroid use has kept many of the HOF voters from voting for sluggers who played during the "steroid era" of the late 1990's-2000's.
That same mentality could hurt Jim when he eventually appears on the HOF ballot, though nobody has ever suggested Jim's career is tainted.
Nice article about Jim and how he has done things the right way-
http://sportingnews.com/mlb/feed/20...f-cheats-thome-is-a-player-worth-believing-in
http://sportingnews.com/mlb/feed/20...f-cheats-thome-is-a-player-worth-believing-in
McGriff, Grace, Thomas, Bagwell, Helton, Pujols, McGwire (though he clearly juiced), Howard (though I don't think he should be), Fielder, would all be considered better than Thome at 1B during his Era in a given season. Thome was never one of the greatest players in any one season during his time, but once you consider his longevity and success over that time he has to be a HOF'er and I'd argue he should at least get strong consideration for first ballot.
This is not quite accurate. Jim had a number of great years. He is a 5-time All Star. Check his stats. 4 different times he finished high in the voting for the MVP award, and 9 times he has gotten votes.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/thomeji01.shtml
In 2001 he batted .291, hit 49 HR, and had 124 RBI.
In 2002 he batted .304, hit 52 homers, and had 118 RBI. He lead the AL in walks (122), slugging percentage (.677), and OPS (1.122).
In 2003 for the Phillies he lead the NL in homers with 47, had 131 RBI, 111 walks.
In Jim's most productive years from 1996 through 2004 it is hard to find many players who had better numbers who were not using steroids.
Show me a year he was the best player at his position, the only one that it's even arguable is 1996 (let alone even in the discussion regarding MLB). I'm not disputing many used steroids, but just 2001 to 2004 Pujols was easily better, late 90's to early 2000's Bagwell and Helton were clearly better, early to late 90's, Frank Thomas was clearly better. None of those players have at all been tainted by PED's Like I said (and it is most definitely accurate), Thome's greatness is his longevity, not that he was the best at any one time.
I never said he was the top player at his position. But you stated-
"Thome was never one of the greatest players in any one season during his time"
And that is what I was disputing. Jim was clearly one of the top players for several of those seasons noted. Also it should be noted that the many of the players you would say were ahead of Jim were those who were juicing.
"Thome was never one of the greatest players in any one season during his time"
And that is what I was disputing. Jim was clearly one of the top players for several of those seasons noted. Also it should be noted that the many of the players you would say were ahead of Jim were those who were juicing.
sousaman2089
New member
He had a .217 batting average in the playoffs.........and a .320 OBP...maybe playoff success wasn't the best example.
BUT, Thome played clean (which puts him ahead of McGwire and Giambi), didn't play in Coor's Field (which puts him ahead of Todd Helton) and wasn't crazy (which puts him ahead of Mo Vaughn).
Saying he wasn't one of the top players at his position is kind of weak, since first base has always been the position of many of the most talented offensive players (so they didn't have exert so much effort on defense).
But he was consistent. He always had great power numbers and was almost always in the top 10 in on-base percentage (which in my humble opinion shows the value of a hitter better then any other stat.)
No, he's not Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols and the difference between he and Bagwell is debatable since Jim Thome's prime lasted just about as long as Bagwell's career.
Not to mention, it's highly suspected that Bagwell was a roid guy.
sousaman2089
New member
Now there's no proof, no evidence, no report, no column, no former teammate, no no old trainer, no used syringe, no nothing that accuses Bagwell of being a roids guy, it's all speculation and that's a shame.
He got bigger, but so did Frank Thomas
The fact that his throwing shoulder was so weak that he could barely throw to third base after 2002 is evidence that he obviously wasn't taking anything that would "help him recover quicker."
P.S.: Not an attack on you, but just one on people pronouncing others guilty before any evidence was presented.
Pujols...Bagwell and Helton...Frank Thomas... Who juiced there?
I have mentioned only one player who juiced (McGwire) and readily admitted that... so I don't know how you say many... everyplayer but one (that I acknowledged) listed is believed clean.
sousaman2089
New member
There's no shame being behind Pujols and Thomas. All three are top 50 all time greats when it comes to producing offense
Whether he's behind Bagwell and Helton is debatable, so I'd say he was considered one of the top at his position.
Whether he's behind Bagwell and Helton is debatable, so I'd say he was considered one of the top at his position.
You gave a total of 3 names that are believed to be clean, but we'll probably never know for sure. I do believe that Frank Thomas was clean, but I don't know that I believe the others were. Is it just a coincidence that the power numbers for players like Bagwell, Helton, and just about everyone else dropped off precipitously after testing was instituted for steroids?
Mandatory steroid testing began in MLB in the 2004 season.
Check Helton's number for example-
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/heltoto01.shtml
Helton averaged 37 HR per year for the 6 seasons before testing, then averaged less than 14 HR per year for the 6 years after testing was instituted, despite being in the prime of his career. Just a coincidence? I don't think so. That is such a massive difference that it certainly raises suspicions.
Bagwell's performance also dropped off precipitously after 2004, though he was older. He couldn't stay healthy, couldn't play any more, and just chose to retire early. Again, maybe a coincidence, but I am not buying it.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bagweje01.shtml
Here are just some of the prominent players of Jim's era that have been known or strongly implicated to have used steroids:
Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, Manny Ramirez, Jose Canseco, Miguel Tejada, Alex Rodriguez, Mike Piazza, David Ortiz, Gary Sheffield, Mo Vaughn, Ivan Rodriguez, Magglio Ordonez, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, etc.
http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/bse-list-steroid-hgh-users-baseball.html
And, one would have to be pretty naive to deny that many more players used steroids or other PEDs. It is well known that these drugs are easily available, and untraceable in other countries like the Dominican Republic, but they were also easily available in the US, and still are.
sousaman2089
New member
Helton's power numbers dropped dramatically exactly at the same time the Rockies started storing the baseballs in a roomed sized humidor, effectively ending the offensive advantages of playing in the thin. So suggesting that he is using steroids is ignoring some significant facts.
TheAsianSensation
New member
I laugh at anyone who says Bagwell or Helton is a better hitter for his time than Thome.
Being the devil's advocate, there are people who are saying just 5 all star games isn't representative of a HoF resume, and he didn't finish high enough in any single MVP ballot and didn't show up as often as a HoFer would.
Being the devil's advocate, there are people who are saying just 5 all star games isn't representative of a HoF resume, and he didn't finish high enough in any single MVP ballot and didn't show up as often as a HoFer would.
You are glossing over some important facts. The Rockies started storing their baseballs in a humidor in 2002, to try to simulate the same conditions in most other Major League cities. They did this only after scientific studies showed that baseballs stored in Denver's dryer, higher-altitude climate caused them to shrink and harden.
Helton's numbers did drop after 2002, but there was a much bigger percentage drop after 2004, when the steroid testing started?
The stricter steroid testing was approved January, 2005, and went into effect for the 2005 season-
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-01-12-steroid-policy_x.htm
Check Helton's stats- how does the Colorado Rockies humidor explain the much more significant drop off in Helton's numbers after 2004 when the steroid testing began?
And I am not picking just on Helton. I do not know whether he used steroids, I just think the numbers, and the huge drop-off in his power numbers after 2004 are suspicious, and they seem to be eerily coincidental with the testing that achieved a degree of removal of steroids from the game. It is amazing that a guy who once hit 49 homers in a season, has turned into mostly a singles hitter the last 5-6 years.
But there was a huge drop-off in power numbers for many players league wide after 2004.
And here are the numbers of homers hit at Coors Field-
Season...Runs per game...Home runs per game
2000...........14.37...............3.02
2001...........13.40...............3.31
2002...........12.21...............2.86- started using humidor for baseballs
2003...........11.94...............2.84
2004...........12.69...............2.73
2005...........11.09...............2.10- steroid testing started
2006...........10.73...............2.07
2007...........10.58...............2.23
2008.................................2.18
2009.................................2.12
2010.................................2.31
2011.................................2.20
And again, note that there was a slight drop in home runs per game (and runs) after 2001 that might be explained by the humidor, but by far, the biggest drop shows up in 2005, when the stricter steroid testing started, and the home run numbers have never again approached those pre-steroid testing numbers.
Clearly the removal of steroids from the game had a much greater effect than the humidor.
But there was a huge drop-off in power numbers for many players league wide after 2004.
And here are the numbers of homers hit at Coors Field-
Season...Runs per game...Home runs per game
2000...........14.37...............3.02
2001...........13.40...............3.31
2002...........12.21...............2.86- started using humidor for baseballs
2003...........11.94...............2.84
2004...........12.69...............2.73
2005...........11.09...............2.10- steroid testing started
2006...........10.73...............2.07
2007...........10.58...............2.23
2008.................................2.18
2009.................................2.12
2010.................................2.31
2011.................................2.20
And again, note that there was a slight drop in home runs per game (and runs) after 2001 that might be explained by the humidor, but by far, the biggest drop shows up in 2005, when the stricter steroid testing started, and the home run numbers have never again approached those pre-steroid testing numbers.
Clearly the removal of steroids from the game had a much greater effect than the humidor.
By the way, I am not the first to suggest Todd Helton used steroids. There are allegations that former Colorado Rockies manager Don Baylor has said he did.-
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...on-a-great-player-with-two-phenomenal-seasons
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...on-a-great-player-with-two-phenomenal-seasons
sousaman2089
New member
I just don't like that fact that people yell "STEROIDS!" based off of circumstantial evidence.
The whole "guilty until proven innocent" idea doesn't seem right.
And why is saying Bagwell is better then Thome laughable?
Bagwell had more hits then Thome, even though Thome played 6 more seasons. Bagwell has a higher career on base percentage and batting average, more RBIs per season, struck out 40 less times per season and Bagwell averaged 15 stolen bases per season when Thome only had 19 in his career.
The whole "guilty until proven innocent" idea doesn't seem right.
And why is saying Bagwell is better then Thome laughable?
Bagwell had more hits then Thome, even though Thome played 6 more seasons. Bagwell has a higher career on base percentage and batting average, more RBIs per season, struck out 40 less times per season and Bagwell averaged 15 stolen bases per season when Thome only had 19 in his career.
The problem, I think, is that every pro or amateur athlete that has ever been proven to have used steroids or PEDs, or suspected to use them, has vehemently denied it when the issue first arose. Some have even gotten into serious trouble or gone to jail by testifying under oath. So just their denials and lack of proof initially are not enough for intelligent and educated fans to believe they are clean. We do not owe them the "innocent until proven guilty" concept.
Does anyone still believe Roger Clemens was clean? We may never get him to admit it, but does anyone still believe he put up some of his best career numbers at the age of 41 & 42 . He struck out 218 batters at age 41, and had a career-best ERA of 1.87 at age 42! And like the other examples I have given, as soon as the steroid testing was instituted, Clemens returned to mortal status, suffered several injuries, finished 7-6 and 6-6 in his final 2 seasons, and finally retired at age 44. I suspect he would still be pitching if steroids were not removed from the game.
Does anyone still believe Roger Clemens was clean? We may never get him to admit it, but does anyone still believe he put up some of his best career numbers at the age of 41 & 42 . He struck out 218 batters at age 41, and had a career-best ERA of 1.87 at age 42! And like the other examples I have given, as soon as the steroid testing was instituted, Clemens returned to mortal status, suffered several injuries, finished 7-6 and 6-6 in his final 2 seasons, and finally retired at age 44. I suspect he would still be pitching if steroids were not removed from the game.
tornado
New member
if Major League baseball split into two leagues --
One being "drug-free" and the other being anything allowed including steroids...
I have my strong suspicions that the steroid league would get all the best athletes and draw the most fans by far... kinda ironic -- but it's what the fans love and want to see.......
remember the steroid-fueled battle between Sammy Sosa & Mark McGwire then Bonds' push for 70 HR?
Even at the time most of us knew they were on steroids but we didn't care and we wanted to watch & follow intensely.
One being "drug-free" and the other being anything allowed including steroids...
I have my strong suspicions that the steroid league would get all the best athletes and draw the most fans by far... kinda ironic -- but it's what the fans love and want to see.......
remember the steroid-fueled battle between Sammy Sosa & Mark McGwire then Bonds' push for 70 HR?
Even at the time most of us knew they were on steroids but we didn't care and we wanted to watch & follow intensely.