http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/01/04...rs-in-baseball/

 

1993-97: Barry Bonds

Close: Nobody

In the discussion: Thomas, Biggio, Mike Piazza, Bagwell, Maddux, Albert Belle.

 

Every so often I hear someone ask: “Is Frank Thomas a Hall of Famer?” Are you kidding? Frank Thomas’ first full seven years — .330/.452/.604 with OPS+ of 182. I want to repeat that — an OPS+ of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO. Just as an example …

 

First seven full years:

Frank Thomas: 182

Mickey Mantle: 181

Albert Pujols: 167

Willie Mays: 164

Barry Bonds: 160

Joe DiMaggio: 159

 

To give you an idea, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, Hank Greenberg, and a 100 other Hall of Famers never ONCE had an OPS+ of 182 in a season. Frank Thomas is one of the best hitters in baseball history.

 

Just more praise for the big man who is continually underappreciated except by Posnanski.

 

I don't think you can emphasize enough the run Frank had in the 90's. Its too bad money issues forced him to play longer than he should have.

I don't think you can emphasize enough the run Frank had in the 90's. Its too bad money issues forced him to play longer than he should have.

 

 

LOL I remember one time back in the 90s on the radio (ESPN 1000 or The Score) when some Cub fan was arguing how Sammy Sosa was a MUCH better hitter than Big Frank... The host looked up and started throwing around stats.... TOTALLY undressed the Cub fan and made him sound like a complete arse for about 20 minutes without hanging up on him. The host wasn't being a total jagbag like bernstein about it either... he was just quoting stats. I actually felt sorry for the Cub fan.

 

Now that I think about it... the host was Mike Murphy on the old Murph and Fred show on the Score...

Edited January 4, 201016 yr by Chet Kincaid

Joe is the best writer in baseball.

I don't think you can emphasize enough the run Frank had in the 90's. Its too bad money issues forced him to play longer than he should have.

 

Yes, I think the people that question Frank's HOF credentials look at the 2003-2007 Frank Thomas and think he's a glorified Jack Cust and forget the monster he was for the majority of his career.

Edited January 4, 201016 yr by heirdog

Yes, I think the people that question Frank's HOF credentials look at the 2003-2007 Frank Thomas and think he's a glorified Jack Cust and forget the monster he was for the majority of this career.

On the other hand...where did that monster 2006 season come from.

More sanctification of Bill James and correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see the word steroids anywhere in the article. Here is an example.

 

1999-03: Barry Bonds

Close: Nobody

In the discussion: Jason Giambi, Alex Rodriguez, Sosa, Sheffield, Chipper.

 

Barry Bonds in those five years: .322/.497/.748 with a 223 OPS+.

 

I'm sorry I wasted my time and I grow more tired of the James revolution with each passing day. Why even bother to attend the games anymore?

 

I do hope that big Frank makes the HOF the minute he is eligible. I may be naive but I think all of his stats are legit.

Edited January 4, 201016 yr by SI1020

On the other hand...where did that monster 2006 season come from.

 

I don't get it, are you suggesting PEDs? He was an incredible hitter in his prime ('90s) and became a low avg, higher relative OBP, slugger in the end. His 2006 was clearly due to ZizZazz and not anything else:

 

I don't get it, are you suggesting PEDs? He was an incredible hitter in his prime ('90s) and became a low avg, higher relative OBP, slugger in the end. His 2006 was clearly due to ZizZazz and not anything else:

 

No, I'm just saying that if you think of him as a glorified Jack Cust, he still managed to explode in 2006 again, the last time he was healthy.

Joe is the best writer in baseball.

He really is fantastic.

Look at Frank Thomas June 2005 numbers and remember the White Sox may not make the playoffs if not for that.

Yes, I think the people that question Frank's HOF credentials look at the 2003-2007 Frank Thomas and think he's a glorified Jack Cust and forget the monster he was for the majority of his career.

 

You say that as if he wasn't good those years. OPS's of .952, .997, .905, .934 and .857. Certainly not the hitter he was during his prime. But still very, very productive.

Look at Frank Thomas June 2005 numbers and remember the White Sox may not make the playoffs if not for that.

I agree. I thought that for June he carried the team. He may feel like he didn't contribute alot to the WS team, but without him in June, I felt that they wouldn't have made it there to begin with.

Wow, I guess I need to improve my written communication skills. I am a huge Thomas fan and think there shouldn't even be a 1 second lapse in voting him into the HOF.

 

 

My point is these people that even question it may look at the last few years, which are still pretty damn good but not as great as he was. I gave the Cust example as a guy who hit for a low avg but had a high OBP and slugging (thus the high OPS). My point is that if you judge him by those numbers alone, then you're missing his whole body of work and might question his HOF criteria. These people, and let me be clear, are dead wrong.

 

JP brought it up in his article so I just commented on that note.

Actually just recently re-watched the movie Mr. Baseball with Tom Selleck. It's funny that Frank Thomas is the one who replaces him as the Yankees first baseman. It was a sad clip though to see Frank in a Yankees hat. Also a pretty funny movie overall. Just thought I'd share that tangent.

 

Also, noticed Sosa in the Frank video, that was funny also. Who would have thought at the time those guys would combine for over 1100 home runs?

Edited January 5, 201016 yr by maggsmaggs

haha damn what a powerful swing he had... and lol at sosa.

Yes, I think the people that question Frank's HOF credentials look at the 2003-2007 Frank Thomas and think he's a glorified Jack Cust and forget the monster he was for the majority of his career.

 

That, and it also seems that the vast majority of other teams' fans believe he was on steroids based solely on his size.

Sosa looks like a bean pole in that clip

That, and it also seems that the vast majority of other teams' fans believe he was on steroids based solely on his size.

Yeah that is such a lazy ass argument, you see pics of him from college when he played FOOTBALL and you could see he was still a behemoth. Then he got old, and got fat like all old guys do.

JoePos is a great writer, easily one of the best. He does a great job of cutting through the sentimental crap. He also employs advanced statistics in a way that is easily accessible.

Yeah that is such a lazy ass argument, you see pics of him from college when he played FOOTBALL and you could see he was still a behemoth. Then he got old, and got fat like all old guys do.

 

He put on most of his weight after he quit playing the field.

Yeah that is such a lazy ass argument, you see pics of him from college when he played FOOTBALL and you could see he was still a behemoth. Then he got old, and got fat like all old guys do.

He got real big about 1993/1994. I remember him on Letterman saying he weighed 285. I guess he has a couple of sister who check in over 3 bills.

Edited January 5, 201016 yr by Dick Allen

He got real big about 1993/1994. I remember him on Letterman saying he weighed 285. I guess he has a couple of sister who check in over 3 bills.

Hah, thanks for the early morning chuckle, DA!