If Jim Thome is a no doubt Hall of Famer...

[DrungoHazewood]

The reason this is even a debate is because there was never a point in time that Thome was the best player in baseball. Nobody is going to look back at the 2000s and say wow, that was the Thome era. 600 HR's or not.

There are players in the Hall of Fame who were rarely/never the best player on their own team. There are players in the Hall of Fame who were basically league-average performers. Jim Thome has both a career and a peak value just massively higher than any number of long time HOFers.

[DrungoHazewood]

Dominance counts for more than longevity. To a certain point.

Sure it does, until it doesn't. There are players who were never dominant but played a long time in the Hall (Maranville, Kell, many others). There are players who were dominant for shorter stretches who aren't in the Hall (Belle, Allen, Gavvy Cravath) who aren't in. There are players who were neither dominant nor had particularly long careers who are in (McCarthy, High Pockets Kelly).

[Can_of_corn]

So the Hall of Fame is only for players regarded as the "best player in baseball" at one point or another? I have a hard time believing Cal Ripken or Ryne Sandberg or Dennis Eckersley were ever considered the best player in baseball.

Cal Jr was during his second MVP season. Cal was really good for his first decade or so.

[DrungoHazewood]

Cal Jr was during his second MVP season. Cal was really good for his first decade or so.

Cal led the league in WAR in '83, '84 and '91.

[Can_of_corn]

Cal led the league in WAR in '83, '84 and '91.

True but had he put in enough time at that point to be considered "the best player in baseball"? By the '91 season he was very well established as a premier player. Austin was asking about perception, not reality.

[waroriole]

So the Hall of Fame is only for players regarded as the "best player in baseball" at one point or another? I have a hard time believing Cal Ripken or Ryne Sandberg or Dennis Eckersley were ever considered the best player in baseball.

Each of those guys were MVPs. Still, for anyone to think Thome isn't a HoF is ridiculous.

[Austin]

True but had he put in enough time at that point to be considered "the best player in baseball"? By the '91 season he was very well established as a premier player. Austin was asking about perception, not reality.

I was talking about perception. He may have been the best player in any given year, and he did win some MVPs.. but would anyone have called him the "best player in baseball"? Maybe, but I think for the most part he never really fit under that category. Maybe it was a bad example but there are plenty of players worse than Ripken in the HOF.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I was talking about perception. He may have been the best player in any given year, and he did win some MVPs.. but would anyone have called him the "best player in baseball"? Maybe, but I think for the most part he never really fit under that category. Maybe it was a bad example but there are plenty of players worse than Ripken in the HOF.

If you add in the previous two seasons' WAR, Barry Bonds leads Ripken 25.7 to 24. Rickey Henderson was slightly behind at 23.6, and if you want to including pitchers Roger Clemens was at 22.3 WAR.

I think you can argue that Bonds (who was second in WAR in 1991 behind Ripken) was the best player in baseball at that point. Of course, when you are that close and in that much of an argument, does it matter all that much?

[UnashamedRiver]

I should have clarified. Thome was never really a top 5 player. Nobody is going to look back and say that was the Thome era. I still think he should be a lock.