As Hitters......Gehrig VS Thomas

[Myankee4life]

On another thread Chris claimed that he feels Frank thomas is a better hitter than Lou Gehrig. I posted this on another thread but here it goes again....

Best OPS+ seasons

Gehrig--221,208,203,195,194,190,181,177,177,177  Career- 179
Thomas- 212,181,180,178,178,177,174,160,151,149  Career- 161

Look at this and you cant possibly tell me with a straight face that Thomas 
is in Gehrig's stratosphere. An 18pt lead in OPS+ is a massive lead.... 
That's roughly the difference between Jimmie Foxx and Jeff Bagwell.....
or Jeff Bagwell and Derek Jeter.

Gehrig  Rel BA 121        Rel OB 128         Rel SLG 159
Thomas  Rel BA 115        Rel OB 127         Rel SLG 137

Again not particularly close except OB.... But a 6 pt lead in BA and a even bigger 22! pt lead in SLG.

Gehrig Relative Total AVG- 176
Thomas Relative Total AVG- 155

Total AVG is a measure of overall offensive production including baserunning. Gehrig manhandles Thomas with a 21pt lead.

Gehrig Relative Secondary AVG- 190
Thomas Relative Secondary AVG- 182

Secondary AVG is bases earned on extra base hits and walks divided by at bats and walks....its a good measure of power and patience at the plate. Gehrig leads comfortably by 8pts.

Gehrig Relative Isolated power- 245
Thomas Relative Isolated power- 169

Isolated power is a measure of a players true power. its Slugging % (minus) Batting AVG. C'mon its not even close a 78pt lead!!!!!!

Gehrig Relative Runs Created- (RC) 2197/ (LgRC) 1157 = 190
Thomas Relative Runs Created(RC) 1658/ (LgRC) 1032 = 161

C'mon Chris...you cant be serious....

Opinions??

[leecemark]

--I think Thomas peak was every bit as good as Gehrig's, if not better. He didn't sustain it nearly as well though. Lou was out there every day driving home the runs right till the end of his career. Thomas didn't take care of himself and has been unreliable for half his career.

[Myankee4life]

--I think Thomas peak was every bit as good as Gehrig's, if not better. He didn't sustain it nearly as well though. Lou was out there every day driving home the runs right till the end of his career. Thomas didn't take care of himself and has been unreliable for half his career.

How so at his peak?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

No offense to Frank, but this isn't even a comparison IMO. Apples and Oranges doesn't do Lou justice. He's the Ferrari to Frank's Volkswagon. EqA can mis-adjust all it wants; no comparison.

[leecemark]

--MyYankee, I don't understand your question.
--Sultan, simply stating your opinion doesn't make much of a case. Why is there no comparison? If you look at their peak seasons there isn't much difference.

[DoubleX]

ERA adjustments make ground for Thomas, but that also gets pushed back because in many of Thomas' best seasons, he spent significant time at DH.

[leecemark]

--Actually Thomas move to playing mostly DH coincided with the end of his peak. His batting record has always been better when he was playing the field.

[DoubleX]

--Actually Thomas move to playing mostly DH coincided with the end of his peak. His batting record has always been better when he was playing the field.

he did play significant time at DH during most of his 10 best seaons that Myankee4life posted.

Here are those seasons again: 212, 181, 180, 178, 178, 177, 174, 160, 151, 149

- The 212 season came during the strike-shortened '94, so he had the benefit of less games in total (399 ABs)

- The 181 season (1997), he played 49 games at DH

- The 180 season (1991), he played 101 games at DH

- The first 178 season (1995), he played 54 games at DH

- The 160 season (2000), he played 127 games at DH

- The 151 season (2004), he played 65 games at DH and only had 240 total ABs - this season probably shouldn't even be included, for lack of plate appearances.

- The 149 season (2003), he played 124 games at DH.

So in 6 of his top 10 OPS+ seasons, including 3 of his top 5, he spent significant time at DH. In his very best season, he had the benefit of the strike which shortened the season and prevented any fading down the stretch. Thomas' best season without a strike and without the spending major time at DH, was 1996 when he posted his second 178. That's miles behind Gehrig's best of 221 (not to mention his 208, 203, 195, 194, and 190). In all, Gehrig had 7 seasons better than Thomas' non-DH and non-Strike best year.

I usually give big era adjustments, but in this case it's not enough to overcome Gehrig's big lead. Moreover, the fact that Gehrig went out there and did it everyday, while Thomas has been a DH half the time as well as missed quite a few games in his career, diminish the era considerations.

[538280]

When talking about the best hitters of all time, I'd take Thomas over Gehrig. Thomas' 1994 was much better than any year Gehrig ever had. He had five subsequent seasons every bit as good as Gehrig's best years. Thomas is just barely ahead of Gehrig in EqA, despite Frank going through a rather long decline and Gehrig never having one. With peak EqA, Thomas leads by a very significant 7 points. His 1994 is 24 points ahead of Gehrig's best year (1927).

Sorry to be constantly harping on EqA, but it's really all that's fair to Frank in this case because it is LQ adjusted. Comparing relative stats like Myankee really isn't any more fair to Frank than comparing the raw numbers of Chuck Klein and Jose Cruz.

Also, Gehrig was always seeing lots of pitches to hit in that Yankee lineup. He had Ruth obviously, and even after Ruth he still had great lineup protection with DiMaggio, Dickey, Lazzeri, Selkirk, and Chapman. Frank Thomas never had much protection with the White Sox. It was basically a one man offense all centered around him. Not easy to hit in that environment.

The longevity difference isn't nearly as big as people have made it out to be. Thomas has 8602 PAs, Gehrig has 9660. There's a difference, but really not so much that it erases Frank's peak lead.

[DoubleX]

When talking about the best hitters of all time, I'd take Thomas over Gehrig. Thomas' 1994 was much better than any year Gehrig ever had. He had five subsequent seasons every bit as good as Gehrig's best years. Thomas is just barely ahead of Gehrig in EqA, despite Frank going through a rather long decline and Gehrig never having one. With peak EqA, Thomas leads by a very significant 7 points. His 1994 is 24 points ahead of Gehrig's best year (1927).

Sorry to be constantly harping on EqA, but it's really all that's fair to Frank in this case because it is LQ adjusted. Comparing relative stats like Myankee really isn't any more fair to Frank than comparing the raw numbers of Chuck Klein and Jose Cruz.

Also, Gehrig was always seeing lots of pitches to hit in that Yankee lineup. He had Ruth obviously, and even after Ruth he still had great lineup protection with DiMaggio, Dickey, Lazzeri, Selkirk, and Chapman. Frank Thomas never had much protection with the White Sox. It was basically a one man offense all centered around him. Not easy to hit in that environment.

The longevity difference isn't nearly as big as people have made it out to be. Thomas has 8602 PAs, Gehrig has 9660. There's a difference, but really not so much that it erases Frank's peak lead.

And the fact that a lot of those appearances for Thomas came at DH doesn't matter, or that Thomas' best year was the strike-shortened year, in which he didn't have to contend with fatigue down the stretch?

As for the declines you mention, Thomas started to decline in, what, 2001? At age 33? Gehrig was still extremely productive through age 34, and probably would have been for at least a couple of more seasons if not for the fatal disease. So despite playing everyday, battling through injuries, and not benefiting from the DH, and not benefitting from modern medicine and conditioning, Gehrig was able to ward off decline longer than Thomas was, and those are more points in Gehrig's favor.

[538280]

And the fact that a lot of those appearances for Thomas came at DH doesn't matter, or that Thomas' best year was the strike-shortened year, in which he didn't have to contend with fatigue down the stretch?

The DH really isn't a factor to me. We're talking about the most valuable hitters of all time. It doesn't matter what position they're playing. If the fact Frank was a DH makes him a more valuable hitter, then so be it. We're talking pure hitting here, not overall value.

Anyway, in their respective peaks where Frank is ahead, he was a first baseman primarily.

We can't penalize Frank for his best year coming during the strike. He may have done worse with fatigue setting in, but he may have done better as well. Looking at his month by month performance, Frank was basically the same hitter down the stretch as he was early in the year. The best way to deal with this sort of thing is just to project his numbers out at the same pace.

As for the declines you mention, Thomas started to decline in, what, 2001? At age 33? Gehrig was still extremely productive through age 34, and probably would have been for at least a couple of more seasons if not for the fatal disease. So despite playing everyday, battling through injuries, and not benefiting from the DH, and not benefitting from modern medicine and conditioning, Gehrig was able to ward off decline longer than Thomas was, and those are more points in Gehrig's favor.

Well, if you want to say Gehrig still would have been productive if not for the disease, I'll say Frank would have still been productive if he didn't get hurt in 2001. You can't give Lou disease credit. If you do, you have to give Frank injury credit as well.

Both Gehrig and Thomas actually declined early, and both due basically to injury. No difference. Gehrig lost it one year later. Big deal. Modern medicine/conditioning? Do modern players generally tend to last longer than older players? No, not really. If that was really a big factor then modern players would have longer careers.

[DoubleX]

The DH really isn't a factor to me. We're talking about the most valuable hitters of all time. It doesn't matter what position they're playing. If the fact Frank was a DH makes him a more valuable hitter, then so be it. We're talking pure hitting here, not overall value.

Anyway, in their respective peaks where Frank is ahead, he was a first baseman primarily.

We can't penalize Frank for his best year coming during the strike. He may have done worse with fatigue setting in, but he may have done better as well. Looking at his month by month performance, Frank was basically the same hitter down the stretch as he was early in the year. The best way to deal with this sort of thing is just to project his numbers out at the same pace.

Well, if you want to say Gehrig still would have been productive if not for the disease, I'll say Frank would have still been productive if he didn't get hurt in 2001. You can't give Lou disease credit. If you do, you have to give Frank injury credit as well.

Both Gehrig and Thomas actually declined early, and both due basically to injury. No difference. Gehrig lost it one year later. Big deal. Modern medicine/conditioning? Do modern players generally tend to last longer than older players? No, not really. If that was really a big factor then modern players would have longer careers.

The DH does factor into a hitting conversation because it allows for a player to be a better hitter by concentrating only on hitting and not having to deal with playing the field. It allows a player to rest up and play for a few minutes every few innings instead of the whole game. In a conversation about hitting, a player that spent significant time at DH (which Thomas did during most of his peak years, please see my earlier post), has an advantage to be a better hitter.

We can penalize Frank for the strike season, it wasn't a full season. It's easier to put up better rate statistics when the sample is smaller.

Modern players do tend to last logner than older players on whole, and it has a lot to do with modern medicine and conditioning. Who knows, Frank may have been out of baseball by now had he played in the 30's because of A) his injuries; and B) no DH.

As for the injuries, you're comparing broken bones and tendons in Thomas, things that can be repaired and return a player to the field, to a FATAL DISEASE, that still has no cure. There is no comparison in that. Gehrig declined because he was dying, not because he was lame and getting older - that is a significant difference. Gehrig's decline was premised on extremely dramatic and unusual circumstances circumstances, whereas Thomas is just a typical decline in which the signs where there of a decline before it happend. Gehrig exhibited no such signs prior to the onset of the disease.

[Myankee4life]

--MyYankee, I don't understand your question.

How was Thomas better at his peak than Gehrig?

[Myankee4life]

The DH really isn't a factor to me. We're talking about the most valuable hitters of all time. It doesn't matter what position they're playing. If the fact Frank was a DH makes him a more valuable hitter, then so be it. We're talking pure hitting here, not overall value.

Being a DH allows a player to only think of his at bats...... the player is more well rested when stepping up to the plate and doesn't have to worry about anything other than hitting. Hence, Thomas had an easier job than Gehrig.

Anyway, in their respective peaks where Frank is ahead, he was a first baseman primarily.

We can't penalize Frank for his best year coming during the strike. He may have done worse with fatigue setting in, but he may have done better as well. Looking at his month by month performance, Frank was basically the same hitter down the stretch as he was early in the year. The best way to deal with this sort of thing is just to project his numbers out at the same pace.

If thats the case then we should look at Gehrig through 113 games because I guarantee you in some of Gehrig's best years through 113 games he was hitting near .400 until his usual late season slump..in other words Gehrig's numbers would look even more impresive given the same time frame as Thomas.. We cant give Thomas credit for what he didn't do be it a strike or anything. Gehrig played every game while putting up those numbers. Thomas's peak season therefore is not better than Gehrig's because it wasn't a full season.


Well, if you want to say Gehrig still would have been productive if not for the disease, I'll say Frank would have still been productive if he didn't get hurt in 2001. You can't give Lou disease credit. If you do, you have to give Frank injury credit as well.

Not the same thing. Gehrig was dying...Thomas was not. Gehrig never healed form ALS....his motor cells were dying out. Thomas is not suffering the effects from that 2001 injury so what's it relevance?....

Both Gehrig and Thomas actually declined early, and both due basically to injury. No difference. Gehrig lost it one year later. Big deal. Modern medicine/conditioning? Do modern players generally tend to last longer than older players? No, not really. If that was really a big factor then modern players would have longer careers.

You have 2 players. One declined because of a fatal injury...the other because of an injury. Jeter suffered a dislocated shoulder in 2003 and yet he's putting up numbers. There are alot of players that come back from injury....why cant Thomas.....if anything he should lose credit for it. No player has ever come back from a fatal illness.

Answers above

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The DH does factor into a hitting conversation because it allows for a player to be a better hitter by concentrating only on hitting and not having to deal with playing the field. It allows a player to rest up and play for a few minutes every few innings instead of the whole game. In a conversation about hitting, a player that spent significant time at DH (which Thomas did during most of his peak years, please see my earlier post), has an advantage to be a better hitter.

Not true:

1990: 1B:51-DH:8
1991: DH:101- 1B:56
1992: 1B:158- DH:2
1993: 1B:150- DH: 4
1994: 1B:99- DH:13
1995: 1B:90- DH:54
1996: 1B:139- DH:0
1997: 1B:97- DH:49
1998: 1B:14- DH:146
1999: DH:83- 1B:49
2000: DH:127- 1B:30
2001: DH: 16- 1B:3
2002: DH:140- 1B:4
2003: DH:124- 1B:27
2004: DH: 65- 1B:4
2005: DH:28- 1B: 0


It wasn't until Thomas was past 30 that he became pretty much a full time DH. But all his best seasons came in his 20s. It looks like 1999 was his "transition" year.