PDA

View Full Version : Griffey Jr: He gawn!


It's Time
10-28-2008, 11:05 PM
Never understood the trade for him to begin with.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3669977

JermaineDye05
10-28-2008, 11:07 PM
Never understood the trade for him to begin with.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3669977

He did help us win at least 1 game, 1 game was a factor in the Central this year.

skobabe8
10-28-2008, 11:09 PM
We gave up nothing for a chance on Griffey. Nothing wrong with that.

Medford Bobby
10-28-2008, 11:14 PM
Yea It's like Mantle in 68 or Mays in 73. Junior looks old and slow. I can't see an American League team signing him as a DH. Maybe Seattle for retirement purposes. As a White Sox, he was too slow in the outfield. I think Kenny thought he'd be this years playoff Geoff Blum.:scratch:

http://i21.ebayimg.com/01/i/001/17/b7/17d5_1.JPG

Lundind1
10-28-2008, 11:14 PM
I am just glad that he got a stop here in chicago. I am also proud to say that we tried to get him that world series ring that he so desired.

manders_01
10-28-2008, 11:26 PM
Bummer! Thanks for the time you spent here. Nothing but good wishes for the rest of your career. :gulp:

Blueprint1
10-28-2008, 11:32 PM
Well, we all knew it was a one year deal.

guillensdisciple
10-28-2008, 11:37 PM
I will miss him.

BleacherBandit
10-29-2008, 12:03 AM
This isn't official, obviously, but it might as well be.

thomas35forever
10-29-2008, 12:22 AM
The throw home in the Blackout Game alone made the trade worth it. Thanks for the few moments you gave us, Junior.

doublem23
10-29-2008, 12:31 AM
The throw home in the Blackout Game alone made the trade worth it. Thanks for the few moments you gave us, Junior.

That, and now I don't have to hear people whine about why Danny Richar doesn't get a chance to play 2B for the Sox. Thanks, Junior. I wish you could have gotten that elusive ring.

WhiteSox5187
10-29-2008, 12:40 AM
I'm glad we had Junior as he still had ONE great defensive play in him and boy did we need that! But other wise it was getting sad watching him patrol CF for us.

cub killer
10-29-2008, 01:58 AM
If, during the '90s, someone had told me that one day both Jim Thome and Ken Griffey Jr. would be on the Sox at the same time, I probably would've fainted.

JermaineDye05
10-29-2008, 02:06 AM
If, during the '90s, someone had told me that one day both Jim Thome and Ken Griffey Jr. would be on the Sox at the same time, I probably would've fainted.

If someone told me a couple years ago that Carlos Quentin and Alexei Ramirez would be on the Sox. I probably would have fainted, and then come to and asked "who's Alexei Ramirez?".

TDog
10-29-2008, 03:08 AM
Never understood the trade for him to begin with.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3669977

I didn't have any problem with the trade. I didn't think it was a bad deal, and I posted that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't hit any home runs with the White Sox.

By the way, Griffey wasn't as bad as Willie Mays was with the Mets in 1973, and the Mets got to the World Series in 1973, despite winning just 82 regular season games.

The Sox weren't that far from being a World Series team this year. If Quentin hadn't gone down, Griffey's role wouldn't have been as important. As it turned out, he came up with a nice defensive play in one of hte great games in White Sox history.

I think the White Sox can do better in putting together a team for next season, though.

tstrike2000
10-29-2008, 06:38 AM
Never understood the trade for him to begin with.

KW stated it was to safeguard in case one of our other guys went down for an extended period of time. Who knew he'd be right? We knew this was just going to be a late season rental, but thanks Grif for the contributions and of course, the blackout game.

turners56
10-29-2008, 07:09 AM
He sure sold some tickets.

hellview
10-29-2008, 07:10 AM
Thanks for nothing Griffey...btw that play in the blackout game was all AJ, it was a garbage throw.

Chez
10-29-2008, 07:50 AM
Thanks for nothing Griffey...btw that play in the blackout game was all AJ, it was a garbage throw.

What didn't you like about the throw; that it was too "on-line" or too "on-time?" A.J. made a great play, but the throw was far from "garbage." Sheesh :scratch:

hellview
10-29-2008, 07:58 AM
What didn't you like about the throw; that it was too "on-line" or too "on-time?" A.J. made a great play, but the throw was far from "garbage." Sheesh :scratch:

It was like a 15 hopper that AJ made a great play to get.

esbrechtel
10-29-2008, 07:59 AM
It was like a 15 hopper that AJ made a great play to get.

Watch the play again....it maybe hopped twice which is a pretty standard throw from the outfield....I was glad I got to see Jr. in a sox uni.

Law11
10-29-2008, 08:01 AM
Thanks for nothing Griffey...btw that play in the blackout game was all AJ, it was a garbage throw.

Get over it. I for one was thrilled to see the guy play here for even a short time.

Chez
10-29-2008, 08:02 AM
It was like a 15 hopper that AJ made a great play to get.

No. One hop. On the money. Check the video. I just did.

SoxandtheCityTee
10-29-2008, 08:04 AM
A.J. made a great play, but the throw was far from "garbage." Sheesh :scratch:

My thought too. What a great moment to be at the park. I had hoped for one or two more, but it was not to be. Doesn't mean Griffey was a bad idea.

Craig Grebeck
10-29-2008, 08:23 AM
Guys, please. Griff was in short center field. He barely got it over the mound. I'm glad it was accurate but it was not a great throw.

SoxandtheCityTee
10-29-2008, 08:26 AM
Guys, please. Griff was in short center field. He barely got it over the mound. I'm glad it was accurate but it was not a great throw.

Nor did it hop 15 times -- which wasn't what you said. But someone did.

Frontman
10-29-2008, 08:29 AM
Thanks for nothing Griffey...btw that play in the blackout game was all AJ, it was a garbage throw.

Wow, negative much?

This proves people see what they want to see. I saw it as a great play, and if BBTN and its production staff could see it?

It was obviously a good play.

:D:

palehozenychicty
10-29-2008, 08:49 AM
I concur with people's sentiments that it was nice to have him on the team, but he can't play anymore. Aside from that, I wish that we had him to start 2000.

daveeym
10-29-2008, 08:54 AM
Wow, negative much?

This proves people see what they want to see. I saw it as a great play, and if BBTN and its production staff could see it?

It was obviously a good play.

:D:It was a perfect throw, just what an outfielder is supposed to do. Got rid of it fast while coming in on it, kept it low, one hop and not shorthopped. You try to control yourself to make the "perfect" throw these knuckleheads want and you airmail it or take too long to get rid of it. Nice play by AJ as well.

MeteorsSox4367
10-29-2008, 09:00 AM
It was cool to see one of my favorite players in a Sox uniform, even if it was for a short time.

At least I got to pick up a Griffey t-shirt while he was here.

See ya in Cooperstown, Junior. Remember Chicago black looks better than Seattle teal or Cincinnati red.

soxtalker
10-29-2008, 09:09 AM
Well, it is too bad that we don't get a draft pick out of this. IIRC, he's a type B FA, but we'd need to offer arbitration.

In hindsight, I'd rather KW had not made the trade. Yes, he filled the role for which he was acquired -- insurance in case someone went down -- but I would rather have seen BA get more playing time. Now, I don't think that would have necessarily worked out particularly well either (for hitting -- defense would have been better).

IspepAloc
10-29-2008, 09:10 AM
I hate to see him go. I'm glad to have seen him in a Sox uniform. I think he's a bit more valuable than Thome because he can still play some other positions to platoon in the OF to allow time off for Dye or whoever the CF may be.

Thanks for your contributions Griff. You will be missed.

hellview
10-29-2008, 09:31 AM
i think he's a bit more valuable than thome because he can still play some other positions to platoon in the of to allow time off for dye or whoever the cf may be.

what?!?!

Madscout
10-29-2008, 09:37 AM
I hate to see him go. I'm glad to have seen him in a Sox uniform. I think he's a bit more valuable than Thome because he can still play some other positions to platoon in the OF to allow time off for Dye or whoever the CF may be.

Thanks for your contributions Griff. You will be missed.
He's also faster than Thome, and I think he is a better hitter than Thome. The only thing Thome's got on him is power, and he only gets to showcase that on very select pitches. If a pitcher can keep that ball down and away, or throw sliders down and away, Thome is toast.

Iwritecode
10-29-2008, 09:38 AM
It was cool to see one of my favorite players in a Sox uniform, even if it was for a short time.

At least I got to pick up a Griffey t-shirt while he was here.

See ya in Cooperstown, Junior. Remember Chicago black looks better than Seattle teal or Cincinnati red.

He doesn't have a choice in the matter. I'm guessing MLB will make him wear Cincinatti.

hellview
10-29-2008, 09:40 AM
He's also faster than Thome, and I think he is a better hitter than Thome. The only thing Thome's got on him is power, and he only gets to showcase that on very select pitches. If a pitcher can keep that ball down and away, or throw sliders down and away, Thome is toast.

Thome OPS+

2006-155
2007-150
2008-123

Griffey OPS+

2006-99
2007-119
2008-99

And don't even bring up the defense cause Griffey has no business being in the outfield anymore. Thome is still a good player and a good DH, while Griffey can't hit, field or run anymore.

Rockabilly
10-29-2008, 09:46 AM
Good luck to JR next year...


I am very glad I got to see him in a Sox uniform.. He is a class act on and off the field..

kittle42
10-29-2008, 09:50 AM
He's still marginally better than Brian Anderson.

It was nice to have a little bit of history on the South Side with him here.

oeo
10-29-2008, 10:06 AM
I hope the way some of you "remember" his time here won't be your feelings forever. Don't go thinking he was just plain awful, because that's not true at all. He wasn't a butcher in the field, and while it looks like his power is gone, he still came up with some big RBIs.

He came here and played his ass off; I can't ask for much more than that. I just wish he could have won a ring here.

BTW, the thread title sucks.

pythons007
10-29-2008, 10:07 AM
Thome OPS+

2006-155
2007-150
2008-123

Griffey OPS+

2006-99
2007-119
2008-99

And don't even bring up the defense cause Griffey has no business being in the outfield anymore. Thome is still a good player and a good DH, while Griffey can't hit, field or run anymore.

Dude, tell me something, did Griffey help win games while he was in a Sox uniform this year? The very first game he played for us he drove in 2 runs and the Sox beat the Royals 4-2. We won the division by a game, so shut the **** up with your negative bull**** crap!

The play he made in CF in the blackout game was clutch! I don't care where he was, he did what needed to be done and threw a perfect strike to AJ. Give the guy some respect, he is a first ballot hall of famer! We gave up crap to get him, and he helped the team win the division.

thomas35forever
10-29-2008, 10:12 AM
Why do people care about how Griffey made that throw?:scratch:

That's not important. He got the out. Sometimes I think people on here just flat out hated the deal regardless of what he did for us.

russ99
10-29-2008, 10:16 AM
Guys, please. Griff was in short center field. He barely got it over the mound. I'm glad it was accurate but it was not a great throw.

So, what are we to assume Anderson would have made an over the shoulder catch at the wall and pegged a 400 foot throw on a frozen rope to the plate?

Sheesh. The guy made a nice play, let him have that...

esbrechtel
10-29-2008, 10:20 AM
Why do people care about how Griffey made that throw?:scratch:

That's not important. He got the out. Sometimes I think people on here just flat out hated the deal regardless of what he did for us.


Thats exactly right. we gave up a pitcher that was with the big club because he was out of minor league options and a guy that could have started but decided to not get to camp on time and who wasn't that good anyways.

The guy is a baseball legend and sure he didn't hit 20 HRs with the sox but the guy was clutch while he was here. He was one of the few guys that shortened his swing to get a single to drive in the run from second instead of swinging for the fences.

He played his butt off for the sox and said nothing but great things about this organization. Yet, for some reason bitter posters on WSI have to talk **** about him.

In a word CLASSLESS....

end rant

thedudeabides
10-29-2008, 10:22 AM
Why do people care about how Griffey made that throw?:scratch:

That's not important. He got the out. Sometimes I think people on here just flat out hated the deal regardless of what he did for us.

Of course, that's all that matters. But, I'm convinced there's a few people on this board that let their hate for particular players trump their love for the team. And they will not let an opportunity go by to let everyone know. I'm just very happy I am not that bitter of a sports fan.

kittle42
10-29-2008, 10:35 AM
He played his butt off for the sox and said nothing but great things about this organization. Yet, for some reason bitter posters on WSI have to talk **** about him.

In a word CLASSLESS....

end rant

Agreed. The Sox gave up nothing for him and - at worst - definitely did not do any worse overall than they would have without him. In fact, it is arguable that he won a game or 2. So shove it, moaners.

GreenWoman3212
10-29-2008, 10:41 AM
Griffey wasn't amazing, but he wasn't horrible either. Like someone else said, he had some key hits and RBIs..not to mention that throw (which was a ONE hopper).

He's a classy, humble guy. I'll never understand why some Sox fans don't like him.

kobo
10-29-2008, 10:45 AM
Thats exactly right. we gave up a pitcher that was with the big club because he was out of minor league options and a guy that could have started but decided to not get to camp on time and who wasn't that good anyways.

The guy is a baseball legend and sure he didn't hit 20 HRs with the sox but the guy was clutch while he was here. He was one of the few guys that shortened his swing to get a single to drive in the run from second instead of swinging for the fences.

He played his butt off for the sox and said nothing but great things about this organization. Yet, for some reason bitter posters on WSI have to talk **** about him.

In a word CLASSLESS....

end rant
:thumbsup:

hi im skot
10-29-2008, 10:46 AM
Thanks for nothing Griffey...btw that play in the blackout game was all AJ, it was a garbage throw.

What a joke.

hellview
10-29-2008, 10:51 AM
Dude, tell me something, did Griffey help win games while he was in a Sox uniform this year? The very first game he played for us he drove in 2 runs and the Sox beat the Royals 4-2. We won the division by a game, so shut the **** up with your negative bull**** crap!

The play he made in CF in the blackout game was clutch! I don't care where he was, he did what needed to be done and threw a perfect strike to AJ. Give the guy some respect, he is a first ballot hall of famer! We gave up crap to get him, and he helped the team win the division.

I don't give a **** if he's a HOF player or what the Sox gave up for him. He sucked during his time with the Sox. He didn't hit, he played some of the worst defense I've ever seen in CF.

Jesus, stop fanning over a guy who was dominate 10+ years ago, it's 2008 and for the 2008 Griffey sucked...good ridence.

hi im skot
10-29-2008, 10:52 AM
I don't give a **** if he's a HOF player or what the Sox gave up for him. He sucked during his time with the Sox. He didn't hit, he played some of the worst defense I've ever seen in CF.

Jesus, stop fanning over a guy who was dominate 10+ years ago, it's 2008 and for the 2008 Griffey sucked...good ridence.

/hellview kicks puppy and tells kids to get off his damn lawn

hellview
10-29-2008, 10:53 AM
/hellview kicks puppy and tells kids to get off his damn lawn

I calls em like I sees em...

longtimesoxguy
10-29-2008, 10:55 AM
Thanks for the effort. Some much needed hits and that throw. Good luck and enjoy what comes next for you.

veeter
10-29-2008, 11:01 AM
Griffey's problem is that he's in worse shape than I am. But he did fine, and if Quentin doesn't get hurt, he would have hardly played. He did some good things, but the absolute correct thing was to NOT bring him back. So the off-season is starting in fine fashion.

Jimmy Piersall
10-29-2008, 11:08 AM
So, what are we to assume Anderson would have made an over the shoulder catch at the wall and pegged a 400 foot throw on a frozen rope to the plate?

Sheesh. The guy made a nice play, let him have that...

Actually,BA would have thrown the guy out after leaping and
falling over the wall and then getting back on to the field...
why would this be even debated ?

Foulke You
10-29-2008, 11:19 AM
He's a classy, humble guy. I'll never understand why some Sox fans don't like him.
I think it might be because some Sox fans got their hopes a little too high after the trade thinking he was going to come here and hit 10 HRs in August and 12 HRs in September just like the old Griffey used to. Griffey was merely a serviceable veteran outfielder while he was here and that wasn't good enough for the people expecting the former All Star from Seattle.

hellview
10-29-2008, 11:45 AM
I think it might be because some Sox fans got their hopes a little too high after the trade thinking he was going to come here and hit 10 HRs in August and 12 HRs in September just like the old Griffey used to. Griffey was merely a serviceable veteran outfielder while he was here and that wasn't good enough for the people expecting the former All Star from Seattle.

It has nothing to do with expectations cause all you had to do was look at his number sin Cinny and realize the guy had nothing left. The guy was flat out not a good baseball for Sox and that's why he's opening to criticism.

If his last name wasn't Griffey people would be ripping him apart like Terrero and the other garbage the Sox had in CF in 2007.

WhiteSox5187
10-29-2008, 11:57 AM
Actually,BA would have thrown the guy out after leaping and
falling over the wall and then getting back on to the field...
why would this be even debated ?
But that of course begs the question what would Aaron Rowand have done on that throw?

Jimmy Piersall
10-29-2008, 12:21 PM
But that of course begs the question what would Aaron Rowand have done on that throw?

He of course,would have already set up beyond the outfield
wall so that he could have just caught the ball with his bare hand
and thrown it back to home plate all in one motion.Willie Mays
in his prime didn't have **** on Aaron Rowand. :gulp:

HomeFish
10-29-2008, 12:40 PM
I don't get the Ken Griffey hatred in this thread. I would expect this from a Todd Ritchie appreciation thread.

Yeah, Ken Griffey is no longer one of the best players in the league. But he didn't screw anything up for us this year. There's no reason to have strong negative feelings towards him.

doublem23
10-29-2008, 12:45 PM
Thanks for nothing Griffey...btw that play in the blackout game was all AJ, it was a garbage throw.

What a garbage post. Yes, AJ made a great block, but if that ball's even slightly out of AJ's reach that run scores.

If you're just going to try and pick fights, you may as well try to find an unpopular position that's still slightly defensible.

Jimmy Piersall
10-29-2008, 12:48 PM
I don't get the Ken Griffey hatred in this thread. I would expect this from a Todd Ritchie appreciation thread.

Yeah, Ken Griffey is no longer one of the best players in the league. But he didn't screw anything up for us this year. There's no reason to have strong negative feelings towards him.

Agree...the guy was past his prime when we got him,we all knew it
and even the Cincy fans told us it would turn out the way it did.He
played hard,he just doesn't have much left in the tank.KW took a
shot just in case Paulie wasn't going to recover and only gave up
a couple spare parts.No harm done.Good luck to Griff,hell of a career.

Frontman
10-29-2008, 01:00 PM
It has nothing to do with expectations cause all you had to do was look at his number sin Cinny and realize the guy had nothing left. The guy was flat out not a good baseball for Sox and that's why he's opening to criticism.

If his last name wasn't Griffey people would be ripping him apart like Terrero and the other garbage the Sox had in CF in 2007.

Exactly. Your view is that because as a Hall of Fame player in the twilight of his career, we the fans of the White Sox can't appreciate his time with the team because he wasn't the Griff of the late 90's?

Pretty sad way of looking at it.

hi im skot
10-29-2008, 01:28 PM
I calls em like I sees em...

Get a new pair of glasses.

PKalltheway
10-29-2008, 01:31 PM
Even though you won't be going in the hall with the Sox, it'll be nice to see "Chicago A.L." on your plaque, among the teams you've played for.

Thanks for everything, Griff.

whitesox901
10-29-2008, 01:50 PM
I like Griffey, but he isnt needed anymore, his two HR in the Gladbag Dome, his throw home in the tie-breaker were cool.

NLaloosh
10-29-2008, 02:17 PM
The truth is that Nick Masset would have helped the Sox win more games than Griffey did.

HomeFish
10-29-2008, 02:20 PM
The thing is, you guys aren't just saying "Griffey was no longer needed on the South Side, thanks for your service". You guys are saying "good riddance" as if he were some kind of trash that KW was throwing into the dumpster.

I don't get the hostile attitude. Comments like that are called for when the player was terrible or did horrible things for the team. They are not called for when somebody was merely mediocre.

thedudeabides
10-29-2008, 02:23 PM
The truth is that Nick Masset would have helped the Sox win more games than Griffey did.

Please tell me your joking.

:threadsucks

hi im skot
10-29-2008, 02:24 PM
The truth is that Nick Masset would have helped the Sox win more games than Griffey did.

:rolling:

voodoochile
10-29-2008, 02:28 PM
The thing is, you guys aren't just saying "Griffey was no longer needed on the South Side, thanks for your service". You guys are saying "good riddance" as if he were some kind of trash that KW was throwing into the dumpster.

I don't get the hostile attitude. Comments like that are called for when the player was terrible or did horrible things for the team. They are not called for when somebody was merely mediocre.

Well said, but remember, it's the Internet and people will do and say things that make them sound like tough guys that they wouldn't say or do in public.

In addition, it's all the rage to be a hater. If you're the first hater in a given thread, it's like hater heaven. Being the first to pronounce "so and so sucks worse than the suckiest suck who has ever sucked" and then repeating often in bold and italics is like winning the hater WS. It matters not if the person they are hating on was one time a great player or if said player was playing on one leg or even if they did nothing but try to succeed only to fail. The player does not have to have said or done anything wrong other than to be less of a baseball player than expected/desired to be worthy of contempt.

But what do you want, haters are what haters do and often it's all they can do, so they do it to the best of their limited ability and call themselves gods...

esbrechtel
10-29-2008, 02:30 PM
The truth is that Nick Masset would have helped the Sox lose more games than Griffey did.


Fixed it for ya

Mod Edit: "Fixing" posts is against the rules of these forums. See the thread stuck at the top of the page.

oeo
10-29-2008, 03:15 PM
Griffey wasn't amazing, but he wasn't horrible either. Like someone else said, he had some key hits and RBIs..not to mention that throw (which was a ONE hopper).

He's a classy, humble guy. I'll never understand why some Sox fans don't like him.

These are the same people that didn't "get" the move in the first place. They're obviously still confused. We can spell it out that Griffey didn't cost much over and over again, and they'll still complain. We can tell them how he wasn't bad, that's not enough, either.

The guy is a living legend, you should be happy that you got to see him wear silver and black.

The truth is that Nick Masset would have helped the Sox win more games than Griffey did.

Masset started taking the same turn he did in 2007 before he was dealt. A good start to the year, then really started blowing up.

The thing is, you guys aren't just saying "Griffey was no longer needed on the South Side, thanks for your service". You guys are saying "good riddance" as if he were some kind of trash that KW was throwing into the dumpster.

I don't get the hostile attitude. Comments like that are called for when the player was terrible or did horrible things for the team. They are not called for when somebody was merely mediocre.

Is this a whole new HomeFish?

Frontman
10-29-2008, 03:54 PM
The truth is that Nick Masset would have helped the Sox win more games than Griffey did.



:thud:

And DLS would of won the Cy Young, had he remained in a Sox uniform!!!

Zisk77
10-29-2008, 04:06 PM
I'm sad to see Griffey go despite agreeing with the decision.

I too don't understand why people are negative towards the Griffey or why they didn't understand the trade.

In a way the trade was made for the same type of reason the sox traded for Blum in 05.

In 05 we needed another powerful bat especially a left handed one (some said we needed Griffey!). We needed possible another Starter (McCarthy wound up doing a great job).
Some said we needed a 3b (Mariotti...Chavez).
We needed an infield utility guy.

Problem was none of those things were available at a reasonable price other than the utility guy so KW got us Blum (that worked out Ok).

This year We again neede a 5th starter. We needed some relief help. We needed a leadoff hitter and some speed.

Problem was everyone wanted our best prospects and our first born son for some mediocre players. Kenny did get H. Ramirez for next to nothing (you get what u pay for I guess). And nothing else was available.

So Kenny saw and opportunity to add a left handed power bat to the line-up to at least add depth and experience. Basically if we are stuck being a slow plodding powerful team lets be the best damn slow plodding powerful team we can be. Not what he wanted but when in Rome...

I don't think people realize how valuable Griffey was to this team They just see the 3 hrs and 2whatever batting average and say he wasn't good.

How many times was Griffey intentional walked or at least pitched around with a base open in a key situation becuase he was Ken Griffey Jr? I would chuckle because they would avoid the guy who was struggling because of his rep and pitch to alexie who was our best hitter with 2 out and runners on. How many times did Alexie come up big because of this? I think I remember a big Grand slam he hit with Griffey walking ahead of him...

I wish Griffey would have done better too, but I would prefer to thank him for what he did do and in a classy manner than bash guy. Heck, I kind of hope we trade for him again at the deadline for some PH and occasionally play on our 09 world series run:cool:

TheKittle
10-29-2008, 04:55 PM
Thome OPS+

2006-155
2007-150
2008-123

Griffey OPS+

2006-99
2007-119
2008-99

And don't even bring up the defense cause Griffey has no business being in the outfield anymore. Thome is still a good player and a good DH, while Griffey can't hit, field or run anymore.

Do you actually watch a game or do you just read a stat book?

hellview
10-29-2008, 04:56 PM
Do you actually watch a game or do you just read a stat book?

Stats don't lie...so don't give me that grinder Rowand, David Eckstein doing all the little things right crap.

The numbers tell the story...

hi im skot
10-29-2008, 05:05 PM
stats don't lie...so don't give me that grinder rowand, david eckstein doing all the little things right crap.

The numbers tell the story...


paging daver.

Daver
10-29-2008, 05:06 PM
Stats don't lie...so don't give me that grinder Rowand, David Eckstein doing all the little things right crap.

The numbers tell the story...

Stats lie all the time.

oeo
10-29-2008, 05:07 PM
Do you actually watch a game or do you just read a stat book?

Your eyes told you something different? Thome >>>>>> Griffey at this point in their careers. Thome can still carry a team on his back (although he may come out with a DL stint), while Griffey's days are behind him.

Frontman
10-29-2008, 05:08 PM
Stats don't lie...so don't give me that grinder Rowand, David Eckstein doing all the little things right crap.

The numbers tell the story...

Yes, because its only stats that determine who wins a game. Numbers can never be wrong. Never in a million years can a guy who never hits home runs hit one of the biggest in White Sox history.....


http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/daniel_habib/10/24/podsednik.game2/t1_pods.jpg

Wait, nevermind.

slavko
10-29-2008, 06:45 PM
He's also faster than Thome, and I think he is a better hitter than Thome. The only thing Thome's got on him is power, and he only gets to showcase that on very select pitches. If a pitcher can keep that ball down and away, or throw sliders down and away, Thome is toast.

The general opinion was that he has lost bat speed and thus couldn't catch up with the high fastball. He was pretty effective on hitting down and away pitches to left field for power when he put his mind to it. Or so sez my eyeballs. The blackout game homer was on a high pitch, but I didn't see a lot of those from Jim.

turners56
10-29-2008, 06:51 PM
The general opinion was that he has lost bat speed and thus couldn't catch up with the high fastball. He was pretty effective on hitting down and away pitches to left field for power when he put his mind to it. Or so sez my eyeballs. The blackout game homer was on a high pitch, but I didn't see a lot of those from Jim.

It wasn't a fastball though. It was a hanging change-up.

hellview
10-29-2008, 07:43 PM
Stats lie all the time.

How the hell do stats lie?

Baseball is the one sport you can't fake stats.

Daver
10-29-2008, 07:49 PM
How the hell do stats lie?

Baseball is the one sport you can't fake stats.

Who said anything about faking?

And your dead wrong on the sports thing.

hellview
10-29-2008, 07:50 PM
Yes, because its only stats that determine who wins a game. Numbers can never be wrong. Never in a million years can a guy who never hits home runs hit one of the biggest in White Sox history.....


What the hell does that have to do with stats?

It's not there is a stat that says Podsednik can't it homers, hell he hit 12 the pervious year with the Brewers.

What the **** are you talking about?

hellview
10-29-2008, 07:51 PM
Who said anything about faking?

And your dead wrong on the sports thing.

You said stats lie, how the hell do they lie then?

Daver
10-29-2008, 08:03 PM
You said stats lie, how the hell do they lie then?


If you are using stats as an argument, and you don't know the answer to that question, you need more help than I will take the time to give you.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 08:04 PM
Get a new pair of glasses.

Another witty quip!


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Droso5
10-29-2008, 08:10 PM
Yes, because its only stats that determine who wins a game. Numbers can never be wrong. Never in a million years can a guy who never hits home runs hit one of the biggest in White Sox history.....


http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/daniel_habib/10/24/podsednik.game2/t1_pods.jpg

Wait, nevermind.

....numbers rarely lie, using a slap hitter hitting an important home run once in his career really doesn't make your argument any more sound, **** happens in sports but those once in a lifetime hits or touchdowns or homeruns don't cause in-depth statistical analysis to be worthless.

Sorry.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-29-2008, 08:12 PM
That sucks, now I'll NEVER get a chance for a signature on something "White Sox" I have! :whiner:

Droso5
10-29-2008, 08:19 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing that stats tell the entire story as there are intangibles and unpredictable events that happen. But giving this one in a million hits and homeruns as evidence that stats are bunk is bull****, you and I know it but some on here are just unable to see the other side of the coin.

WhiteSox5187
10-29-2008, 08:41 PM
Stats don't lie...so don't give me that grinder Rowand, David Eckstein doing all the little things right crap.

The numbers tell the story...
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:uLm6vxD2E6oAWM:http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/cosmo/twain.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/cosmo/twain.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/cosmo.html&h=800&w=655&sz=78&hl=en&start=3&usg=__JLZLzkBzAy1cX_xM08laZDg0Rag=&tbnid=uLm6vxD2E6oAWM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMark%2BTwain%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa fe%3Doff)
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 08:46 PM
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:uLm6vxD2E6oAWM:http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/cosmo/twain.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/cosmo/twain.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/cosmo.html&h=800&w=655&sz=78&hl=en&start=3&usg=__JLZLzkBzAy1cX_xM08laZDg0Rag=&tbnid=uLm6vxD2E6oAWM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMark%2BTwain%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa fe%3Doff)
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

"hellview" is pretty much spot on here folks. I wouldn't call the numbers "argument" an argument because it usually involves a bunch of brown nosers trying to shout down an dissenting opinion. But numbers and trends are usually pretty accurate in gauging performance and predicting future success or decline.

Anomolies and once in a years worth of at-bats events don't dissprove numbers. "Intangibles' and 'grindability' are abstracts with really no basis in anything....execpt for some peoples thoughts on here.

spiffie
10-29-2008, 08:51 PM
"hellview" is pretty much spot on here folks. I wouldn't call the numbers "argument" an argument because it usually involves a bunch of brown nosers trying to shout down an dissenting opinion. But numbers and trends are usually pretty accurate in gauging performance and predicting future success or decline.

Anomolies and once in a years worth of at-bats events don't dissprove numbers. "Intangibles' and 'grindability' are abstracts with really no basis in anything....execpt for some peoples thoughts on here.
Numbers prove absolutely nothing, except for the numbers that are in the W and L columns. Anyone who doesn't see that should try putting down the laptop, come watch a baseball game, you might learn something about the sport instead of what some other propellerheads tell you to think.

Daver
10-29-2008, 08:53 PM
"hellview" is pretty much spot on here folks. I wouldn't call the numbers "argument" an argument because it usually involves a bunch of brown nosers trying to shout down an dissenting opinion. But numbers and trends are usually pretty accurate in gauging performance and predicting future success or decline.


Then why did BP give the Sox an 80% chance to win the division after they clinched it in 2005?

Stats can be made to back any argument good or bad just in the way they are applied and interperated, anyone can "spin" numbers.

But please continue to believe whatever you choose to believe, I prefer more factual analysis.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 08:58 PM
Then why did BP give the Sox an 80% chance to win the division after they clinched it in 2005?

Stats can be made to back any argument good or bad just in the way they are applied and interperated, anyone can "spin" numbers.

But please continue to believe whatever you choose to believe, I prefer more factual analysis.

I'm sure you do....:rolleyes:

Droso5
10-29-2008, 08:59 PM
Numbers prove absolutely nothing, except for the numbers that are in the W and L columns. Anyone who doesn't see that should try putting down the laptop, come watch a baseball game, you might learn something about the sport instead of what some other propellerheads tell you to think.

So by your own admission, numbers do prove something. Interesting.

OK professor?

spiffie
10-29-2008, 09:01 PM
So by your own admission, numbers do prove something. Interesting.

OK professor?
You're right, my sentence was ill-structured.

Here, let's try again.

The only numbers that matter in baseball are W-L. Everything else is just there for agents to have something to talk about and to let the nerds at BP avoid having to work for a living.

WhiteSox5187
10-29-2008, 09:02 PM
"hellview" is pretty much spot on here folks. I wouldn't call the numbers "argument" an argument because it usually involves a bunch of brown nosers trying to shout down an dissenting opinion. But numbers and trends are usually pretty accurate in gauging performance and predicting future success or decline.

Anomolies and once in a years worth of at-bats events don't dissprove numbers. "Intangibles' and 'grindability' are abstracts with really no basis in anything....execpt for some peoples thoughts on here.
Anyone who thinks that the game can be described and comprehended simply in numbers alone is at best naieve and at worst, well, I'd get in trouble if I said what I thought they were.

Here is an example that is taken from Ken Burns baseball (I forget who tells the story): in 1947 Jackie Robinson walked in the bottom of the ninth in a big game (I forget who it was against) with a walk. Knowing his speed the pitcher became distracted and kept checking him over at first as Jackie kept darting off the bag. The pitcher threw a wild pitch and Jackie advanced to second. Now with the go ahead run at second the pitcher is very nervous and keeps checking back to Jackie who is dancing off the bag threatening to steal and winds up balking Jackie over to third. The count is 1-0, go ahead run at third. The pitcher keeps looking over to Jackie at third who again is dancing off the bag. Finally the manager comes over and tells the third baseman to hold Jackie on third. The next pitch the batter hits right towards third slightly to the left; normally it would be a routine groundball to the third baseman, but since he was holding Jackie on it rolled through for a basehit letting the Dodgers win the game.

In the box score the only thing that Jackie did was walk, and the stats would reflect that. Yet Jackie CLEARLY had an impact on the game that cannot be measured by stats. This happens a lot in baseball. We saw this in '05 where when Pods got on it forced the opposing pitcher to throw more fastballs which let Iguchi slap them the other way and boom we had runners at first and third, there is no stat to measure that though but it CLEARLY has an overall impact on the game that will not be measured in the box score.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 09:04 PM
You're right, my sentence was ill-structured.

Here, let's try again.

The only numbers that matter in baseball are W-L. Everything else is just there for agents to have something to talk about and to let the nerds at BP avoid having to work for a living.

Much better. Numbers are fun though and do have merit....it's time to admit it, just like it's time to admit that liking Hootie and the Blowfish back in the 90's was also a mistake.

hi im skot
10-29-2008, 09:10 PM
Another witty quip!


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Oh, we're going to do this again?

Yippee.

Daver
10-29-2008, 09:12 PM
Much better. Numbers are fun though and do have merit....it's time to admit it

Maybe to you and the rest of the propellerheads.

hellview
10-29-2008, 09:13 PM
Maybe to you and the rest of the propellerheads


Really?!?!

WhiteSox5187
10-29-2008, 09:14 PM
Much better. Numbers are fun though and do have merit....it's time to admit it, just like it's time to admit that liking Hootie and the Blowfish back in the 90's was also a mistake.
They have merit but to say they are the end all be all or that you can understand every aspect of the game through stats is flat out wrong.

t1mm41
10-29-2008, 09:24 PM
griffey has always been my favorite player, thought we gave up nothing for him (which i know has been said) at the time of the trade i really was hoping that the sox would help him and thome grab their deserved rings...i dont think that he hurt our team at all and the haters have to shut their mouthes about one of the greatest players

oeo
10-29-2008, 09:35 PM
They have merit but to say they are the end all be all or that you can understand every aspect of the game through stats is flat out wrong.

It's also flat out wrong to say what you see with your eyes is "factual." It's mostly a matter of opinion.

There's a lot you can't judge with statistics, but what I don't get is why this argument started up in this thread. What was wrong with using stats in this situation? There was a simple comparison between Thome and Griffey, which showed Thome being much better. And hey, you can see that with your eyes, too. If you can't, open them.

I prefer to judge by what I see, rather than what I read, but we saw both Thome and Griffey nearly everyday for two months. It's pretty evident who the better player is at this stage in their respective careers. Open up a stat book, or watch the game...it doesn't matter, you should come to the same conclusion.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 09:38 PM
Maybe to you and the rest of the propellerheads.

Another brilliant statement. Yes, how dare some posters question your opinion on the matter. It's crazy that some on here would have a differing opinion than you.

Go figure.:scratch:

Droso5
10-29-2008, 09:41 PM
It's also flat out wrong to say what you see with your eyes is "factual." It's mostly a matter of opinion.

There's a lot you can't judge with statistics, but what I don't get is why this argument started up in this thread. What was wrong with using stats in this situation? There was a simple comparison between Thome and Griffey, which showed Thome being much better. And hey, you can see that with your eyes, too. If you can't, open them.

I prefer to judge by what I see, rather than what I read. But, we saw both Thome and Griffey nearly everyday for two months. It's pretty evident who the better player at this stage in their respective careers.

Nope, stats are worthless and speaking of them in any positive light will draw the ire of many on here.

Of course the reality of the Griffey situation would show his numbers have declined on an ever steeper slope since he left the Mariners. He sucks now and he coincidentally has the numbers to prove it.

Stats certainly aren't the be all and end all of sports but they do carry value, it's just funny to see the absolute fanatical devotion to the contrary and the inability to even have a rational argument over the subject.

Daver
10-29-2008, 09:42 PM
Another brilliant statement. Yes, how dare some posters question your opinion on the matter. It's crazy that some on here would have a differing opinion than you.

Go figure.:scratch:

Question it all you want, I really don't give a rat's ass.

spiffie
10-29-2008, 09:42 PM
It's also flat out wrong to say what you see with your eyes is "factual." It's mostly a matter of opinion.

There's a lot you can't judge with statistics, but what I don't get is why this argument started up in this thread. What was wrong with using stats in this situation? There was a simple comparison between Thome and Griffey, which showed Thome being much better. And hey, you can see that with your eyes, too. If you can't, open them.

I prefer to judge by what I see, rather than what I read, but we saw both Thome and Griffey nearly everyday for two months. It's pretty evident who the better player is at this stage in their respective careers. Open up a stat book, or watch the game...it doesn't matter, you should come to the same conclusion.
But what the numbers don't tell you is they are different players. Jim Thome is great at doing a few things. But he is very inflexible as a hitter. Griffey isn't going to get on base as often or hit as many HR over 162 games, but he is going to do a better job of working a tough pitcher or poking the ball with 2 strikes.

Jim Thome will have a more impressive stat line at the end of the year, but they both help you win in different ways.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 09:43 PM
Question it all you want, I really don't give a rat's ass.

No ****, yet you continue to post on the subject and defend your "opinon" whenever and wherever it may rear its head.

Strange.

Daver
10-29-2008, 09:44 PM
But what the numbers don't tell you is they are different players. Jim Thome is great at doing a few things. But he is very inflexible as a hitter. Griffey isn't going to get on base as often or hit as many HR over 162 games, but he is going to do a better job of working a tough pitcher or poking the ball with 2 strikes.

Jim Thome will have a more impressive stat line at the end of the year, but they both help you win in different ways.

It doesn't matter, numbers play the game.

spiffie
10-29-2008, 09:46 PM
It doesn't matter, numbers play the game.
I forgot that they had changed the rules so that whatever team had the highest combined VORP at the end of the year was awarded the World Series trophy.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 09:46 PM
It doesn't matter, numbers play the game.

No ones saying that "the numbers play the game" some on here have a different take and see some value in looking at numbers, I know, how dare they. Although you do a great job at creating straw-men to argue with.

Impressive, although I thought you didn't give a rats ass though...

Droso5
10-29-2008, 09:47 PM
I forgot that they had changed the rules so that whatever team had the highest combined VORP at the end of the year was awarded the World Series trophy.


Jesus Christ....get a ****ing room.

oeo
10-29-2008, 09:48 PM
But what the numbers don't tell you is they are different players. Jim Thome is great at doing a few things. But he is very inflexible as a hitter. Griffey isn't going to get on base as often or hit as many HR over 162 games, but he is going to do a better job of working a tough pitcher or poking the ball with 2 strikes.

I don't think that's true at all, sorry. Who and when? You're much more likely to see Thome work a tough pitcher. Hell, you put a tough lefty in there, and at least Thome can work the count; Griffey, OTOH, is dead meat.

I'm honestly trying to think of something that Griffey looked better at, and I'm drawing a blank. Oh yeah, he played defense. It's not a knock on Griffey, he did okay for us, but Thome's better.

oeo
10-29-2008, 09:59 PM
Yes, because its only stats that determine who wins a game. Numbers can never be wrong. Never in a million years can a guy who never hits home runs hit one of the biggest in White Sox history.....


http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/daniel_habib/10/24/podsednik.game2/t1_pods.jpg

Wait, nevermind.

I had to come back to this, because this is a terrible example to prove your point. Zero homeruns in the regular season said that he doesn't have much, if any power. It does not say, however, that he will never hit a homerun. Baseball is a wild game, so of course things like this are going to happen.

Daver
10-29-2008, 09:59 PM
Just for propellerheads.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/Basicball.jpg

Droso5
10-29-2008, 10:00 PM
I had to come back to this, because this is a terrible example to prove your point. Zero homeruns in the regular season said that he doesn't have much, if any power. It does not say, however, that he will never hit a homerun.

You really shouldn't bother, I pointed that out a few times earlier but to no avail....his neat picture proves everything wrong about any other opinion on the subject.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 10:02 PM
Just for propellerheads.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/Basicball.jpg

Back again are we? Run along now, but thanks for the picture and the childish names you give people who disagree with you.

Question: Do you believe scouting has any worth? Or should teams just flip a coin?

Frontman
10-29-2008, 10:07 PM
I had to come back to this, because this is a terrible example to prove your point. Zero homeruns in the regular season said that he doesn't have much, if any power. It does not say, however, that he will never hit a homerun. Baseball is a wild game, so of course things like this are going to happen.

Yes, but numbers don't lie. He shouldn't of been able to hit it. Based on numbers.

Granted, numbers don't play the game.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 10:09 PM
Yes, but numbers don't lie. He shouldn't of been able to hit it. Based on numbers.

Granted, numbers don't play the game.

Numbers certainly don't play anything, we know that, the point has been beaten to death. But numbers can give trends and information about opposing pitchers, hitting zones, defense etc. They don't play the game, but they help with strategy and adv. scouting of opposing teams.

From what I gather that's what most on this board, when they aren't being called childish names by children and banned, are trying to say.

Frontman
10-29-2008, 10:13 PM
What the hell does that have to do with stats?

It's not there is a stat that says Podsednik can't it homers, hell he hit 12 the pervious year with the Brewers.

What the **** are you talking about?

That if you believe in numbers tell you what the game is all about; then you miss the beauty of what the game of baseball is.

You can sabremetrics the hell out of the game all you'd like; but at the end of the day, it takes a human being swinging the bat at a ball thrown by another human being. And in that one swing or that one throw, something special can happen. And just because someone has "great stats" doesn't mean they can win a game or a championship.

The Hall of Fames are filled with phenomenal players who never won (or contributed to) a title. A player's stats only tell part of the story. The other part of the story is what we actually go to see. Otherwise, why bother even watching a game?

Daver
10-29-2008, 10:15 PM
From what I gather that's what most on this board, when they aren't being called childish names by children and banned, are trying to say.

Cute.

Will you be here all week?

Frontman
10-29-2008, 10:17 PM
Numbers certainly don't play anything, we know that, the point has been beaten to death. But numbers can give trends and information about opposing pitchers, hitting zones, defense etc. They don't play the game, but they help with strategy and adv. scouting of opposing teams.

From what I gather that's what most on this board, when they aren't being called childish names by children and banned, are trying to say.

Yes, but my point is that if all a person focuses on when it comes to a ballplayer is his stats; they miss out on what makes sports great. To me, I appreciated Griffey being here.

Here's a guy who when its all said and done, will be in the Hall of Fame.

Here's a guy who I can point out to my son and say "Play the game like he did."

And here's a guy who when the team needed him to make that throw, he did it. Can a number of outfielders have done it? Yep. But it wasn't just any outfielder. It was Ken Griffey Jr. A future Hall of Famer.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 10:17 PM
That if you believe in numbers tell you what the game is all about; then you miss the beauty of what the game of baseball is.

You can sabremetrics the hell out of the game all you'd like; but at the end of the day, it takes a human being swinging the bat at a ball thrown by another human being. And in that one swing or that one throw, something special can happen. And just because someone has "great stats" doesn't mean they can win a game or a championship.

The Hall of Fames are filled with phenomenal players who never won (or contributed to) a title. A player's stats only tell part of the story. The other part of the story is what we actually go to see. Otherwise, why bother even watching a game?

and that part of the story is a teams scouting and preparation. Situational lefties, switch hitters, defenders in certain parks, rotations etc, all have basis in numbers and are used for prep and strategy by the opposing team.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 10:19 PM
Cute.

Will you be here all week?

Ah! The witty one line retort from the guy who apparently doesn't "give a rats ass" about this subject but can't seem to pull himself away...if only you had something to actually contribute...

Droso5
10-29-2008, 10:20 PM
Yes, but my point is that if all a person focuses on when it comes to a ballplayer is his stats; they miss out on what makes sports great. To me, I appreciated Griffey being here.

Here's a guy who when its all said and done, will be in the Hall of Fame.

Here's a guy who I can point out to my son and say "Play the game like he did."

And here's a guy who when the team needed him to make that throw, he did it. Can a number of outfielders have done it? Yep. But it wasn't just any outfielder. It was Ken Griffey Jr. A future Hall of Famer.

I agree. All the mushy "lets play catch, son" stuff is what makes the game great. I'm not arguing that in the least. I just find it funny that some on here don't even entertain an opposing school of thought that actually has its place in the game. I can say what I said above and agree with your post but plenty on here will ignore it and instead rant about how I'm a "propeller" head who thinks that the #1 pitches and Mr. % coaches....The complete inability to acknowledge a legitimate point of view because it might infringe on there's.

Frontman
10-29-2008, 10:22 PM
and that part of the story is a teams scouting and preparation. Situational lefties, switch hitters, defenders in certain parks, rotations etc, all have basis in numbers and are used for prep and strategy by the opposing team.

Of course. But again, there's the whole luck/strategy factor of the other team doing what ISN'T expected.

My point being is that if someone only looked at what Griffey produced while in a Sox jersey; that someone misses out on seeing the rest of what the man was and is.

Frontman
10-29-2008, 10:25 PM
Droso5, I think you and I are on the same page, just reading different paragraphs.

I just think some folks with, should I say, a certain point of 'view' want to be negative with a bit of bluster and a touch of cussin and that makes THEIR point of view the only point of view worth experiencing.

Especially when they're a bit on the rookie side of things.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 10:26 PM
Of course. But again, there's the whole luck/strategy factor of the other team doing what ISN'T expected.

My point being is that if someone only looked at what Griffey produced while in a Sox jersey; that someone misses out on seeing the rest of what the man was and is.

I know, I agreed with your point. But the numbers proved he ****ing sucked with the White Sox and he sucked in CF. You don't even need numbers in front of you to see that, just your eyes or ears. But, one could see by just numbers that his career declined at an alarming rate once he left the Mariners. HoF'er no doubt and probably one of the greatest players ever, but the reality stands.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 10:27 PM
Droso5, I think you and I are on the same page, just reading different paragraphs.

I just think some folks with, should I say, a certain point of 'view' want to be negative with a bit of bluster and a touch of cussin and that makes THEIR point of view the only point of view worth experiencing.

Especially when they're a bit on the rookie side of things.

Very good point. Let's just leave it at that and slowly walk away....don't make eye contact either.

Frontman
10-29-2008, 10:28 PM
I know, I agreed with your point. But the numbers proved he ****ing sucked with the White Sox and he sucked in CF. You don't even need numbers in front of you to see that, just your eyes or ears. But, one could see by just numbers that his career declined at an alarming rate once he left the Mariners. HoF'er no doubt and probably one of the greatest players ever, but the reality stands.

You know, the same argument could be made for when the Sox didn't re-sign Frank Thomas (numbers were way, way down from career average) yet some couldn't see Frank as anything other than as being great.

Droso5
10-29-2008, 10:32 PM
You know, the same argument could be made for when the Sox didn't re-sign Frank Thomas (numbers were way, way down from career average) yet some couldn't see Frank as anything other than as being great.

True, but although Franks avg. declined, he could still hit and hit for power. With his ankle that's what he had to do. Still awesome, but also still had worth. Numbers bore that out. If Frank completely tanked, he would be asking for change on Harlem Ave. right now.

pythons007
10-29-2008, 10:35 PM
For all you statheads, wouldn't the 1906 White Sox team (the hitless wonders) basically screw everything you guys have stated!!?!?!?!?!?!?

Or wouldn't a a career .250 hitter having an 0-3 game HAVE to get it a hit? I mean thats what the stats say he is going to do?

There are more things in a baseball game that go into determining the outcome of said game.

jscp0708
10-29-2008, 10:39 PM
I dont know why when I was 10 I liked junior so much. Growing up I had every major baseball card of his until about 2000 when I stopped collecting them. I am proud to say that I was able to watch my all time favorite baseball player on my all time favorite baseball team. I will sure miss him.

Daver
10-29-2008, 10:41 PM
if only you had something to actually contribute...

This is the funniest thing I have seen posted here in months.

kittle42
10-29-2008, 10:55 PM
I don't know why anyone argues over stats with daver...he'll never change his mind.

TheKittle
10-30-2008, 12:07 AM
Your eyes told you something different? Thome >>>>>> Griffey at this point in their careers. Thome can still carry a team on his back (although he may come out with a DL stint), while Griffey's days are behind him.

Where in the post did I say Thome was better than Grif?

forte
10-30-2008, 12:18 AM
This is the funniest thing I have seen posted here in months.

So what do you contribute here? I've only seen you post one-liners that just put people down and not add anything to the topic.

JB98
10-30-2008, 12:26 AM
When Griffey was acquired, I thought he was a square peg in a round hole. As it turned out, Quentin got hurt and it was good to have Junior around. He's obviously at the end of the line, but he's still enough of a threat to change the strategy of the other team. And we got him for absolute zilch. I never liked Nick Masset, and Danny Richar didn't show us much during his time in the Sox organization.

Griffey's bat did help us win some games the last two months. I can think of three or four where he made a difference, and in a tight pennant race, every one counts.

That said, Griffey needs to move on. He played OK and did what he could down the stretch for us this year, but looking ahead to 2009, we already have a left-handed DH. I'm with those who say Thome > Griffey at this stage of their careers.

spiffie
10-30-2008, 09:29 AM
So what do you contribute here? I've only seen you post one-liners that just put people down and not add anything to the topic.
You might try asking Daver about something related to the game of baseball, rather than the stat masturbation people keep bringing up. You'll find he's probably forgotten more about how to PLAY the game than most of us will ever know.

Britt Burns
10-30-2008, 11:05 AM
Thanks Griff. He might not have contributed a ton but I think it was a good move on KW's part.

Frontman
10-30-2008, 01:18 PM
So what do you contribute here? I've only seen you post one-liners that just put people down and not add anything to the topic.

*notes Davers really cool avatar, notes forte's newness; chalks up question to not being familiar with Flyingsock and the members here.*

Stoky44
11-01-2008, 11:29 AM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2008337291_mari01.html

The article is talking a lot about Jr going back to seattle. However, this article states that KW and Jrs agent still talking about hime coming back to the Sox, at a reduced price. It seems Jr really like it here and would like to come back.

I. Will Rockwell
11-02-2008, 05:49 PM
When Griffey was acquired, I thought he was a square peg in a round hole. As it turned out, Quentin got hurt and it was good to have Junior around. He's obviously at the end of the line, but he's still enough of a threat to change the strategy of the other team. And we got him for absolute zilch. I never liked Nick Masset, and Danny Richar didn't show us much during his time in the Sox organization.

Griffey's bat did help us win some games the last two months. I can think of three or four where he made a difference, and in a tight pennant race, every one counts.

That said, Griffey needs to move on. He played OK and did what he could down the stretch for us this year, but looking ahead to 2009, we already have a left-handed DH. I'm with those who say Thome > Griffey at this stage of their careers.


Must be all of that NERVE tonic that made his head swell up on the Simpsons. I don't troll.