PDA

View Full Version : The Moron chimes in on Frank


cheeses_h_rice
12-06-2002, 10:31 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay06.html

According to Jay, Sham-ME "motors on the road to Cooperstown," while Frank "is hitch-hiking in the other direction, now needing four excellent seasons to regain the voters' attention."

Career stats:

Sham-ME

1955 hits
499 HRs
1347 RBI
738 BB
1834 K
.348 OBP
.546 SLG
.278 AVE

Frank

1902 hits
376 HRs
1285 RBI
1286 BB
962 K
.432 OBP
.568 SLG
.314 AVE

Does the Moron have these 2 players' stats reversed, in his mind?

OneDog
12-06-2002, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay06.html

According to Jay, Sham-ME "motors on the road to Cooperstown," while Frank "is hitch-hiking in the other direction, now needing four excellent seasons to regain the voters' attention."

Career stats:

Sham-ME

1955 hits
499 HRs
1347 RBI
738 BB
1834 K
.348 OBP
.546 SLG
.278 AVE

Frank

1902 hits
376 HRs
1285 RBI
1286 BB
962 K
.432 OBP
.568 SLG
.314 AVE

Does the Moron have these 2 players' stats reversed, in his mind?


He's not the dumbest person in Chicago sports media for nothing.

doublem23
12-06-2002, 11:13 AM
:moron
Me write good!

bc2k
12-06-2002, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay06.html

According to Jay, Sham-ME "motors on the road to Cooperstown," while Frank "is hitch-hiking in the other direction, now needing four excellent seasons to regain the voters' attention."

Career stats:

Sham-ME

1955 hits
499 HRs
1347 RBI
738 BB
1834 K
.348 OBP
.546 SLG
.278 AVE

Frank

1902 hits
376 HRs
1285 RBI
1286 BB
962 K
.432 OBP
.568 SLG
.314 AVE

Does the Moron have these 2 players' stats reversed, in his mind?

Good point Cheeses, Thomas has half the strikeouts and almost twice the walks. Thomas has a better career average, and most suprising to me, a higher slugging percentage! The biggest gap between Hurt and Dirt is in career home runs, but if Thomas didn't get injured in 2001, he'd have over 400.

I'd bet that Thomas only needs one more Frank-like season to be Hall-worthy combined with three other mediocre seasons to just fill in the numbers. But of course who knows if his DH status will cripple his Hall chances.

harwar
12-06-2002, 11:40 AM
I'm just glad that hes' staying(dec.7th tomorrow).I wonder how much Franks' wanting more field time has to do with trying to attract NL clubs or if hes' thinking about getting in the hall of fame.

FarmerAndy
12-06-2002, 12:04 PM
It's often left out, and in my opinion important to note, that Frank's .432 On-Base% leads all active players and is 8th on the all time list.

Iwritecode
12-06-2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
It's often left out, and in my opinion important to note, that Frank's .432 On-Base% leads all active players and is 8th on the all time list.

:shammy

What are all these numbers you guys keep putting up?!? I don't understand any of them! Besides the only number that matters is how many homeruns I have! You can bet your bottom dollar that when I hit #500 I will be out for curtain call. I don't care if we are losing 14 - 1!!!

rmusacch
12-06-2002, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
:shammy

What are all these numbers you guys keep putting up?!? I don't understand any of them! Besides the only number that matters is how many homeruns I have! You can bet your bottom dollar that when I hit #500 I will be out for curtain call. I don't care if we are losing 14 - 1!!!

The next time Sham-me does he hop skip and a jump after hitting a jon ron, the next time up the pitcher should bean him.

Lip Man 1
12-06-2002, 01:55 PM
I think all of you are missing Mariotti's point.

That is if the Sox attempt to claim "victory" in this they are setting themselves up for one EXPLOSIVE situatrion which could derail ANY small chance this team has in 2003 of even having a winning record.

Before you say "they wouldn't do that," remember this is the SAME ORGANIZATION that chopped fifteen grand off Buehrle's deal last year when he had the "gall" to refuse to sign their "generous" (LOL) offer. Buehrle is their one bona fide pitcher.

With the Sox organization it's all about "winning" to show "who's boss" to everybody.....players, agents, media, and fans.

If they are stupid enough to humiliate Frank, this team could be in the dumps by June.

Mariotti was right, this is a difficult situation and if the Sox handle it wrong it could blow up right in their faces.

Lip

cheeses_h_rice
12-06-2002, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I think all of you are missing Mariotti's point.

That is if the Sox attempt to claim "victory" in this they are setting themselves up for one EXPLOSIVE situatrion which could derail ANY small chance this team has in 2003 of even having a winning record.

Before you say "they wouldn't do that," remember this is the SAME ORGANIZATION that chopped fifteen grand off Buehrle's deal last year when he had the "gall" to refuse to sign their "generous" (LOL) offer. Buehrle is their one bona fide pitcher.

With the Sox organization it's all about "winning" to show "who's boss" to everybody.....players, agents, media, and fans.

If they are stupid enough to humiliate Frank, this team could be in the dumps by June.

Mariotti was right, this is a difficult situation and if the Sox handle it wrong it could blow up right in their faces.

Lip

The Sox have already offered Frank what I think is a generous deal, and Frank declined it, opting instead to test the free-agent waters.

Sullivan writes:

According to sources, the Sox originally asked Thomas to defer about half of his $10 million per year salary when they invoked the diminished-skills clause, leaving him with a still-substantial $5 million and giving them more leverage to build a contending team. They already had been deferring $3.8 million with interest since 2001, so the difference is relatively small—about 2 percent of an estimated $60 million payroll

In other words, Frank was making about $6.45 million with $3.8 million deferred in 2001 and 2002. The Sox offered him $5M upfront and $5M deferred in 2003, and he refused. This is about a 22% drop in the upfront portion of his contract; considering the Sox *could* have dropped it to $300K (a 95% drop), I don't see how you can say the Sox are trying to "get one over on Frank" or something along those lines.

Sure, the Sox might to seek to drop his upfront money even further, knowing Frank's out of options, but I would be willing to bet that they come in at or close to what was originally offered, knowing full well that the incremental amount of money "saved" by lowballing Frank could come back to bite them in the ass tenfold if Frank emerges from the negotiations with a crummy attitude.

Surely the Sox can't argue with Frank trying to get what he can get, right? After all, it's in the contract they wrote. I think this will be a non-issue very shortly.

Paulwny
12-06-2002, 02:24 PM
No matter what money amount they finally agree upon the sox, by invoking the clause, come across as very cheap and petty in their treatment of a player who has been the core of the team for many years.
I wonder how many more players will have installed in their contracts-- White Sox-- "no trade to team".
The list of players will increase.

cheeses_h_rice
12-06-2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
No matter what money amount they finally agree upon the sox, by invoking the clause, come across as very cheap and petty in their treatment of a player who has been the core of the team for many years.
I wonder how many more players will have installed in their contracts-- White Sox-- "no trade to team".
The list of players will increase.

Oh, come on -- did or did not Frank agree to the contract he signed? If there's no downside for him, then why should the Sox have even been discussing this issue?

IMO, the Sox have been taking a prudent approach to the issue. They haven't done what they could do, under the terms of the agreement that Frank willingly entered into (for some bizarre reason). Instead, they're trying to meet much more than halfway.

I think the bigger question here is, why did Frank and his (now deceased) agent allow such a stupid clause to be put into his contract?

RichH55
12-06-2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I think all of you are missing Mariotti's point.

That is if the Sox attempt to claim "victory" in this they are setting themselves up for one EXPLOSIVE situatrion which could derail ANY small chance this team has in 2003 of even having a winning record.

Before you say "they wouldn't do that," remember this is the SAME ORGANIZATION that chopped fifteen grand off Buehrle's deal last year when he had the "gall" to refuse to sign their "generous" (LOL) offer. Buehrle is their one bona fide pitcher.

With the Sox organization it's all about "winning" to show "who's boss" to everybody.....players, agents, media, and fans.

If they are stupid enough to humiliate Frank, this team could be in the dumps by June.

Mariotti was right, this is a difficult situation and if the Sox handle it wrong it could blow up right in their faces.

Lip


Doesnt the original money return if Frank puts up Frank like numbers again? That would be strong motivation as the Moron suggests is needed....If I'm right about how the contract works than Jay should have done some more research....did I say more
? I meant any

fuzzy_patters
12-06-2002, 02:53 PM
I think Frank not making the Hall is Moron's latest crusade. I was rubbernecking at ESPN's show yesterday, and he felt the need to take an unprovoked potshot at Frank. He was asked if Glavine and Thome should make the hall. He answered, "Glavine-yes, Thome yes," and chimed in, "but Frank Thomas should not make the hall of fame." No one else had mentioned anything about Frank Thomas. Moron just decided to throw him in there to support his personal crusade.

Paulwny
12-06-2002, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I think the bigger question here is, why did Frank and his (now deceased) agent allow such a stupid clause to be put into his contract?

Agree, both were stupid.
I still stand by: other players watching this evolve are thinking, unless the sox are the only option left for me, I never want to play for that organization.

Ventura23Fan
12-06-2002, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Good point Cheeses, Thomas has half the strikeouts and almost twice the walks.

Sosa is currently 7th all time in Ks. Of the 6 who have more, 4 are in the HOF. Whether right or wrong, I don't think the K stat will be considered by the HOF voters.

cheeses_h_rice
12-06-2002, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Ventura23Fan
Sosa is currently 7th all time in Ks. Of the 6 who have more, 4 are in the HOF. Whether right or wrong, I don't think the K stat will be considered by the HOF voters.

That wasn't my point, really. My point was that Frank, it could be argued, STILL has better all-time stats than Sosa, yet for some reason he, according to the Moron, needs *4* more great seasons while Sosa is a lock? I wasn't aware that you had to get better during your career instead of worse to qualify for the HoF. News to me.

jortafan
12-06-2002, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I wasn't aware that you had to get better during your career instead of worse to qualify for the HoF. News to me.

Sadly enough, it seems to be true. Fernando Valenzuela is a long-shot for the Hall of Fame because his final few years dragged down his star career back in the 80s. The same goes for Don Mattingly, who never was the same after suffering injuries in the late 80s. By comparison, who remembers anymore just how awful Sandy Koufax was for the first half of his career? It's likely that no one will remember how unremarkable Sammy was for nine seasons, until '98.

fuzzy_patters
12-06-2002, 04:21 PM
Fernando Valenzuela
Fernando Valenzuela Anguamea

Bats Left, Throws Left
Height 5' 11", Weight 195 lb.
Debut September 15, 1980
Born November 1, 1960 in Navojoa, Mexico
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO SV IP H ER HR BB SO ERA *lgERA *ERA
+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+-----+---+---+--+---+---+----+----+---
1980 19 LAD NL 2 0 10 0 0 0 1 17.7 8 0 0 5 16 0.00 3.52 0

1981 20 LAD NL 13 7 25 25 11 8 0 192.3 140 53 11 61 180 2.48 3.32 134

1982 21 LAD NL 19 13 37 37 18 4 0 285.0 247 91 13 83 199 2.87 3.46 121

1983 22 LAD NL 15 10 35 35 9 4 0 257.0 245 107 16 99 189 3.75 3.60 96

1984 23 LAD NL 12 17 34 34 12 2 0 261.0 218 88 14 106 240 3.03 3.52 116

1985 24 LAD NL 17 10 35 35 14 5 0 272.3 211 74 14 101 208 2.45 3.49 143

1986 25 LAD NL 21 11 34 34 20 3 0 269.3 226 94 18 85 242 3.14 3.47 110

1987 26 LAD NL 14 14 34 34 12 1 0 251.0 254 111 25 124 190 3.98 3.96 100

1988 27 LAD NL 5 8 23 22 3 0 1 142.3 142 67 11 76 64 4.24 3.35 79

1989 28 LAD NL 10 13 31 31 3 0 0 196.7 185 75 11 98 116 3.43 3.43 100

1990 29 LAD NL 13 13 33 33 5 2 0 204.0 223 104 19 77 115 4.59 3.68 80

1991 30 CAL AL 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 6.7 14 9 3 3 5 12.15 4.05 33

1993 32 BAL AL 8 10 32 31 5 2 0 178.7 179 98 18 79 78 4.94 4.42 90

1994 33 PHI NL 1 2 8 7 0 0 0 45.0 42 15 8 7 19 3.00 4.30 143

1995 34 SDP NL 8 3 29 15 0 0 0 90.3 101 50 16 34 57 4.98 4.05 81

1996 35 SDP NL 13 8 33 31 0 0 0 171.7 177 69 17 67 95 3.62 4.01 111

1997 36 SDP NL 2 8 13 13 1 0 0 66.3 84 35 10 32 51 4.75 3.87 81

STL NL 0 4 5 5 0 0 0 22.7 22 14 2 14 10 5.56 4.17 75

TOT NL 2 12 18 18 1 0 0 89.0 106 49 12 46 61 4.96 3.94 80
+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+-----+---+---+--+---+---+----+----+---
17 Yr WL% .531 173 153 453 424 113 31 2 2930.0 2718 1154 226 1151 2074 3.54 3.66 103
+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+-----+---+---+--+---+---+----+----+---
162 Game Avg 13 11 35 32 8 2 0 227.2 210 89 17 89 160 3.54 3.66 103

Career High 21 17 37 37 20 8 1 285.0 254 111 25 124 242 2.45 4.42 143
+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+-----+---+---+--+---+---+----+----+---
W L G GS CG SHO SV IP H ER HR BB SO ERA *lgERA *ERA

Sandy Koufax
Sanford Koufax
born Sanford Braun

Bats Right, Throws Left
Height 6' 2", Weight 210 lb.
Debut June 24, 1955
Born December 30, 1935 in Brooklyn, NY


Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO SV IP H ER HR BB SO ERA *lgERA *ERA+
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+---+----+----+-----+-----+----+
1955 19 BRO NL 2 2 12 5 2 2 0 41.7 33 14 2 28 30 3.02 4.08 135

1956 20 BRO NL 2 4 16 10 0 0 0 58.7 66 32 10 29 30 4.91 3.96 81

1957 21 BRO NL 5 4 34 13 2 0 0 104.3 83 45 14 51 122 3.88 4.15 107

1958 22 LAD NL 11 11 40 26 5 0 1 158.7 132 79 19 105 131 4.48 4.11 92

1959 23 LAD NL 8 6 35 23 6 1 2 153.3 136 69 23 92 173 4.05 4.23 104

1960 24 LAD NL 8 13 37 26 7 2 1 175.0 133 76 20 100 197 3.91 3.99 102

1961 25 LAD NL 18 13 42 35 15 2 1 255.7 212 100 27 96 269 3.52 4.35 124

1962 26 LAD NL 14 7 28 26 11 2 1 184.3 134 52 13 57 216 2.54 3.63 143

1963 27 LAD NL 25 5 40 40 20 11 0 311.0 214 65 18 58 306 1.88 3.02 161

1964 28 LAD NL 19 5 29 28 15 7 1 223.0 154 43 13 53 223 1.74 3.25 187

1965 29 LAD NL 26 8 43 41 27 8 2 335.7 216 76 26 71 382 2.04 3.25 160

1966 30 LAD NL 27 9 41 41 27 5 0 323.0 241 62 19 77 317 1.73 3.28 190
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+---+----+----+-----+-----+----+
12 Yr WL% .655 165 87 397 314 137 40 9 2324.3 1754 713 204 817 2396 2.76 3.63 131
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+---+----+----+-----+-----+----+
162 Game Avg 15 8 37 30 13 3 0 222.3 167 68 19 78 229 2.76 3.63 131

Career High 27 13 43 41 27 11 2 335.7 241 100 27 105 382 1.73 4.35 190

Don Mattingly
Donald Arthur Mattingly (Donnie Baseball or Looey)

Bats Left, Throws Left
Height 6' 0", Weight 175 lb.
Debut September 8, 1982
Born April 20, 1961 in Evansville, IN

Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
1982 21 NYY AL 7 12 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .167 .154 .167 2 0 1 0 0 2

1983 22 NYY AL 91 279 34 79 15 4 4 32 0 0 21 31 .283 .333 .409 114 2 2 5 1 8

1984 23 NYY AL 153 603 91 207 44 2 23 110 1 1 41 33 .343 .381 .537 324 8 9 8 1 15

1985 24 NYY AL 159 652 107 211 48 3 35 145 2 2 56 41 .324 .371 .567 370 2 15 13 2 15

1986 25 NYY AL 162 677 117 238 53 2 31 113 0 0 53 35 .352 .394 .573 388 1 10 11 1 17

1987 26 NYY AL 141 569 93 186 38 2 30 115 1 4 51 38 .327 .378 .559 318 0 8 13 1 16

1988 27 NYY AL 144 599 94 186 37 0 18 88 1 0 41 29 .311 .353 .462 277 0 8 14 3 13

1989 28 NYY AL 158 631 79 191 37 2 23 113 3 0 51 30 .303 .351 .477 301 0 10 18 1 15

1990 29 NYY AL 102 394 40 101 16 0 5 42 1 0 28 20 .256 .308 .335 132 0 3 13 3 13

1991 30 NYY AL 152 587 64 169 35 0 9 68 2 0 46 42 .288 .339 .394 231 0 9 11 4 21

1992 31 NYY AL 157 640 89 184 40 0 14 86 3 0 39 43 .288 .327 .416 266 0 6 7 1 11

1993 32 NYY AL 134 530 78 154 27 2 17 86 0 0 61 42 .291 .364 .445 236 0 3 9 2 20

1994 33 NYY AL 97 372 62 113 20 1 6 51 0 0 60 24 .304 .397 .411 153 0 4 7 0 8

1995 34 NYY AL 128 458 59 132 32 2 7 49 0 2 40 35 .288 .341 .413 189 0 8 7 1 17
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
14 Seasons 7003 2153 20 1099 9 444 .307 .358 .471 13 96 136 21 191
1785 1007 442 222 14 588 3301
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
162 Game Avg 636 91 195 40 2 20 100 1 1 53 40 .307 .358 .471 300 1 9 12 2 17

Career High 162 677 117 238 53 4 35 145 3 4 61 43 .352 .397 .573 388 8 15 18 4 21

fuzzy_patters
12-06-2002, 04:22 PM
Frank Thomas
Frank Edward Thomas (Big Hurt)

Bats Right, Throws Right
Height 6' 5", Weight 257 lb.
Debut August 2, 1990
Born May 27, 1968 in Columbus, GA


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
1990 22 CHW AL 60 191 39 63 11 3 7 31 0 1 44 54 .330 .454 .529 101 0 3 0 2 5

1991 23 CHW AL 158 559 104 178 31 2 32 109 1 2 138 112 .318 .453 .553 309 0 2 13 1 20

1992 24 CHW AL 160 573 108 185 46 2 24 115 6 3 122 88 .323 .439 .536 307 0 11 6 5 19

1993 25 CHW AL 153 549 106 174 36 0 41 128 4 2 112 54 .317 .426 .607 333 0 13 23 2 10

1994 26 CHW AL 113 399 106 141 34 1 38 101 2 3 109 61 .353 .487 .729 291 0 7 12 2 15

1995 27 CHW AL 145 493 102 152 27 0 40 111 3 2 136 74 .308 .454 .606 299 0 12 29 6 14

1996 28 CHW AL 141 527 110 184 26 0 40 134 1 1 109 70 .349 .459 .626 330 0 8 26 5 25

1997 29 CHW AL 146 530 110 184 35 0 35 125 1 1 109 69 .347 .456 .611 324 0 7 9 3 15

1998 30 CHW AL 160 585 109 155 35 2 29 109 7 0 110 93 .265 .381 .480 281 0 11 2 6 14

1999 31 CHW AL 135 486 74 148 36 0 15 77 3 3 87 66 .305 .414 .471 229 0 8 13 9 14

2000 32 CHW AL 159 582 115 191 44 0 43 143 1 3 112 94 .328 .436 .625 364 0 8 18 5 13

2001 33 CHW AL 20 68 8 15 3 0 4 10 0 0 10 12 .221 .316 .441 30 0 1 2 0 0

2002 34 CHW AL 148 523 77 132 29 1 28 92 3 0 88 115 .252 .361 .472 247 0 10 2 7 10
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
13 Seasons 6065 1902 11 1285 21 962 .314 .432 .568 0 101 155 53 174
1698 1168 393 376 32 1286 3445
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
162 Game Avg 579 111 181 37 1 36 123 3 2 123 92 .314 .432 .568 329 0 10 15 5 17

Career High 160 585 115 191 46 3 43 143 7 3 138 115 .353 .487 .729 364 0 13 29 9 25

Sammy Sosa
Samuel Peralta Sosa

Bats Right, Throws Right
Height 6' 0", Weight 185 lb.
Debut June 16, 1989
Born November 12, 1968 in San Pedro de Macoris, D.R.


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+-------------+--+---+---+---+--+-+--+---+--+-+--+--+----+----+----+---+--+--+--+--+--
1989 20 TEX AL 25 84 8 20 3 0 1 3 0 2 0 20 .238 .238 .310 26 4 0 0 0 3

CHW AL 33 99 19 27 5 0 3 10 7 3 11 27 .273 .351 .414 41 1 2 2 2 3

TOT AL 58 183 27 47 8 0 4 13 7 5 11 47 .257 .303 .366 67 5 2 2 2 6

1990 21 CHW AL 153 532 72 124 26 10 15 70 32 16 33 150 .233 .282 .404 215 2 6 4 6 10

1991 22 CHW AL 116 316 39 64 10 1 10 33 13 6 14 98 .203 .240 .335 106 5 1 2 2 5

1992 23 CHC NL 67 262 41 68 7 2 8 25 15 7 19 63 .260 .317 .393 103 4 2 1 4 4

1993 24 CHC NL 159 598 92 156 25 5 33 93 36 11 38 135 .261 .309 .485 290 0 1 6 4 14

1994 25 CHC NL 105 426 59 128 17 6 25 70 22 13 25 92 .300 .339 .545 232 1 4 1 2 7

1995 26 CHC NL 144 564 89 151 17 3 36 119 34 7 58 134 .268 .340 .500 282 0 2 11 5 8

1996 27 CHC NL 124 498 84 136 21 2 40 100 18 5 34 134 .273 .323 .564 281 0 4 6 5 14

1997 28 CHC NL 162 642 90 161 31 4 36 119 22 12 45 174 .251 .300 .480 308 0 5 9 2 16

1998 29 CHC NL 159 643 134 198 20 0 66 158 18 9 73 171 .308 .377 .647 416 0 5 14 1 20

1999 30 CHC NL 162 625 114 180 24 2 63 141 7 8 78 171 .288 .367 .635 397 0 6 8 3 17

2000 31 CHC NL 156 604 106 193 38 1 50 138 7 4 91 168 .320 .406 .634 383 0 8 19 2 12

2001 32 CHC NL 160 577 146 189 34 5 64 160 0 2 116 153 .328 .437 .737 425 0 12 37 6 6

2002 33 CHC NL 150 556 122 160 19 2 49 108 2 0 103 144 .288 .399 .594 330 0 4 15 3 14
+-------------+--+---+---+---+--+-+--+---+--+-+--+--+----+----+----+---+--+--+--+--+--
14 Seasons 7026 1955 43 1347 105 1834 .278 .348 .546 17 62 135 47 153
1875 1215 297 499 233 738 3835
+-------------+--+---+---+---+--+-+--+---+--+-+--+--+----+----+----+---+--+--+--+--+--
162 Game Avg 607 105 169 26 4 43 116 20 9 64 158 .278 .348 .546 331 1 5 12 4 13

Career High 162 643 146 198 38 10 66 160 36 16 116
174 .328 .437 .737 425 5 12 37 6 20
+-------------+--+---+---+---+--+-+--+---+--+-+--+--+----+----+----+---+--+--+--+--+--
Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP

Here are the stats of the players listed in this thread.

Sandy Koufax has better career numbers than does Valenzuela. It has nothing to do with at what point in their careers the numbers were put up. Koufax won 20+ games three times, while Valenzuela did this only once. Koufax also had a 2.76 ERA compared to 3.54 for Valenzuela with both pitching in decades that favored pitching (60s vs 80s). Koufax was a better pitcher longer which is why he is in the H of F.

Mattingly's numbers are clearly inferior to Frank's and Sosa's. I don't know why you even bothered to bring him up. He put up above average numbers for a short period of time. Sorry, that's not Hall of Fame material.

I would argue that Frank Thomas has more in common with Koufax than either Mattingly or Valenzuela. Both Frank and Sandy put up record breaking season after record breaking season for most of a decade. Then, both players were afflicted with injuries cutting their string short. If Frank is never again the same, he should be in the Hall because of the magnitude of his numbers. When they were put up will be irrelevant.

As for Sammy Sosa, he'll be in, too. He will be in for the public perception that he somehow saved baseball as much as anything else.

cheeses_h_rice
12-06-2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters


As for Sammy Sosa, he'll be in, too. He will be in for the public perception that he somehow saved baseball as much as anything else.

:shammy

"Perception"?

What are you talking about -- I DID save baseball! Me and my good personal friend Mark McGwire! Honest injun!

:moron

You got that one right, Sammy.

HawkDJ
12-06-2002, 05:26 PM
How interesting, just yesterday he mentioned on Around the Horn that there is no way Frank THomas makes the HOF.

HawkDJ
12-06-2002, 05:29 PM
OH and now he is badmouthing Frank Thomas again on Around the Horn.

RichH55
12-06-2002, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
OH and now he is badmouthing Frank Thomas again on Around the Horn.

Got to hand it to him....when he gets a thought(and i use the term loosely) in that pretty little head of his, he will beat it into the ground for a few days

jeremyb1
12-06-2002, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
No matter what money amount they finally agree upon the sox, by invoking the clause, come across as very cheap and petty in their treatment of a player who has been the core of the team for many years.
I wonder how many more players will have installed in their contracts-- White Sox-- "no trade to team".
The list of players will increase.

frank signed the deal plain and simple. that was unwise. reinsdorf claims he advised frank not to sign it. i don't know if there's any truth to that. the reality is that the diminished skills clause exists because frank agreed upon it and if he hadn't he wouldn't be in this mess. right now the clause exists and the team has to do whats in its best interest.

i resent these arguments that the sox owe frank everything for past performance. imagine paying mo vaughn 15 million dollars a year or paying hampton close to 20 million last season to put up an era over 6. contracts like that cripple teams chances of winning. the suggestion that any team should place winning behind rewarding their players for past performance is offensive to me especially on the same board where i'm ridiculed for saying averaging 83 wins over five seasons isn't half bad. i love frank and i'd like the organization to treat him fairly but my first priority is to win a world series.

MisterB
12-06-2002, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
frank signed the deal plain and simple. that was unwise. reinsdorf claims he advised frank not to sign it. i don't know if there's any truth to that.

This keeps bugging me-

Reinsdorf's employee, Ron Schueler, offers Frank a contract with the DSC in it. JR then 'advises' Frank not to sign it. If JR thought the DSC was such a bad idea for Frank, why didn't he have Schu take it out of the contract? What kind of screwy good cop/bad cop mindgame was JR playing? What kind of nutcase says "Well, here's my offer, but you better not take it..."?

The best I can come up with is that it was a CYA move so that if the clause was ever exercised, 'Dorf could say "Hey, don't look at me, I told him not to sign that contract."

And the further question is how many free-agents with any kind of choice would want to come to an organization where the management likes to screw with its player's heads?

:sellreinsy

Daver
12-06-2002, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
This keeps bugging me-

Reinsdorf's employee, Ron Schueler, offers Frank a contract with the DSC in it. JR then 'advises' Frank not to sign it. If JR thought the DSC was such a bad idea for Frank, why didn't he have Schu take it out of the contract? What kind of screwy good cop/bad cop mindgame was JR playing? What kind of nutcase says "Well, here's my offer, but you better not take it..."?





Schueler had nothing to do with that contract,nor did he have any knowledge of it,it was drawn up by Reinsdorf's lawyers and agreed to by Frank's agent at the time,Schu had no part of the process.

MisterB
12-06-2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by daver
Schueler had nothing to do with that contract,nor did he have any knowledge of it,it was drawn up by Reinsdorf's lawyers and agreed to by Frank's agent at the time,Schu had no part of the process.

Then 'Dorf literally was saying "don't take my offer". Would that make it psychology, reverse psychology, reverse-reverse psychology... :?:

Daver
12-06-2002, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Then 'Dorf literally was saying "don't take my offer". Would that make it psychology, reverse psychology, reverse-reverse psychology... :?:

He did the same thing with Scotty Pippen.

bc2k
12-06-2002, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Ventura23Fan
Sosa is currently 7th all time in Ks. Of the 6 who have more, 4 are in the HOF. Whether right or wrong, I don't think the K stat will be considered by the HOF voters.

The point I was making was not solely based on the K stat. Did you notice the sentence you quoted was part of a larger paragraph?
I was building on Moronotti's assumption that Sosa is HOF worthy while Frank is not. I used the strikeout argument in addition to a paragraph of other stats - that Cheeses provided - to prove that if Sosa is a HOFer, Thomas is HOF destined too.

DVG
12-07-2002, 12:25 AM
My guess is that Thomas did something to Mariotti, like call him a bad writer or take offense to a bad article. When Jay is insulted,
that person becomes a sworn blood oath archenemy for life. He'll
pursue his mindless little agenda to the ends of the earth. Like
Skip Bayless does with Sosa. The worst part is that no one will
take up for Thomas. He could hit 400 to 500 HR's and Inspector
Javeriotti would still be pursuing his vendetta. As for Sammy,
he must have told Jay that he's God's gift to the sportswriting
profession.

Tragg
12-07-2002, 10:11 AM
Moronotti is one sour individual.

RichH55
12-07-2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
Moronotti is one sour individual.


I honestly believe that he has one last column to bash Albert Belle ready to go at any moment.....If Belle is ever in the limelight again, or the Moron happens to outlive him, it will be the best day in Jay's life.....rather said what we have to deal with in this town

Lip Man 1
12-07-2002, 11:12 PM
Actually it should be "if Jay outlives Jerry Reinsdorf, it'll be the happiest day of his life..." (and all Sox fans too!)

Lip

DVG
12-07-2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Actually it should be "if Jay outlives Jerry Reinsdorf, it'll be the happiest day of his life..." (and all Sox fans too!)

Lip

Lippy, you are one bitter individual.

RichH55
12-07-2002, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by DVG
Lippy, you are one bitter individual.

Hell that last post was downright positive by Lip's standards

TornLabrum
12-08-2002, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Hell that last post was downright positive by Lip's standards

Keep in mind that there are two factions on this board, the OFs who have been around since 1959 and would like to see a World Championship before we die, and the Young Whippersnappers who think that the Sox will someday build a dynasty.

Lip and I fall into the former catagory. I haven't seen the Sox come close to the World Series since they lost to the Yankees by one game in the divisionless 1964 season, 38 years ago. Don't tell me about 1983 or '93 or 2000. We were manhandled in the playoffs.

I know I have a lot fewer years ahead of me than behind me now. I'd love to be positive, but a 44 year wait is just too damn long to remain optimistic.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-08-2002, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
....I know I have a lot fewer years ahead of me than behind me now. I'd love to be positive, but a 44 year wait is just too damn long to remain optimistic.

Yes Torn, but what you fail to realize is none of those 44 years is relevant until AFTER the young whipper-snappers are old enough to remember them! :smile:

Lip Man 1
12-08-2002, 01:17 PM
Lippy, you are one bitter individual.

Not at all....it's a FACT, Reinsdorf is 66 (I'm 47)

It's a fact, the Sox have done squat since Uncle Jerry took over (care to debate that? By using say the number of championships won?)

Phil Rogers had a column last spring that looked at Chicago ownership in comparison to all the other teams who have gotten new ownership groups since 1981 when both Reinsdorf and the Tribune Company took over. He concluded that based on "winning" (titles, divisions, etc...) both Chicago teams have been the worst in baseball.

I personally will get up on my roof and scream "thanks and amen" to allmight God, the day I hear that Uncle Jerry is no longer the owner of the White Sox.

That doesn't guarantee ANYTHING will change for the team, but at least there is a CHANCE that it will. We know nothing is going to change as long as mister "I'll do it my way..." is still running the show.

Lip

Paulwny
12-08-2002, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
[B]
That doesn't guarantee ANYTHING will change for the team, but at least there is a CHANCE that it will. We know nothing is going to change as long as mister "I'll do it my way..." is still running the show.
Lip

JR now becomes the new "old blue eyes".

DVG
12-09-2002, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Lippy, you are one bitter individual.

Not at all....it's a FACT, Reinsdorf is 66 (I'm 47)

It's a fact, the Sox have done squat since Uncle Jerry took over (care to debate that? By using say the number of championships won?)

Phil Rogers had a column last spring that looked at Chicago ownership in comparison to all the other teams who have gotten new ownership groups since 1981 when both Reinsdorf and the Tribune Company took over. He concluded that based on "winning" (titles, divisions, etc...) both Chicago teams have been the worst in baseball.

I personally will get up on my roof and scream "thanks and amen" to allmight God, the day I hear that Uncle Jerry is no longer the owner of the White Sox.

That doesn't guarantee ANYTHING will change for the team, but at least there is a CHANCE that it will. We know nothing is going to change as long as mister "I'll do it my way..." is still running the show.

Lip


I don't doubt that you will be happy the day Reinsdorf no longer owns the team. I just think that rooting for the man's death, as
you seem to be doing, is slightly extreme.

If JR is going to leave baseball, then let it be by selling the team
and abdicating the throne. I'm not rooting for him to die. Also, I
remember as a kid being overjoyed when Bill Veeck finally sold
the White Sox, because I thought "now we have a rich owner
who will go get the free agents and spend money..."

Today's moral: Be careful of what you wish for....

PaleHoseGeorge
12-09-2002, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by DVG
I don't doubt that you will be happy the day Reinsdorf no longer owns the team. I just think that rooting for the man's death, as
you seem to be doing, is slightly extreme.

If JR is going to leave baseball, then let it be by selling the team
and abdicating the throne. I'm not rooting for him to die. Also, I
remember as a kid being overjoyed when Bill Veeck finally sold
the White Sox, because I thought "now we have a rich owner
who will go get the free agents and spend money..."

Today's moral: Be careful of what you wish for....

I remember having similar sentiments back in 1981. Veeck nearly sold the team to Denver interests. He had definitely worn out his welcome.

Now 22 seasons later, my biggest regret is Veeck wasn't allowed to sell to DeBartolo for PRECISELY the reasons DVG says he was glad Reinsdorf bought the team.

Hindsight is 20/20. Compared with the rest of the league, I don't think there is any question the Sox are worse off today than the day Veeck sold to Reinsdorf. Certainly I'm not the only one who remembers free agents like Dave Winfield refusing to entertain offers from the Sox. Isn't that EXACTLY where we are with Reinsdorf, too?

Get the jerk outta here.