PDA

View Full Version : Dave Ghallager


ssang
01-20-2003, 11:50 PM
Does anyone remember this guy? What the hell ever happened to him? Did he disappear from the planet? I remember he was promising as a rookie for the Sox in the late 80's. He was part of the most dreadful part in Sox history.....a time when Ivan Calderon actually led the team with 14 Homers in '87!!! And that was the year that, at the time, was a HUGE power year in baseball. Damn the Sox really were awful back then!

A.T. Money
01-20-2003, 11:55 PM
Dave Gallagher had a great rookie year. I remember he was the center fielder at the old park. He had some great catches and hit the ball hard. He came out with that "Stride Tutor" which chained your ankles keeping you from over-striding, and you hit off a tee. He was never the same after that.

:D:

MetalliSox
01-21-2003, 10:13 AM
I have Dave Gallagher's STARTING LINE UP figure somewhere in my closet. Wonder if I could exchange it for a free phone call?

Bobby Thigpen
01-21-2003, 10:17 AM
I remember he was supposed to be the next great outfielder according to baseball publications. Didn't he end up with the Dodgers?

voodoochile
01-21-2003, 10:23 AM
Isn't Ghallager the guy who made contact on the first 20 pitches he swung at in the majors (or something)? Obviously most of them were foul, but he was just on fire when he first came up. Hit .380 for a while, IIRC...

Lip Man 1
01-21-2003, 11:59 AM
I don't remember if this is EXACTLY correct (perhaps Rich Lindberg or Hal Vickery would know for sure) but I recall the Sox cutting Gallagher because he got into an argument with Sox management over salary and contracts. (big surprise eh?)

He was in the minor leagues for a very long time and when the Sox finally brought him up and he did well he expected to be paid for it.

The Sox had different ideas.

Lip

VeeckAsInWreck
01-21-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by ssang
He was part of the most dreadful part in Sox history.....a time when Ivan Calderon actually led the team with 14 Homers in '87!!! And that was the year that, at the time, was a HUGE power year in baseball. Damn the Sox really were awful back then!

I don't mean to nit-pick but Calderon led the team with 28 HR's in '87. He did lead the team with 14 in 1989. Pretty shameful when you consider that we were well into the "live-ball" era! :(:

The one thing I remember about Dave Gallagher was when he was with the California Angels in 1991. He filled in for Dave Winfield and went 5 for 5. I think all of those hits were singles though.

hold2dibber
01-21-2003, 02:10 PM
Here are Gallagher's career stats. (http://www.baseballreference.com/g/gallada01.shtml) He played in 161 games getting 601 ABs for the Sox in '89, despite a horrific .634 OPS! Not surprisingly, he was never a regular in the majors again.

Brian26
01-21-2003, 02:44 PM
Fondest Dave Gallagher memory....

:hawk

"Keep taking him out to dinner, guys"

After Gallagher took a White Sox pitcher deep in the 1991 season.

ssang
01-21-2003, 04:58 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VeeckAsInWreck
[B]I don't mean to nit-pick but Calderon led the team with 28 HR's in '87. He did lead the team with 14 in 1989. Pretty shameful when you consider that we were well into the "live-ball" era! :(:


My bad. But 14 homers for a team leader is just pathetic.

hose
01-21-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Isn't Ghallager the guy who made contact on the first 20 pitches he swung at in the majors (or something)? Obviously most of them were foul, but he was just on fire when he first came up. Hit .380 for a while, IIRC...



yeah and he was pretty good with the sledge-a-matic :D:

34rancher
01-21-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by ssang
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VeeckAsInWreck
[B]My bad. But 14 homers for a team leader is just pathetic.

I have to disagree. I feel that home runs are vastly overrated. For my proof, just look at the teams that have won the world series the past few years. With the exception of Gonzo (which I think that you all would agree, Schilling and the Big Unit were the real reason they won), the recent trend is for the team that plays solid baseball without massive power numbers wins the WS. A couple of years back, didn't the Yanks win the WS with no one near 30 home runs in the season. I just say that home runs promote selfish baseball that is anything from team oriented.

ssang
01-23-2003, 09:21 AM
There's a big difference between having 3-4 guys with 20-25 HRS (such as the WS Yankee squads) and having the team LEADER at 14 HR's. The difference is actually bigger than you can imagine! The Yankees offense was solid because that had multiple players who could go deep at any given time. And they often had numerous players hit big HR's in the playoffs. That '89 Sox squad with Calderon couldn't even beat the little league WS champs from the '89 season!

gogosoxgogo
01-23-2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by ssang
There's a big difference between having 3-4 guys with 20-25 HRS (such as the WS Yankee squads) and having the team LEADER at 14 HR's. The difference is actually bigger than you can imagine! The Yankees offense was solid because that had multiple players who could go deep at any given time. And they often had numerous players hit big HR's in the playoffs. That '89 Sox squad with Calderon couldn't even beat the little league WS champs from the '89 season!

oh come on! Home runs are so incredible overrated. I could care less about how many home runs a team has, what I care about is how many runs they drive in and how many runs they score. HOME RUNS SUCK

hold2dibber
01-23-2003, 09:31 AM
I agree that home runs are overrated. Guys who swing for the fence instead of just trying to make solid contact are doing themselves and their teams a disservice. But to suggest that homeruns aren't important is crazy. There is no more efficient way to score runs than with a homer. All good teams in this day and age have guys who can go long. Every world series winner has at least a few guys who can go yard at any given time. You don't need a 40 hr/year masher, but you do need a few guys who can go deep with some regularity. I'm guessing no team whose season HR leader had 14 or less dingers has won a WS since the early 1900s.

34rancher
01-23-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I agree that home runs are overrated. Guys who swing for the fence instead of just trying to make solid contact are doing themselves and their teams a disservice. But to suggest that homeruns aren't important is crazy. There is no more efficient way to score runs than with a homer. All good teams in this day and age have guys who can go long. Every world series winner has at least a few guys who can go yard at any given time. You don't need a 40 hr/year masher, but you do need a few guys who can go deep with some regularity. I'm guessing no team whose season HR leader had 14 or less dingers has won a WS since the early 1900s.

That would be a good question. But remember in 1989, Fred McGriff led the league with 36 home runs. Heck Kevin Mitchell led the bigs as the only guy over 40 with 47 (can you say Roids?). With Howard Johnson next at 36. So for the Sox to have a guy who "only hit 14", don't forget who the rookies coming up were that next year. But as brutal as they were, it was not because of home runs it was because their leading man with runs scored only had 83 along with rbi's at 87 (with second at 68). So the real problem there was lack of overall production I think, not home runs.

hose
01-23-2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by 34rancher
That would be a good question. But remember in 1989, Fred McGriff led the league with 36 home runs. Heck Kevin Mitchell led the bigs as the only guy over 40 with 47 (can you say Roids?). With Howard Johnson next at 36. So for the Sox to have a guy who "only hit 14", don't forget who the rookies coming up were that next year. But as brutal as they were, it was not because of home runs it was because their leading man with runs scored only had 83 along with rbi's at 87 (with second at 68). So the real problem there was lack of overall production I think, not home runs.


Kevin Mitchell was out of baseball by the age of 36. He did hit 47 home runs to lead the NL in 1989, but he was only 27 years old when he did it.