PDA

View Full Version : Frank Thomas is at Spring Training


HawkDJ
02-16-2003, 12:57 PM
On Talkin' Baseball on ESPN 1000 Bruce Levine is reporting that Frank Thomas is already at spring training. Thats a good sign.

WinningUgly!
02-16-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
On Talkin' Baseball on ESPN 1000 Bruce Levine is reporting that Frank Thomas is already at spring training. Thats a good sign.

That's 2 good signs...
1) Frank is there early.
&
2) It's actually being reported.
:)

RKMeibalane
02-16-2003, 01:09 PM
Good... good... (evil laugh).

voodoochile
02-16-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Good... good... (evil laugh).

ditto...

I call to order this meeting of the FOFT, bashers need not respond...

:D:

ScottyTheSoxFan
02-16-2003, 01:37 PM
i bet sammy is in camp by now as well.

EnricoPallazzo
02-16-2003, 01:45 PM
Quick! Somebody wake Mgr. Van Winkel up

WinningUgly!
02-16-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by ScottyTheSoxFan
i bet sammy is in camp by now as well.

"Be there when? Dusty who?"
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/winningugly/sscar.jpg

RKMeibalane
02-16-2003, 02:46 PM
I'm sure the Cubune will rejoice once Sosa's oversized head appears in Cubs camp. Meanwhile, Frank has arrived early, and the media has already fallen back into their usual routine with him. I love the Chicago media with every fiber of my being.

soxguy
02-16-2003, 02:47 PM
I think frank is going to have a monster year. The best thing to happen to sox is the new deal he signed, effectively all 1 yr contracts, that'll keep him playin for a contract. Lets see 2000 numbers again.

WhiteSoxWinner
02-16-2003, 02:54 PM
This is a good sign. I really hope he has rededicated himself to getting back on track and showing what a great hitter he is. Now I hope he just doesn't pull one of those "I'm getting screwed and should be paid more" tirades this spring. He should keep his head down, mouth shut, and just let his skills do the talking.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
This is a good sign. I really hope he has rededicated himself to getting back on track and showing what a great hitter he is. Now I hope he just doesn't pull one of those "I'm getting screwed and should be paid more" tirades this spring. He should keep his head down, mouth shut, and just let his skills do the talking.

Yes, and you forgot the most important thing. TRY TO BE A TEAM PLAYER, AND PUT IMPORTANCE ON WINNING, not personal stats.

voodoochile
02-16-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Yes, and you forgot the most important thing. TRY TO BE A TEAM PLAYER, AND PUT IMPORTANCE ON WINNING, not personal stats.

what exactly does that mean? Can you give an example of what a player should be doing to put an emphasis on Team and winning over stats?

Does that apply equally to a DH as it does to a guy who plays defense also?

Can you give an example where you think Frank's attitude has cost the team victories?

I know I can name a bunch of times where his stats (such a dirty word, I know :D: ) have helped the team win, so I just want to understand what you are saying...

guillen4life13
02-16-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
what exactly does that mean? Can you give an example of what a player should be doing to put an emphasis on Team and winning over stats?

Does that apply equally to a DH as it does to a guy who plays defense also?

Can you give an example where you think Frank's attitude has cost the team victories?

I know I can name a bunch of times where his stats (such a dirty word, I know :D: ) have helped the team win, so I just want to understand what you are saying...

Bmr must think he's some messiah, preaching to us all. I wonder what his reaction is like when he's wrong on that oh so rare occasion.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
Bmr must think he's some messiah, preaching to us all. I wonder what his reaction is like when he's wrong on that oh so rare occasion.

Not to brag, but if you research the things i have said in the 1 1/2 years on this board, youll find I am right most of the time. Yes i was wrong on occasion, but who isnt? Voodoo, your post wasnt worth responding to, sorry. The answers are obvious.

voodoochile
02-16-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Voodoo, your post wasnt worth responding to, sorry. The answers are obvious.

Okay, so enlighten me, or admit you were just taking another shot at Frank...

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Okay, so enlighten me, or admit you were just taking another shot at Frank...

With what? That Frank doesnt travel with the team when hes hurt? That he pouts if he doesnt get his way? That he sits in the dugout alone most of the time? That his teammates cant stand him? That the media hates him? That his manager cant stand him? That his ex teammates hammer him when they leave? That his "STATS" have sucked of late? That he wont talk to the media? Wow....This guy is a winner!

The sox would be so much better off dealing him, UNLESS he decides to be a team player. The things stated above are only the things WE have seen .....i cant imagine what hes REALLY like.....

voodoochile
02-16-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
With what? That Frank doesnt travel with the team when hes hurt? That he pouts if he doesnt get his way? That he sits in the dugout alone most of the time? That his teammates cant stand him? That the media hates him? That his manager cant stand him? That his ex teammates hammer him when they leave? That his "STATS" have sucked of late? That he wont talk to the media? Wow....This guy is a winner!

The sox would be so much better off dealing him, UNLESS he decides to be a team player. The things stated above are only the things WE have seen .....i cant imagine what hes REALLY like.....

I don't know, when he is healthy and producing, no one has a problem with his attitude. I seem to recall him being a team leader in 2000 when the team was winning and he was producing. Then he gets hurt and has to sit out an entire season (should he travel with the team all year? Why is that an issue for Frank and not for other players who are out all year? Did Boomer travel with the Sox after his injury in 2001? Did all the starters who got hurt in the last few years travel with the team?)

Why are you suddenly defending the media? I thought you didn't want people to pay attention to what they say? Think for ourselves, right?

Manuel doesn't like Frank? Since when? I know they've had their share of run ins, but I can't think of anything that is currently simmering the pot. Where are you getting this info, from the media which doesn't like Frank (your words)?

I see Frank in the dugout sitting amongst the other players, so I don't know what you are seeing when you watch games. I know you watch a lot of games - more than I do, but I watch close to 100 Sox games a year on a regular basis and I don't see what you see. Perhaps that is why people need to rely on objective information like stats occasionally, because our brains interpret what they see and leave us with a subjective interpretation. Since you don't like Frank, your interpretation is probably colored by your emotions, as mine is by the fact that Frank is my favorite Sox player of all time...

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I don't know, when he is healthy and producing, no one has a problem with his attitude. I seem to recall him being a team leader in 2000 when the team was winning and he was producing. Then he gets hurt and has to sit out an entire season (should he travel with the team all year? Why is that an issue for Frank and not for other players who are out all year? Did Boomer travel with the Sox after his injury in 2001? Did all the starters who got hurt in the last few years travel with the team?)

Why are you suddenly defending the media? I thought you didn't want people to pay attention to what they say? Think for ourselves, right?

Manuel doesn't like Frank? Since when? I know they've had their share of run ins, but I can't think of anything that is currently simmering the pot. Where are you getting this info, from the media which doesn't like Frank (your words)?

I see Frank in the dugout sitting amongst the other players, so I don't know what you are seeing when you watch games. I know you watch a lot of games - more than I do, but I watch close to 100 Sox games a year on a regular basis and I don't see what you see. Perhaps that is why people need to rely on objective information like stats occasionally, because our brains interpret what they see and leave us with a subjective interpretation. Since you don't like Frank, your interpretation is probably colored by your emotions, as mine is by the fact that Frank is my favorite Sox player of all time...

Voodoo, if you dont see those things about Frank, you are obviously not wanting to see them. Franks "attitude" is common knowledge throughout baseball. I dont have ANYTHING personal against the guy except hes a loser and i want the sox to be a winner.

TheBigHurt
02-16-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
I think frank is going to have a monster year. The best thing to happen to sox is the new deal he signed, effectively all 1 yr contracts, that'll keep him playin for a contract. Lets see 2000 numbers again.

i praise you :D:

TheBigHurt
02-16-2003, 05:36 PM
i told ya folks this is a new big FRANK i can just tell

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Voodoo, if you dont see those things about Frank, you are obviously not wanting to see them. Franks "attitude" is common knowledge throughout baseball. I dont have ANYTHING personal against the guy except hes a loser and i want the sox to be a winner.

Oh and may i add that the ONLY reason Frank is still with the sox is because NOONE WANTED HIM? Hmmm, i guess the word is out, huh?

TheBigHurt
02-16-2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Oh and may i add that the ONLY reason Frank is still with the sox is because NOONE WANTED HIM? Hmmm, i guess the word is out, huh?

yeah right....frank wanted to stay here...he needed to know that the sox wanted him and since no one else did :D: he knew he was wanted in chi town

p.s. dont make fun of my grammer !!!!!

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by TheBigHurt
yeah right....frank wanted to stay here...he needed to know that the sox wanted him and since no one else did :D: he knew he was wanted in chi town

p.s. dont make fun of my grammer !!!!!

LOL i wont. Hopefully, now that Frank sees hes not as "wanted" as he thought he was, he will focus on winning baseball.

Daver
02-16-2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Oh and may i add that the ONLY reason Frank is still with the sox is because NOONE WANTED HIM? Hmmm, i guess the word is out, huh?

Frank had offers on the table from the Orioles,Dodgers,and Braves, JR convinced him to re-sign with the Sox.

TheBigHurt
02-16-2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by daver
Frank had offers on the table from the Orioles,Dodgers,and Braves, JR convinced him to re-sign with the Sox.

thanks daver, for making me sound smarter :D:

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by daver
Frank had offers on the table from the Orioles,Dodgers,and Braves, JR convinced him to re-sign with the Sox.

Hmm well if thats true, hopefully he was convinced to become a team player too. I think Frank has monster skills. He just needs to be in the right frame of mind.

RKMeibalane
02-16-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
He just needs to be in the right frame of mind.

From what I've seen thus far in 2003, he is in the right frame of mind. Him showing up early for ST proves that.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
From what I've seen thus far in 2003, he is in the right frame of mind. Him showing up early for ST proves that.

Hey winning comes first. If Frank can put aside his past selfishness, I am all for seconds chances.

Juan Pizarro
02-16-2003, 07:10 PM
The Hrniak voodoo will revitalize that stick.
Frank, hang in on that thigh-high inside fastball and rake it around the pole.

dllrbll7
02-17-2003, 12:18 AM
I think you all make good points to a certain degree but i think alot of the things are blown out of proportion. I think frank has had acouple bad season on the field and in the clubhouse. If frank was putting up allstar numbers we would have never heard as much about his problems with others. I bet this year he will get his act together and his problems on and off the field will become a distant memory, or at least i hope.

Mammoo
02-17-2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by soxguy
I think frank is going to have a monster year.

Define "monster year" if you would.

(I hope you're right!!)

Nellie_Fox
02-17-2003, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Mammoo
Define "monster year" if you would.

(I hope you're right!!) Would .320, 40, 120 work for you? That's the kind of year I'm predicting.

TheBigHurt
02-17-2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Would .320, 40, 120 work for you? That's the kind of year I'm predicting.
:D: :D: :D: :D: :D: :D:
ill take it any day...or year

hose
02-17-2003, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Would .320, 40, 120 work for you? That's the kind of year I'm predicting.


:hawk

Put it on the board, YES!!



He did Hawk.

Mammoo
02-17-2003, 09:35 AM
.320 Ave. , 40 Taters , 120 Ribbies....

Uh Oh....

I 've got happy feet!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm doing the Lithuanian dance of joy!!!
http://www.cityinsights.com/healthyfood.htm

kevingrt
02-17-2003, 11:07 AM
Anyone know if Walt Hrinak is there with him? He was suppose too, right?

TraderTim
02-17-2003, 11:27 AM
"Anyone know if Walt Hrinak is there with him? He was suppose too, right?"

Yep. Walt's there with Frank...Got to be a sign of good things.

TraderTim

hold2dibber
02-17-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Would .320, 40, 120 work for you? That's the kind of year I'm predicting.

That would, of couse, be wonderful, but I don't want my expectations to be too high. I'd be thrilled with a .300/30/100, .400 OBP kind of year from Frank.

dllrbll7
02-17-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
That would, of couse, be wonderful, but I don't want my expectations to be too high. I'd be thrilled with a .300/30/100, .400 OBP kind of year from Frank.

I would be happy with those numbers too!!!

EnricoPallazzo
02-17-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
That would, of couse, be wonderful, but I don't want my expectations to be too high. I'd be thrilled with a .300/30/100, .400 OBP kind of year from Frank.

This is what I hope for but Based on the last 4 seasons, I have no reason to expect it. I think it's idiotic to not bat Mags 3rd and the Skirt 5th. Mags does not clog up the basepaths, it would give him the opportunity to steal a few, and he's the best hitter on the team. Any other manager would do this. I really think Sleeping Beauty is the biggest minus on this team.

chisox06
02-17-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
On Talkin' Baseball on ESPN 1000 Bruce Levine is reporting that Frank Thomas is already at spring training. Thats a good sign.

Yea and so will all the others. He a player like everyone else, that fact that he's getting attention for something he has to do for millions and millions of bucks just seems kind of weird to me.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
This is what I hope for but Based on the last 4 seasons, I have no reason to expect it. I think it's idiotic to not bat Mags 3rd and the Skirt 5th. Mags does not clog up the basepaths, it would give him the opportunity to steal a few, and he's the best hitter on the team. Any other manager would do this. I really think Sleeping Beauty is the biggest minus on this team.

I agree.

Nellie_Fox
02-17-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
This is what I hope for but Based on the last 4 seasons, I have no reason to expect it. I think it's idiotic to not bat Mags 3rd and the Skirt 5th. Mags does not clog up the basepaths, it would give him the opportunity to steal a few, and he's the best hitter on the team. Any other manager would do this. I really think Sleeping Beauty is the biggest minus on this team. Great. Another Frank basher joins up. Why do self-proclaimed Sox fans have to call the guy names? You don't like his play, fine, but using the names Cubs fans call the best hitter on the Sox since Shoeless Joe just stinks.


Originally posted by chisox06
Yea and so will all the others. He a player like everyone else, that fact that he's getting attention for something he has to do for millions and millions of bucks just seems kind of weird to me. Because he's there early, showing he's ready to go. He doesn't have to be there yet.

hold2dibber
02-17-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
This is what I hope for but Based on the last 4 seasons, I have no reason to expect it. I think it's idiotic to not bat Mags 3rd and the Skirt 5th. Mags does not clog up the basepaths, it would give him the opportunity to steal a few, and he's the best hitter on the team. Any other manager would do this. I really think Sleeping Beauty is the biggest minus on this team.

Me thinks your dislike for Frank as a person is coloring your perception of him as a ballplayer. His last four seasons:

'99: .305/15/77, obp .414
'00: .328/43/143, obp .436
'01: injured
'02: .252/28/92, .361

I suppose those numbers don't make me expect him to go .300/30/100/.400, but it certainly doesn't seem like a big reach to me. He was reasonably close to those numbers last year, his first full season back from a severe injury. And calling him the biggest minus on the team? Despite his lousy year last year, he still was among the top 3 or 4 DHs in the AL last year. I don't think anyone can reasonably contend that he doesn't have the potential to put up huge numbers again this year. They won with Frank in '00 and '93. No reason that can't do so again this year. If he's even just a smidge better than last year (e.g., .280/28/92/.380) he's a damn fine hitter.

Nonetheless, I couldn't agree more about hitting Maggs 3rd. He is clearly the best hitter on the team. You want your best hitter to get as many ABs as possible. Very frustrating to see the Sox go down 1-2-3 in the first without Maggs getting his hacks in. Maggs 3rd, PK 4th, Big Hurt 5th.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Great. Another Frank basher joins up. Why do self-proclaimed Sox fans have to call the guy names? You don't like his play, fine, but using the names Cubs fans call the best hitter on the Sox since Shoeless Joe just stinks.


Because he's there early, showing he's ready to go. He doesn't have to be there yet.

I think his point was this should be normal for a so called leader of a team.

bc2k
02-17-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
what exactly does that mean? Can you give an example of what a player should be doing to put an emphasis on Team and winning over stats?

Does that apply equally to a DH as it does to a guy who plays defense also?

Can you give an example where you think Frank's attitude has cost the team victories?

I know I can name a bunch of times where his stats (such a dirty word, I know :D: ) have helped the team win, so I just want to understand what you are saying...

How about his refusal to slide into home. Twice.

Sitting on the bench during the 2000 Detroit brawl.

And worst attitude problem of not making productive use of his outs. When he was in his slump last year (the first FIVE months of the season), Frank would only hit for his numbers. That's why he popped everything up last year.

I love comparing Frank to Paulie. I can't be the only one that notices Konerko deadening a ball to the right side while the runner advances. Paulie adjusts his at bats to the situation, hitting behind the runner. While Frank has the same mindset every at bat; "Me's gots to gets me numbers." Remember this guy last year kept saying how his rbi and homer numbers are still there, so he's not having that bad of a season (Hence, this was all he was concerned about). "Screw the team, I have to make my numbers look respectable to avoid embarrasment."

I realize every hitter won't be as unselfish as Paulie. Take Magglio for instance. Certain players like Maggs shouldn't hit behind runners and avoid the double play. But even Magglio, when in a slump, will aim to advance the runner instead of swinging for the fences.

This is my biggest beef for Thomas since even in his worst rally-killing slumps, he wouldn't adjust his midset for different situations.

That said, I'm glad Frank has shown up early for ST but even if he puts up 2000 numbers, he can still sacrifice at bats when in a slump.

Nellie_Fox
02-17-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
"Me's gots to gets me numbers." What kind of crap is this? Have you ever heard Frank talk like that? In fact, have you ever heard anyone talk like that?

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
What kind of crap is this? Have you ever heard Frank talk like that? In fact, have you ever heard anyone talk like that?

Yeah, I think thats how bc2k talks. :)

voodoochile
02-17-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
How about his refusal to slide into home. Twice.

Sitting on the bench during the 2000 Detroit brawl.

And worst attitude problem of not making productive use of his outs. When he was in his slump last year (the first FIVE months of the season), Frank would only hit for his numbers. That's why he popped everything up last year.

I love comparing Frank to Paulie. I can't be the only one that notices Konerko deadening a ball to the right side while the runner advances. Paulie adjusts his at bats to the situation, hitting behind the runner. While Frank has the same mindset every at bat; "Me's gots to gets me numbers." Remember this guy last year kept saying how his rbi and homer numbers are still there, so he's not having that bad of a season (Hence, this was all he was concerned about). "Screw the team, I have to make my numbers look respectable to avoid embarrasment."

I realize every hitter won't be as unselfish as Paulie. Take Magglio for instance. Certain players like Maggs shouldn't hit behind runners and avoid the double play. But even Magglio, when in a slump, will aim to advance the runner instead of swinging for the fences.

This is my biggest beef for Thomas since even in his worst rally-killing slumps, he wouldn't adjust his midset for different situations.

That said, I'm glad Frank has shown up early for ST but even if he puts up 2000 numbers, he can still sacrifice at bats when in a slump.

:whoflungpoo

I'd start debunking this, but I'd just get razzed for (*gasp*) liking Frank Thoms (OH NO!)

Thanks, Nellie...

FarmerAndy
02-17-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by bc2k


Sitting on the bench during the 2000 Detroit brawl.



I was there, and Frank was out on the field with the rest of the team during that brawl.

I'm not going to get into this argument. You have the right to like or dis-like Frank, but don't just make things up.

bc2k
02-17-2003, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
What kind of crap is this? Have you ever heard Frank talk like that? In fact, have you ever heard anyone talk like that?

How come in a post of 257 words, you choose to question that but don't argue the rest of the post? Me's betting because we both know its be's da trut, boss.

Seriously, none of the Frank backers acknowledge how he doesn't change his mindset no matter the situation. Since no one is contesting this, your silence proves that fact. My follow up question would be if you realize his lack of team hitting, how can you still cheer for this guy.

This isn't directed solely at Nellie, but at all Frank backers.

Daver
02-17-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
How come in a post of 257 words, you choose to question that but don't argue the rest of the post? Me's betting because we both know its be's da trut, boss.

Seriously, none of the Frank backers acknowledge how he doesn't change his mindset no matter the situation. Since no one is contesting this, your silence proves that fact. My follow up question would be if you realize his lack of team hitting, how can you still cheer for this guy.

This isn't directed solely at Nellie, but at all Frank backers.

I am not a Frank backer,but I can tell you that situational hitting is not really part of his job,as a DH he is expected to go to the plate and drive the ball,why in the world would you want your DH to bunt?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-17-2003, 08:14 PM
I'll never understand why sports fans confuse athletic talent with leadership skills. All of the criticism of Frank Thomas always revolves around this point

Frank Thomas IS NOT a leader. He has NEVER been a leader. The most you can say about his leadership skills is that he is determined to put up monster numbers. This might make him one of those guys who leads others by example. After allowing for this possibility, there is nothing else.

Frank Thomas IS a remarkably gifted athlete. His numbers are the best in the entire history of the White Sox franchise. A "down year" for him would be a career year for 90 percent of the ballplayers in the league. We aren't likely to find anybody to put up the numbers he has for an equivalent 10+ year stretch the rest of our lives.

Frank Thomas strikes me as an arrested adolescent. He has never truly grown up. Bringing a note from his doctor at the beginning of camp in 2000 was a classic gesture by a little boy trapped inside a grown man. This is NOT leadership material.

Leaders are a hell of a lot easier to find than ballplayers capable of Ted Williams-like numbers. I'm not convinced the Sox need any more leadership than they already have. Besides, the 2003 Sox aren't the wet behind the ears rookies of 1999.

There is no reason a non-star player (like Jose Valentin, for example) couldn't be leader. His qualifications are just as good as stars Paul Konerko and Magglio Ordonez. It's only important that leaders lead, and stars shine. Frank Thomas belongs in the latter category.

Daver
02-17-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'll never understand why sports fans confuse athletic talent with leadership skills. All of the criticism of Frank Thomas always revolves around this point

Frank Thomas IS NOT a leader. He has NEVER been a leader. The most you can say about his leadership skills is that he is determined to put up monster numbers. This might make him one of those guys who leads others by example. After allowing for this possibility, there is nothing else.

Frank Thomas IS a remarkably gifted athlete. His numbers are the best in the entire history of the White Sox franchise. A "down year" for him would be a career year for 90 percent of the ballplayers in the league. We aren't likely to find anybody to put up the numbers he has for an equivalent 10+ year stretch the rest of our lives.

Frank Thomas strikes me as an arrested adolescent. He has never truly grown up. Bringing a note from his doctor at the beginning of camp in 2000 was a classic gesture by a little boy trapped inside a grown man. This is NOT leadership material.

Leaders are a hell of a lot easier to find than ballplayers capable of Ted Williams-like numbers. I'm not convinced the Sox need any more leadership than they already have. Besides, the 2003 Sox aren't the wet behind the ears rookies of 1999.

There is no reason a non-star player (like Jose Valentin, for example) couldn't be leader. His qualifications are just as good as stars Paul Konerko and Magglio Ordonez. It's only important that leaders lead, and stars shine. Frank Thomas belongs in the latter category.

Well said George.

For what it is worth neither Teddy Ballgame,or for that matter Babe Ruth were considered leaders,does that make them lesser ballplayers?

TraderTim
02-17-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by bc2k :
"How come in a post of 257 words, you choose to question that but don't argue the rest of the post? Me's betting because we both know its be's da trut, boss."

Actually, I find both of your last two two posts offensive. Please don't drag that type of stereotypical/idiomatic language into the fine world of baseball.

TraderTim

Jjav829
02-17-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'll never understand why sports fans confuse athletic talent with leadership skills. All of the criticism of Frank Thomas always revolves around this point

Frank Thomas IS NOT a leader. He has NEVER been a leader. The most you can say about his leadership skills is that he is determined to put up monster numbers. This might make him one of those guys who leads others by example. After allowing for this possibility, there is nothing else.

Frank Thomas IS a remarkably gifted athlete. His numbers are the best in the entire history of the White Sox franchise. A "down year" for him would be a career year for 90 percent of the ballplayers in the league. We aren't likely to find anybody to put up the numbers he has for an equivalent 10+ year stretch the rest of our lives.

Frank Thomas strikes me as an arrested adolescent. He has never truly grown up. Bringing a note from his doctor at the beginning of camp in 2000 was a classic gesture by a little boy trapped inside a grown man. This is NOT leadership material.

Leaders are a hell of a lot easier to find than ballplayers capable of Ted Williams-like numbers. I'm not convinced the Sox need any more leadership than they already have. Besides, the 2003 Sox aren't the wet behind the ears rookies of 1999.

There is no reason a non-star player (like Jose Valentin, for example) couldn't be leader. His qualifications are just as good as stars Paul Konerko and Magglio Ordonez. It's only important that leaders lead, and stars shine. Frank Thomas belongs in the latter category.

Agreed. Who cares whether Frank is a leader or not? Just as long as he shows up and is a part of the team. No one has to be a leader.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Agreed. Who cares whether Frank is a leader or not? Just as long as he shows up and is a part of the team. No one has to be a leader.


I care. Frank is the team veteran. His behavior matters. To me, if you have been with the team the longest, you should be hungry to WIN. Is Frank hungry to win? I dunno but my guess is no. Team chemistry is VERY important when it comes to making the playoffs and advancing in the playoffs. If you do not have a problem with franks lack of leadership, perhaps you dont value winning as much as some of us.

Daver
02-17-2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I care. Frank is the team veteran. His behavior matters. To me, if you have been with the team the longest, you should be hungry to WIN. Is Frank hungry to win? I dunno but my guess is no. Team chemistry is VERY important when it comes to making the playoffs and advancing in the playoffs. If you do not have a problem with franks lack of leadership, perhaps you dont value winning as much as some of us.

Do you doubt Babe Ruth's desire to win?

Do you doubt Ted Williams desire to win?

Do you doubt Mickey Mantles desire to win?

Do you doubt Barry Bonds desire to win?


None of them ever made any attempt to be a team leader,and all of them could be considered a distraction to the team,and affect team chemistry.

Sorry,I don't buy that argument.

bc2k
02-17-2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Agreed. Who cares whether Frank is a leader or not? Just as long as he shows up and is a part of the team. No one has to be a leader.

I hope the leadership role isn't in response to my posts. I was criticizing Frank for putting his personal stats above the team not for failing to high five his teammates.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-17-2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by daver
Do you doubt Babe Ruth's desire to win?

Do you doubt Ted Williams desire to win?

Do you doubt Mickey Mantles desire to win?

Do you doubt Barry Bonds desire to win?


None of them ever made any attempt to be a team leader,and all of them could be considered a distraction to the team,and affect team chemistry.

Sorry,I don't buy that argument.

For the record, I'll take Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds, and Frank Thomas on my team regardless of any chemistry problems or lack of leadership it might cause.

And for the record, I bet my team beats Bmr's team, too. He traded to me for all these no chemistry/no leadership players.

:)

Daver
02-17-2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
I hope the leadership role isn't in response to my posts. I was criticizing Frank for putting his personal stats above the team not for failing to high five his teammates.

And you are misguided again,what do you want out of your DH?

You want him to put up the best numbers he can put up in every category,because that is his job,he is a professional hitter,nothing more and nothing less.The better his numbers are the better the the team is.

Jjav829
02-17-2003, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
I hope the leadership role isn't in response to my posts. I was criticizing Frank for putting his personal stats above the team not for failing to high five his teammates.

No it wasn't. I was just responding to George's post. I am not sure who brought up the leadership thing. I agree with you about the personal stats thing.

Jjav829
02-17-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by daver
And you are misguided again,what do you want out of your DH?

You want him to put up the best numbers he can put up in every category,because that is his job,he is a professional hitter,nothing more and nothing less.The better his numbers are the better the the team is.

No one player is bigger than the game. You go up to the plate to do whats best for your team in that situation no matter who you are 1-9. If you have to advance the runner, you do so.

Jjav829
02-17-2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I care. Frank is the team veteran. His behavior matters. To me, if you have been with the team the longest, you should be hungry to WIN. Is Frank hungry to win? I dunno but my guess is no. Team chemistry is VERY important when it comes to making the playoffs and advancing in the playoffs. If you do not have a problem with franks lack of leadership, perhaps you dont value winning as much as some of us.

What does desire to win have to do with leadership? There are plenty of players in baseball who want to win but aren't leaders.

Daver
02-17-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
No one player is bigger than the game. You go up to the plate to do whats best for your team in that situation no matter who you are 1-9. If you have to advance the runner, you do so.

That is not my point,you don't send your DH to the plate and expect him to bunt to advance the runner,that is not what you need out of him,you need him to drive the ball.

That being said Frank has done a good job in the past of hitting to the opposite field to advance a runner,so this is really a moot point.

Jjav829
02-17-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by daver
That is not my point,you don't send your DH to the plate and expect him to bunt to advance the runner,that is not what you need out of him,you need him to drive the ball.

That being said Frank has done a good job in the past of hitting to the opposite field to advance a runner,so this is really a moot point.

O, well I didn't see anything about asking your DH to bunt so I must have missed something.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by daver
Do you doubt Babe Ruth's desire to win?

Do you doubt Ted Williams desire to win?

Do you doubt Mickey Mantles desire to win?

Do you doubt Barry Bonds desire to win?


None of them ever made any attempt to be a team leader,and all of them could be considered a distraction to the team,and affect team chemistry.

Sorry,I don't buy that argument.

Yes. Ruth cared about women and impressing, Mantle was a drunk and Bonds is very similar to Frank, if not worse.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
For the record, I'll take Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds, and Frank Thomas on my team regardless of any chemistry problems or lack of leadership it might cause.

And for the record, I bet my team beats Bmr's team, too. He traded to me for all these no chemistry/no leadership players.

:)


Thats an absolute empty post.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
What does desire to win have to do with leadership? There are plenty of players in baseball who want to win but aren't leaders.


There are many ways to lead. Im not asking that Frank become a cheerleader or motivator. Why cant he just work hard, put the team first, and be there for his teammates? Is that too much to ask? Hes been with the team for so long now, its natural for young players to mold themselves after him.

Daver
02-17-2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Is Frank hungry to win? I dunno but my guess is no. Team chemistry is VERY important when it comes to making the playoffs and advancing in the playoffs.

The Oakland A's of the Seventies hated each other,and won three world championships.

The New York Yankees under Billy Martin did nothing but fight amongst themselves,and win a couple world championships.

If you want chemistry then have Josh Paul carry around a bunsen burner,at least that way he can somewhat justify why he will have a roster spot.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by daver
The Oakland A's of the Seventies hated each other,and won three world championships.

The New York Yankees under Billy Martin did nothing but fight amongst themselves,and win a couple world championships.

If you want chemistry then have Josh Paul carry around a bunsen burner,at least that way he can somewhat justify why he will have a roster spot.


This is a different era. Those teams won despite lack of chemistry, because their talent was dominating. Whether they fought or not, I believe they were all interested in winning, and not their personal numbers.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:28 PM
How many less talented teams need to win the world series before some of you will see how important chemistry is? Do you think its luck? I just watched a MUCH less talented 1990 reds team sweep Oakland, on espn classic. The answer is chemistry.

Daver
02-17-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
This is a different era. Those teams won despite lack of chemistry, because their talent was dominating. Whether they fought or not, I believe they were all interested in winning, and not their personal numbers.

And you have evidence that you can produce that proves Frank Thomas is more interested in stats than winning?

This whole team played as a team,through thick and thin last season,especially in the last two months,why should I expect that to change?

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by daver
And you have evidence that you can produce that proves Frank Thomas is more interested in stats than winning?

This whole team played as a team,through thick and thin last season,especially in the last two months,why should I expect that to change?


Since you and voodoo are so obsessed with evidence, where is your evidence that they played as a team, "through thick and thin?" How do you know that? Can you prove it?

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by daver
And you have evidence that you can produce that proves Frank Thomas is more interested in stats than winning?

This whole team played as a team,through thick and thin last season,especially in the last two months,why should I expect that to change?

If you are correct, could it be because they got rid of a few other selfish players? Lofton watching videos during BP was team enhancing huh?

Daver
02-17-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Since you and voodoo are so obsessed with evidence, where is your evidence that they played as a team, "through thick and thin?" How do you know that? Can you prove it?

That is simple,look at the record for the last two months,or better yet,"watch the games".

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by daver
That is simple,look at the record for the last two months,or better yet,"watch the games".


Thanks for supporting my theory. After those trades, the sox became less talented, but won more consistently. They got rid of selfish players. Its kinda obvious what happened.

Daver
02-17-2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Thanks for supporting my theory. After those trades, the sox became less talented, but won more consistently. They got rid of selfish players. Its kinda obvious what happened.

Your theory holds water like a seive then,because Frank Thomas was still on the team.What players are you refering to?

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by daver
Your theory holds water like a seive then,because Frank Thomas was still on the team.What players are you refering to?


Lofton and Durham. I am not saying Kenny has always been selfish, but his season with the sox is well documented. Comments about having dedication to winning and working has also been well documented, since the trade.

Daver
02-17-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Lofton and Durham. I am not saying Kenny has always been selfish, but his season with the sox is well documented. Comments about having dedication to winning and working has also been well documented, since the trade.

That pokes a hole in your chemistry argument if you are gonna include a guy that spent a whopping 4 months in a Sox uniform,and Ray was as good as gone before the season started and everyone knew it.

Still waiting for your Frank Thomas stats proof BTW.

WinningUgly!
02-17-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
Originally posted by bc2k :
"How come in a post of 257 words, you choose to question that but don't argue the rest of the post? Me's betting because we both know its be's da trut, boss."

Actually, I find both of your last two two posts offensive. Please don't drag that type of stereotypical/idiomatic language into the fine world of baseball.

TraderTim

That's what bc2k is all about. If he's not ripping on Dominicans (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16680), he's busy making fun of light complected latinos (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17108).

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by daver
That pokes a hole in your chemistry argument if you are gonna include a guy that spent a whopping 4 months in a Sox uniform,and Ray was as good as gone before the season started and everyone knew it.

Still waiting for your Frank Thomas stats proof BTW.

I dont understand your question. Anyway, I will end this by saying i dont have proof Frank is a cancer, but i do have proof team chemistry is very very important. I am NOT a Frank hater. If he can be a team player, I dont care what his numbers are. I just want the sox to win.

Daver
02-17-2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I dont understand your question.

I didn't ask a question.

I'd also like to see your proof on team chemistry.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by daver
I didn't ask a question.

I'd also like to see your proof on team chemistry.

Past history. I am not interested in this debate enough to look it up, but my memory tells me that since 1990, the most talented teams rarely win the world series.

voodoochile
02-17-2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by daver
I didn't ask a question.

I'd also like to see your proof on team chemistry.

I think that that can almost be inferred, but you have to use an example to do so:

If two teams are equally talented, but one team is very cohesive in the classic sense of chemistry while the other team fights amongst themselves regularly, most people would bet the team with good chemistry to win more games in any setting.

Of course that is just IMO...

:D:

Daver
02-17-2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Past history. I am not interested in this debate enough to look it up, but my memory tells me that since 1990, the most talented teams rarely win the world series.

Either that or you can't back it up.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I think that that can almost be inferred, but you have to use an example to do so:

If two teams are equally talented, but one team is very cohesive in the classic sense of chemistry while the other team fights amongst themselves regularly, most people would bet the team with good chemistry to win more games in any setting.

Of course that is just IMO...

:D:

Yes and sometimes the lack of chemistry even causes more talented teams to fail.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by daver
Either that or you can't back it up.

Do you really need me to do that? I think you know baseball enough to remember all the underdogs who became champions, in the 90's. Is there really a need?

Daver
02-17-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Do you really need me to do that? I think you know baseball enough to remember all the underdogs who became champions, in the 90's. Is there really a need?

No not really,if you'll agree to help Josh Paul carry the bunsen burner as a tribute to chemistry..............


:redneck

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 10:16 PM
I can give you a personal example of team chemistry. I had avoided this because i did not want to seem like I was bragging. At my job site, we had a MUCH more experienced and to be honest, talented team. Everything was in place. However, that group of people were more interested in bragging and bringing down other team members. Recently, I inspired a COMPLETE overhaul of our store. I lack experienced, compared to the previous leader. Everyone below me lacked that same experience, and talent. They all had to be trained, and trained on the run. The difference was all these people had great attitude and liked eachother. The results? Record sales and improvement in all areas of the business. You can say this is different, but it really is not. Teams prosper or fail TOGETHER. Sure i would like people who have more experience in certain areas, but i will take attitude every single time.

WinningUgly!
02-17-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I can give you a personal example of team chemistry. I had avoided this because i did not want to seem like I was bragging. At my job site, we had a MUCH more experienced and to be honest, talented team. Everything was in place. However, that group of people were more interested in bragging and bringing down other team members. Recently, I inspired a COMPLETE overhaul of our store. I lack experienced, compared to the previous leader. Everyone below me lacked that same experience, and talent. They all had to be trained, and trained on the run. The difference was all these people had great attitude and liked eachother. The results? Record sales and improvement in all areas of the business. You can say this is different, but it really is not. Teams prosper or fail TOGETHER. Sure i would like people who have more experience in certain areas, but i will take attitude every single time.

So I guess Frank Thomas won't be working there anytime soon? :)

Daver
02-17-2003, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
. Sure i would like people who have more experience in certain areas, but i will take attitude every single time.

That I can understand,which is why I think in the long run the Sox will regret giving up on Rocky Biddle,he was the poster child for attitude.

That being said,I still don't give a lot of credence to team chemistry,it is up to the players to create it.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
So I guess Frank Thomas won't be working there anytime soon? :)

We had several cancers. I cant even compare Frank to those people, because they were horrible people. I just want Frank to become an ideal teammate.

voodoochile
02-17-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I can give you a personal example of team chemistry. I had avoided this because i did not want to seem like I was bragging. At my job site, we had a MUCH more experienced and to be honest, talented team. Everything was in place. However, that group of people were more interested in bragging and bringing down other team members. Recently, I inspired a COMPLETE overhaul of our store. I lack experienced, compared to the previous leader. Everyone below me lacked that same experience, and talent. They all had to be trained, and trained on the run. The difference was all these people had great attitude and liked eachother. The results? Record sales and improvement in all areas of the business. You can say this is different, but it really is not. Teams prosper or fail TOGETHER. Sure i would like people who have more experience in certain areas, but i will take attitude every single time.

While I completely agree with the analogy. In fact I've seen it personally, I am not sure it carries entirely over to baseball. See, anyone (or probably at least 75% of the population) can work in a department store (or at the Wendy's I used to manage). Only a very small percentage of the population can play MLB (duh!) So the discrepency in talent can be huge between the best Major leaguers (Barry Bonds) and the worst (Josh Paul), attitude alone cannot overcome a large talent discrepency on the field. There is no such discrepency in the place you work.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by daver
That I can understand,which is why I think in the long run the Sox will regret giving up on Rocky Biddle,he was the poster child for attitude.

That being said,I still don't give a lot of credence to team chemistry,it is up to the players to create it.

Yeah in baseball, i think it is. I really dont think Jerry manuel can force the guys to be as one. His job is to hold everyone accountable, which i really dont think he has done. My issue with JM, is he is too soft.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
While I completely agree with the analogy. In fact I've seen it personally, I am not sure it carries entirely over to baseball. See, anyone (or probably at least 75% of the population) can work in a department store (or at the Wendy's I used to manage). Only a very small percentage of the population can play MLB (duh!) So the discrepency in talent can be huge between the best Major leaguers (Barry Bonds) and the worst (Josh Paul), attitude alone cannot overcome a large talent discrepency on the field. There is no such discrepency in the place you work.

I agree 100 percent. I dont think its nearly as important in baseball. I think maybe it becomes more important in the playoffs. When you are stacked with talent, you are going to win 90 games by accident.

RKMeibalane
02-17-2003, 11:12 PM
Never fear. Frank Thomas' lawyer is here. LOL!

I'm going to offer my "two cents worth" on this issue:

1. Regarding Frank's alleged selfishness over the course of his career.

I agree that Frank has, at times, done things that most people consider selfish. An example of selfish behavior that I think of is when Thomas walked out of Spring Training in 2001 and complained about his contract. That was selfish. I do not agree, however, that Frank has been selfish when he is on the baseball diamond playing an actual game. Frank Thomas is paid to "knock the living sh*t" out of the baseball. Period. If he comes to plate with men on base, I'm sure most people expect him to drive the ball into the gap, not hit the ball to the right side. Now, having said that, Frank has shown a willingness to move runners over in the past. He usually ends up with a fair amount of sacrafice flies as well, another sign of team play.

2. Regarding the accusations about Frank's attitude towards the media.

This was discussed earlier in the thread, and it has been debated several times on this board in the past. Quite frankly, I don't care if Thomas talks to th media. He is not paid to spend time behind a microphone. He is payed, once again, to hit a baseball. If the media has difficulty understanding that, then they're even more clueless than I thought. Jay Mariotti, are you listening? Now, I realize that talking with the media comes with the territory of being a celebrity or professional athlete. However, when one takes into consideration how many times Chicago beat writers have baited Frank into opening his mouth and saying something stupid, just so they have an excuse to criticize him, it's not surprising that he is limiting his time with them.

bc2k
02-17-2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
That's what bc2k is all about. If he's not ripping on Dominicans (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16680), he's busy making fun of light complected latinos (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17108).

WU, I used your links from the Thomas thread to refresh my memory as to what comments I made. The first one I apologized for, I was only trying to rip on a Cubs player. The second one, JLo, wasn't a bigoted comment on Latinos. She is pale for any type of nationality. My comment wasn't directed at any one race.

And in this thread, I was talking in a Miss Cleo voice. I thought that was obvious, but since it's posted in print and not audio, I can understand it being misunderstood.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
WU, I used your links from the Thomas thread to refresh my memory as to what comments I made. The first one I apologized for, I was only trying to rip on a Cubs player. The second one, JLo, wasn't a bigoted comment on Latinos. She is pale for any type of nationality. My comment wasn't directed at any one race.

And in this thread, I was talking in a Miss Cleo voice. I thought that was obvious, but since it's posted in print and not audio, I can understand it being misunderstood.

Man people are way too sensitive when it comes to jokes , and race. I dont think bc2k meant any harm.

bc2k
02-17-2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Never fear. Frank Thomas' lawyer is here. LOL!

I'm going to offer my "two cents worth" on this issue:

1. Regarding Frank's alleged selfishness over the course of his career.

I do not agree, however, that Frank has been selfish when he is on the baseball diamond playing an actual game. Frank Thomas is paid to "knock the living sh*t" out of the baseball. Period. If he comes to plate with men on base, I'm sure most people expect him to drive the ball into the gap, not hit the ball to the right side. Now, having said that, Frank has shown a willingness to move runners over in the past. He usually ends up with a fair amount of sacrafice flies as well, another sign of team play.

I guess these are our closing arguments, counselor. :gulp:

We agree that Thomas is paid to drive the ball and score runs. We disagree that he has to have that mentality in every at bat. One point that hasn't been brought up is the responsibility he has hitting in front of Magglio and Konerko. If men are on first and second, Thomas needs to stay out of the double play. He needs to allow the two dominant hitters behind him the (sometimes better opportunity) to score the runners already on base.

Frank needs to understand it is his responsibility to the team to allow a runner to take third from second base by hitting behind him. Let Magglio have a shot at a sacrifice fly or even Paulie. We know that from Paulie's first half and Magglio's entire season, that they can carry this team when they're hot.

Throughout 162 games, most hitters go through slumps of some sort. Frank can take these opportunities to play team baseball and let the two arguably better hitters who follow him, a better shot at helping the team win the game.

It is my belief that Frank's refusal of situational hitting is why he can't be counted on when the game is on the line. If I'm down to my final out in the World Series with the tying run on second, I'm pinch hitting Herbert Perry for Frank.

Bmr31
02-17-2003, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
I guess these are our closing arguments, counselor. :gulp:

We agree that Thomas is paid to drive the ball and score runs. We disagree that he has to have that mentality in every at bat. One point that hasn't been brought up is the responsibility he has hitting in front of Magglio and Konerko. If men are on first and second, Thomas needs to stay out of the double play. He needs to allow the two dominant hitters behind him the (sometimes better opportunity) to score the runners already on base.

Frank needs to understand it is his responsibility to the team to allow a runner to take third from second base by hitting behind him. Let Magglio have a shot at a sacrifice fly or even Paulie. We know that from Paulie's first half and Magglio's entire season, that they can carry this team when they're hot.

Thoroughout 162 games, most hitters go through slumps of some sort. Frank can take these opportunities to play team baseball and let the two arguably better hitters who follow him, a better shot at helping the team.

It is my belief that Frank's refusal of situational hitting is why he can't be counted on when the game is on the line. If I'm down to my final out in the World Series, I'm pinch hitting Herbert Perry for Frank.


LOL okay now thats going a little too far. Herbert Perry?

bc2k
02-17-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
LOL okay now thats going a little too far. Herbert Perry?

I honestly would make that move. I loved watching Milkman's at bats when he was with the Sox. I'll tell you this: Perry will see every pitch that pitcher is throwing, fouling off at least four. Perry won't go down first pitch swinging, he's going fight. I would rather lose the Series with Perry losing the fight than on an infield pop-up.

RKMeibalane
02-18-2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
I honestly would make that move. I loved watching Milkman's at bats when he was with the Sox. I'll tell you this: Perry will see every pitch that pitcher is throwing, fouling off at least four. Perry won't go down first pitch swinging, he's going fight. I would rather lose the Series with Perry losing the fight than on an infield pop-up.

Let's remember that Frank Thomas is well-known for working deep into the count. He draws a lot of walks. I wouldn't have any objections to having him bat with the World Series on the line.

EnricoPallazzo
02-18-2003, 12:37 AM
Hey Dibber, I did not mean Thomas was a minus. I was referring to Manuel. I do think Thomas is immature but his bat is an important asset during the 1st 6 innings.

He is not a good clutch hitter and I too would rather see Herbert Perry up in a clutch situation.

I do appreciate the excitement Frank has created for Sox fans and don't really mean to bash him. I'm just saying what I see.

I will henceforth stop referring to him as the Skirt, but it won't be easy if he keeps jumping out of the way on pitches on the inside half, which drives me NUTS.

voodoochile
02-18-2003, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
I honestly would make that move. I loved watching Milkman's at bats when he was with the Sox. I'll tell you this: Perry will see every pitch that pitcher is throwing, fouling off at least four. Perry won't go down first pitch swinging, he's going fight. I would rather lose the Series with Perry losing the fight than on an infield pop-up.

And people accuse ME of being over the top in SUPPORT of Frank Thomas...

Herbert Perry? That's funny stuff...

Bmr31
02-18-2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
And people accuse ME of being over the top in SUPPORT of Frank Thomas...

Herbert Perry? That's funny stuff...

Please dont confuse me with the "Herbert Perry" variety of Frank bashers..... :D:

hold2dibber
02-18-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
How come in a post of 257 words, you choose to question that but don't argue the rest of the post?

Well, maybe because that part of your post was offensive?

Me's betting because we both know its be's da trut, boss.

Yeah - just like that.

hold2dibber
02-18-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
How many less talented teams need to win the world series before some of you will see how important chemistry is? Do you think its luck? I just watched a MUCH less talented 1990 reds team sweep Oakland, on espn classic. The answer is chemistry.

Kind of like the 2000 White Sox, who lead the AL in wins despite not having nearly the amount of talent as the Yankees, Indians and others. So, I guess you're right, it's all about chemistry. BUT WAIT!!!! Frank Thomas was on the 2000 White Sox. Could it possibly be that a team with the hornery, selfish, whining, blah, blah, blah Frank Thomas can have good chemistry and win and play hard? Kind of like the Sox (you know, the Sox with Frank Thomas on the roster) did the last 2 months of last year? Or in 2000? Or in 1993?

Listen, I know that Frank is far from perfect. He's a bit of a baby and he has the worst PR judgment/sense in the history of earth. He's kind of stand-of-ish and aloof. But to suggest that it matters is bull crap. If the entire roster was populated with those types, it would matter. But a single guy who is less than perfect as a teammate, particularly one who puts up the types of numbers Frank puts up, isn't going to have any adverse impact upon the team.

WinningUgly!
02-18-2003, 09:52 AM
:tomatoaward

hold2dibber
02-18-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
Hey Dibber, I did not mean Thomas was a minus. I was referring to Manuel. I do think Thomas is immature but his bat is an important asset during the 1st 6 innings.

He is not a good clutch hitter and I too would rather see Herbert Perry up in a clutch situation.

I do appreciate the excitement Frank has created for Sox fans and don't really mean to bash him. I'm just saying what I see.

I will henceforth stop referring to him as the Skirt, but it won't be easy if he keeps jumping out of the way on pitches on the inside half, which drives me NUTS.

Frank is not a good hitter in game-on-the-line situations. He reminds me of the Tim Robbins character in Bull Durham - once he starts thinking, he's doomed. And I think in clutch situations, he starts thinking too much and puts too much pressure on himself. Despite the fact that he has been one of the dominant hitters in the game over the last decade, I have precious few memories of him getting game winning hits at the end of games. I have more memories of Jose Valentin doing so (and almost as many memories of Jeff Abbott doing so!).

His jumping away from the inside pitch is very aggravating. I think it pisses off umpires, too, which make them more hesitant to give him the benefit of the doubt on balls and strikes. Maybe he needs to start wearing some Barry Bonds style body armor so he won't be so damn skittish.

WinningUgly!
02-18-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Kind of like the 2000 White Sox, who lead the AL in wins despite not having nearly the amount of talent as the Yankees, Indians and others. So, I guess you're right, it's all about chemistry. BUT WAIT!!!! Frank Thomas was on the 2000 White Sox. Could it possibly be that a team with the hornery, selfish, whining, blah, blah, blah Frank Thomas can have good chemistry and win and play hard? Kind of like the Sox (you know, the Sox with Frank Thomas on the roster) did the last 2 months of last year? Or in 2000? Or in 1993?

Listen, I know that Frank is far from perfect. He's a bit of a baby and he has the worst PR judgment/sense in the history of earth. He's kind of stand-of-ish and aloof. But to suggest that it matters is bull crap. If the entire roster was populated with those types, it would matter. But a single guy who is less than perfect as a teammate, particularly one who puts up the types of numbers Frank puts up, isn't going to have any adverse impact upon the team.
POST OF THE YEAR!

Couldn't agree more. It's not Frank Thomas' job to hold players' hands & be the "rah-rah guy".

soxguy
02-18-2003, 10:15 AM
i agree completely I think sometimes we forget that this team is made up of grown men. Frank is going to have a monster year, and someone whether it be media types or a certain fan base will find something wrong with what he is doing or NOT doing, leave the guy be...let him play ball.

SuckerforSox
02-18-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Kind of like the 2000 White Sox, who lead the AL in wins despite not having nearly the amount of talent as the Yankees, Indians and others. So, I guess you're right, it's all about chemistry. BUT WAIT!!!! Frank Thomas was on the 2000 White Sox. Could it possibly be that a team with the hornery, selfish, whining, blah, blah, blah Frank Thomas can have good chemistry and win and play hard? Kind of like the Sox (you know, the Sox with Frank Thomas on the roster) did the last 2 months of last year? Or in 2000? Or in 1993?

Listen, I know that Frank is far from perfect. He's a bit of a baby and he has the worst PR judgment/sense in the history of earth. He's kind of stand-of-ish and aloof. But to suggest that it matters is bull crap. If the entire roster was populated with those types, it would matter. But a single guy who is less than perfect as a teammate, particularly one who puts up the types of numbers Frank puts up, isn't going to have any adverse impact upon the team.

This is a great quote. You know when teams have great chemistry? WHEN THEY ARE WINNING. Nothing helps people get along like winning. Tough to have good chemistry when you're losing all the time.

There have been times in the past when Frank has not been a team player though. I remember watching him come out of the clubhouse in 2002 when he was on deck to get ready to hit, and go right back in when he struck out only to do the same thing next time he was up, and that isn't good for the team moral. He is far from perfect, but he is a great hitter when he is committed.

I think it is great that Frank has been in Tucson working for a couple weeks already. It makes me believe that he really did work all winter in Vegas to get in great shape. I think he has something to prove to everyone, including himself. Plus this is good for the team moral. Frank can be a leader simply by showing everyone he wants to work hard this year. I think the rest of the team can show and not have to worry about what drama is going to unfold this year. Let them focus on getting ready to win this year. I for one am really happy Frank stuck around. He is a key component to us doing well, and this team would have been a much weaker team without him.

I do think he should bat 5th though. Magglio has become a better hitter than Frank at this time, and he is not as big a liability on the base path. Plus, hitting behind Mags and Paulie and thei .300 averages would give him so many moe RBI opportunities.

Nellie_Fox
02-18-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
And in this thread, I was talking in a Miss Cleo voice. I thought that was obvious, but since it's posted in print and not audio, I can understand it being misunderstood. This shows that you lack both an ear for accents and an understanding of propriety.

Neither of your little quotes sounded anything like Miss Cleo, who uses a Carribean/Creole type of accent. What you used was a bad parody of an Uncle Remus type of accent. You're begging to get slammed when you do that.

Iwritecode
02-18-2003, 01:26 PM
My thoughts on Frank's selfish attitude...

I think I can relate to the way he reacts sometimes. Just about anyone who has excelled at a certain sport can. When he goes to the plate and strikes out or hits a pop-up with someone standing on second and then goes back to the dugout and "sulks" (as some people have said) I think it's more because he knows that he is capable of doing better and has let the team down.

I can relate it mostly to my bowling. I'm the anchor bowler on my team and depended on largely to carry the team. If I have a bad game and miss my average by 20 or 30 pins and then we end up losing by 10 or 15, I get upset with myself. I know that if I would have met my expectations for myself we could have won the game. My personal stats don't really mean as much to me as winning does. If I bowl a horrible game and we still win, then I am perfectly happy. If I bowl a great game and we lose I'm ok because I know I did everything I could to help the team win.

I think this is basically the attitude Frank has. Some people may see this as only caring about personal stats. But, if a player has great personal stats, obviously he is doing what he can to help the team win, which is the bottom line. When he struggles, he gets upset with himself. I could be totally wrong on this, but that's how I look at it.

StepsInSC
02-18-2003, 01:41 PM
I just want to know how all these people know his "mindset". Where can I get whatever device it is that allows you to read the minds of players.

Iwritecode
02-18-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
I just want to know how all these people know his "mindset". Where can I get whatever device it is that allows you to read the minds of players.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm just guessing...

Juan Pizarro
02-18-2003, 02:12 PM
You don't post the kind of career numbers that Frank has without clutch hits. The "I can't remember him getting them" anecdotal stuff is worthless.

A two-run jack in the first can be more important than any other at-bat, but unless you run the math on late-inning at-bats, I'm not buying that Frank isn't clutch.

Winning does make chemistry. You never hear of any losing teams "having chemistry." The "L's" take the life out of anyone.

voodoochile
02-18-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Juan Pizarro
You don't post the kind of career numbers that Frank has without clutch hits. The "I can't remember him getting them" anecdotal stuff is worthless.

A two-run jack in the first can be more important than any other at-bat, but unless you run the math on late-inning at-bats, I'm not buying that Frank isn't clutch.

Winning does make chemistry. You never hear of any losing teams "having chemistry." The "L's" take the life out of anyone.

Actually, even I have to admit that Frank's late and 2-out numbers don't match up to the over all stats (not even close, really). Still doesn't change who I want batting with 2 outs in the 9th inning and the bases loaded down by a run - Barry Bonds. On the Sox I go with Frank. Maybe Maggs if I need a homerun.

Besides, most of the time when the Sox get off to a first inning lead, you can count on Frank being part of it. And, when the Sox were tearing it up in 2000, they were constantly scoring runs in the first inning. Same thing in 1993...

hold2dibber
02-19-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Juan Pizarro
You don't post the kind of career numbers that Frank has without clutch hits. The "I can't remember him getting them" anecdotal stuff is worthless.

I didn't have time to do any extensive research, but here are Frank's total and "close and late" numbers for the last three seasons combined ("close and late" is 7th inning or later, up one, tied, or at least with tying run on deck):

Avg: total - .288, c&l - .259
OBP: total - .396, c&l - .371
SLG: total - .546, c&l - .422
OPS: total - .942, c&l - .793

As a comparison, here are Maggs' numbers for the same time period:

Avg: total - .313, c&l - .291
OBP: total - .378, c&l - .363
SLG: total - .558, c&l - .468
OPS: total - .936, c&l - .831

Both show a decline in performance in close & late situations, but Frank's is a bit more pronounced. Nonetheless, his production over the last three years in those situations is far from horrible.

hsnterprize
02-19-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
On Talkin' Baseball on ESPN 1000 Bruce Levine is reporting that Frank Thomas is already at spring training. Thats a good sign.

And why does it NOT surprize me the local press isn't salivating over Frank's early arrival into camp. Here's another question...did Frank have a good attitude about camp this year, or was he ready to start ripping off heads. Remember, the worse Frank acts, the more press he gets. When he's on his best behavior, he might as well not exist.

He's gonna have an AWESOME year this year. Go Frank, and LET'S GO SOX!!!

TheBigHurt
02-19-2003, 12:43 PM
:tomatoaward

if no one gave it already

Bmr31
02-19-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I didn't have time to do any extensive research, but here are Frank's total and "close and late" numbers for the last three seasons combined ("close and late" is 7th inning or later, up one, tied, or at least with tying run on deck):

Avg: total - .288, c&l - .259
OBP: total - .396, c&l - .371
SLG: total - .546, c&l - .422
OPS: total - .942, c&l - .793

As a comparison, here are Maggs' numbers for the same time period:

Avg: total - .313, c&l - .291
OBP: total - .378, c&l - .363
SLG: total - .558, c&l - .468
OPS: total - .936, c&l - .831

Both show a decline in performance in close & late situations, but Frank's is a bit more pronounced. Nonetheless, his production over the last three years in those situations is far from horrible.

A lot of this may have to do with facing better pitchers with lower eras, when the game is on the line. Relief pitchers have better ERAs and are fresh.

Kilroy
02-19-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I didn't have time to do any extensive research, but here are Frank's total and "close and late" numbers for the last three seasons combined ("close and late" is 7th inning or later, up one, tied, or at least with tying run on deck):

Avg: total - .288, c&l - .259
OBP: total - .396, c&l - .371
SLG: total - .546, c&l - .422
OPS: total - .942, c&l - .793

As a comparison, here are Maggs' numbers for the same time period:

Avg: total - .313, c&l - .291
OBP: total - .378, c&l - .363
SLG: total - .558, c&l - .468
OPS: total - .936, c&l - .831

Both show a decline in performance in close & late situations, but Frank's is a bit more pronounced. Nonetheless, his production over the last three years in those situations is far from horrible.

These are Frank's numbers from 02, 01, and 00?

I'd like to see the same numbers on Frank from 2K, 1997, and 1996.

hold2dibber
02-19-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
These are Frank's numbers from 02, 01, and 00?


Yes.

czalgosz
02-19-2003, 03:51 PM
Okay, I've got to chime in here...

There's no evidence that production increases for "situational" hitting is any more than a statistical abberation. A good hitter is a good hitter is a good hitter. I find it hard to believe that Thomas would be a better hitter in the 9th inning than in the first, all other things being equal.

Now, there may be "anti-clutch" hitters, people who perform worse than usual in pressure situations, but I doubt there would be someone who is better than usual.

To the original point, at this point in their respective careers, Magglio Ordonez is a much better hitter than Frank Thomas. I think Thomas will be better than he was last year, but I doubt he'll ever return to his pre-1998 status as one of the league's most feared hitters.

BKozi
02-19-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Okay, I've got to chime in here...

There's no evidence that production increases for "situational" hitting is any more than a statistical abberation. A good hitter is a good hitter is a good hitter. I find it hard to believe that Thomas would be a better hitter in the 9th inning than in the first, all other things being equal.

Now, there may be "anti-clutch" hitters, people who perform worse than usual in pressure situations, but I doubt there would be someone who is better than usual.

To the original point, at this point in their respective careers, Magglio Ordonez is a much better hitter than Frank Thomas. I think Thomas will be better than he was last year, but I doubt he'll ever return to his pre-1998 status as one of the league's most feared hitters.

I will agree in that "a good hitter is a good hitter is a good hitter". However, it is completely understandable that someone relegated to a DH role would have some struggles at the plate. When you only come into the game 4-5 times for an at-bat, you're really taken out of the ballgame mentally. Everyone always talks about Frank's stats and that he bats so much better when he's playing 1st as opposed to DH. The arguement can be made that lifetime pinch-hitters don't have this problem, but they have always known their role and are trying to prove something. Frank has always been a "star" and always played 1st. It would be hard to adjust to a secondary role as a DH.

Not to contradict myself, but the difference between Frank and any other player is that Frank got into the majors because of his batting and not his defensive skills. He is what you would call a "professional hitter". It shouldn't matter when or where he gets in the game, he should just be ready to hit. The real question to ask is whether Frank's declining numbers is because he's not adjusting to the DH role or because he's pissed that he's not the regular 1st baseman anymore?

Daver
02-19-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by BKozi
I will agree in that "a good hitter is a good hitter is a good hitter". However, it is completely understandable that someone relegated to a DH role would have some struggles at the plate. When you only come into the game 4-5 times for an at-bat, you're really taken out of the ballgame mentally. Everyone always talks about Frank's stats and that he bats so much better when he's playing 1st as opposed to DH. The arguement can be made that lifetime pinch-hitters don't have this problem, but they have always known their role and are trying to prove something. Frank has always been a "star" and always played 1st. It would be hard to adjust to a secondary role as a DH.

Not to contradict myself, but the difference between Frank and any other player is that Frank got into the majors because of his batting and not his defensive skills. He is what you would call a "professional hitter". It shouldn't matter when or where he gets in the game, he should just be ready to hit. The real question to ask is whether Frank's declining numbers is because he's not adjusting to the DH role or because he's pissed that he's not the regular 1st baseman anymore?

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

BKozi
02-19-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by daver
Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

Thanks! I appreciate the props. I've been reading for quite a while now and I thought it was time to finally get my feet wet. You know, it's not easy being a Sox fan in Nebraska...

Daver
02-19-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by BKozi
Thanks! I appreciate the props. I've been reading for quite a while now and I thought it was time to finally get my feet wet. You know, it's not easy being a Sox fan in Nebraska...

You're not the only member we have from Nebraska,that's what this place is for.

hold2dibber
02-20-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by BKozi
I will agree in that "a good hitter is a good hitter is a good hitter". However, it is completely understandable that someone relegated to a DH role would have some struggles at the plate. When you only come into the game 4-5 times for an at-bat, you're really taken out of the ballgame mentally. Everyone always talks about Frank's stats and that he bats so much better when he's playing 1st as opposed to DH. The arguement can be made that lifetime pinch-hitters don't have this problem, but they have always known their role and are trying to prove something. Frank has always been a "star" and always played 1st. It would be hard to adjust to a secondary role as a DH.

But he's been DH'ing for several years now and had indicated previously (before his free agency period this winter) that he doesn't want to be in the field (apparently because he has no confidence in his defensive abilities). And I'm not sure how this relates to his hitting in clutch situations.

Not to contradict myself, but the difference between Frank and any other player is that Frank got into the majors because of his batting and not his defensive skills. He is what you would call a "professional hitter". It shouldn't matter when or where he gets in the game, he should just be ready to hit. The real question to ask is whether Frank's declining numbers is because he's not adjusting to the DH role or because he's pissed that he's not the regular 1st baseman anymore?

I think it's very hard to pinpoint the reason for the decline in his overall numbers, but I sincerely doubt that it has anything to do with whether he's DH'ing or playing 1B. I think he's pretty comfortable doing either at this point. He was almost exclusively a DH in 2000 when he had the best year of his career. His problem in '01, obviously, was that he suffered a severe injury. Why did he struggle last year? Hard to say if declining skills were the cause, off the field distractions maybe, or perhaps it just took a long while for him to get back to 100%, both physically and mentally, after losing '01 to injury. This is a make or break year for him.

TheBigHurt
02-20-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by daver
You're not the only member we have from Nebraska,that's what this place is for.

do we have members from the dakota's or montana???

Iguana775
02-20-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by BKozi
Thanks! I appreciate the props. I've been reading for quite a while now and I thought it was time to finally get my feet wet. You know, it's not easy being a Sox fan in Nebraska...

hey, BKozi, where do you live? i live in Lincoln. and you're right, not many sox fans here. a lot of cubs fans though. lol.

BKozi
02-20-2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
But he's been DH'ing for several years now and had indicated previously (before his free agency period this winter) that he doesn't want to be in the field (apparently because he has no confidence in his defensive abilities). And I'm not sure how this relates to his hitting in clutch situations.

That was my bad. I was only referring to the quote that a "hitter is a hitter is a hitter". I wasn't trying to address the entire post. I should only have quoted that part, but hey, that was my first post, cut me some slack.

As for Thomas not wanting to play in the field, I would tend to disagree. If my memory servest me correctly, when Frank was became the regular DH is about the time when Frank's clubhouse demeanor first became an issue. He did not want to be relegated to the role of a DH. You leave a guy on the bench long enough and their defensive skills as well as their confidence in them will start to decline. I'm not trying to say that Frank should be moved back to first full time, but I think it is a valid point that he never wanted to be a full time DH.

I think it's very hard to pinpoint the reason for the decline in his overall numbers, but I sincerely doubt that it has anything to do with whether he's DH'ing or playing 1B. I think he's pretty comfortable doing either at this point. He was almost exclusively a DH in 2000 when he had the best year of his career. His problem in '01, obviously, was that he suffered a severe injury. Why did he struggle last year? Hard to say if declining skills were the cause, off the field distractions maybe, or perhaps it just took a long while for him to get back to 100%, both physically and mentally, after losing '01 to injury. This is a make or break year for him.

I agree that this is a make or break year. Throw out 2000 and he's been less than average since 1998. He needs to show now that he can get back to the consistency that he was known for. However, I am still sticking by my arguement that being moved to the DH position has caused the decline in his numbers. Yes, 2000 was a monster year for Frank, but here's the other years:

1997 - he played 1st for 97 games and his numbers were .347/35/125.
1998 - he played 14 games at 1st and 146 games at DH. His numbers were .265/29/109.
1999 - he played 50 games at 1st and 85 at DH. His numbers were .305/15/77.
2000 - he played 30 games at 1st and 129 at DH. His numbers were .328/43/143.
2001 - injured
2002 - he played 4 games at 1st and 144 at DH. His numbers were .252/28/92

In 1998 it was his first year that he played less than 90 games at 1st since 1991 and it was the first time since 1992 that he hit below .300 (by a long shot) and hit less than 30 homeruns. I think that decline from 1997 to 1998 has to be attributed to something. Other than 2000, his numbers haven't been comparable to what they were prior to 1998. I realize that he only played in 20 games in 2001 before getting hurt, but he was on track to hit .221 with 81 RBI before the injury.

BKozi
02-20-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Iguana775
hey, BKozi, where do you live? i live in Lincoln. and you're right, not many sox fans here. a lot of cubs fans though. lol.

I live in the Capital City too. There are a lot of Cubs fans but I think that's because WGN has a ratio of about 5:1 for Cubs and Sox games. I know their connection with the Cubs but come on! It gets frustrating. I have a few friends in Minneapolis and KC so I'm planning on making a few games this summer.

upnorthsox
02-20-2003, 07:04 PM
Good stuff BKozi, it looks like he might do fine with 20-30 starts(once a week?) at first. That won't hurt us on D and shoiuld be able to keep himself "in the game".

BKozi
02-20-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by upnorthsox
Good stuff BKozi, it looks like he might do fine with 20-30 starts(once a week?) at first. That won't hurt us on D and shoiuld be able to keep himself "in the game".

I think that would work. They might even want to consider 40-50 starts. I don't think that Konerko will mind.

Iguana775
02-20-2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by BKozi
I live in the Capital City too. There are a lot of Cubs fans but I think that's because WGN has a ratio of about 5:1 for Cubs and Sox games. I know their connection with the Cubs but come on! It gets frustrating. I have a few friends in Minneapolis and KC so I'm planning on making a few games this summer.

yea, WGN doesnt play many sox games compared to the cubs. if i could afford the baseball package on cable, i'd get it to watch more sox games. i also got a friend in minn and was thinking of going there in may to see the sox kick some twinkie butt. :-D