PDA

View Full Version : thomas' selfish at bat in the 8th killed us


baggio202
04-29-2003, 11:50 PM
there was no excuse for lining out to 3rd base with jose on 2nd and no outs in the 8th down 3-2....if i had to pick one at bat to define this team that would be it...a selfish at bat...

had thomas just grounded out to 2nd base then if naggs hit that topper off the plate over bradford's head jose scores easy and we are in extra innings...

there can be no excusing thomas...he has to step into the box with the proper mindset of "im looking for a pitch early in the count to drive to RF"....now if frank had two strikes on him and got an inside pitch aNd line out hard to 3rd i could live with it...but on the FIRST FRIGGEN PITCH HE SEES IN THE AT BAT!!!!..CMON FRANK!!!!!!!1..you 've been in the league like 13 years now..you know better than that..

this was a playoff type game..two contenders...zito vrs colon..top playoff pitchers...this is exactly how playoff games go..you get very few chances and when you get them each player has to do his job for the team to ensure your best odds of capitalizing on that chance....thomas didnt do that..and instead of going to extra innings kieth foulke's us in the 9th :angry:

im not a thomas basher...but in this case he deserves to be taken to task because his mistake was he didnt have the right mindset for that situation..and thats something that should NEVER happen...

MisterB
04-30-2003, 12:05 AM
If that ball was hit 5 feet to the left or the right, Valentin scores and we'd all be praising Frank's "agressiveness" in not taking the first pitch.

voodoochile
04-30-2003, 12:12 AM
Dumbest thread of the day, not even close. That ball was smoked. Crushed. Scalded. 2 feet any direction and he is on second with nobody out and the game tied. Just not the Sox night tonight. Sometimes that's the way things go...

baggio202
04-30-2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
If that ball was hit 5 feet to the left or the right, Valentin scores and we'd all be praising Frank's "agressiveness" in not taking the first pitch.

not from me..

if you go back to carlos lee's grand slam where he swung at two pitches out of the zone and then hit what should have been ball 3 off his shoe tops for a granny you would have seen where i said that was a bad at bat..and the very next night in cleveland he came up with the bases loaded one out and k'd on 3 pitches trying to hit another grand slam against a guy that had given up 15 hits in 9 IP......

right now..frank is getting hits at about a 1 for 4 clip when he is not walking...you hit the bal lto the right side the only way you dont advance the runner is on a pop up or a fly ball into short rf...a ground ball..a routine fly out gets the runner to 3rd...

the teams that win and advance in the playoff are the teams that know how to win one run games...this year despite our winning record we are now 2-4 in one run games...because we still havent figurted out how to manufacture runs

just from watching what goes on..carlos swinging from his shoe tops with the bases loaded...rios failing to get a bunt down in a clutch situation against the twins then grounding out into a DP...thomas tonight in the 8th....these things are never brought up nor does the player in question take a seat the next night for failing to execute....this is on jerry manuel for not enforcing the basics of baseball..if these guys knew that if they didnt try to hit to RF when the situation called for it , or if they made a piss poor effort to get the bunt down that they would be benched for a game or two t here would be much better effort from them......i know we cant be successful all the time in these situations..but why dont we even try??..and why no accountability???

we are very right handed...one of the advantages of being a lefty is that you can be selfish and pull the ball and still have good things happen...when you are as right handed as the sox are you HAVE to be looking to go to RF in run producing situations...this is a big reason why we are not scoring runs

doublem23
04-30-2003, 12:28 AM
It's a game of inches... He saw the first picth, turned on it... Unfortunately, hit it right at someone.

:threadsucks

WhiteSoxWinner
04-30-2003, 12:30 AM
I'm with Voodoo and Mister. Frank had the right idea, he was obviously not trying for the home run (otherwise it would have been a towering pop fly) and if that ball gets by, Frank is the hero.

BTW - Frank looked better at the plate today. He wasn't doing that stupid knee bend every time he let a pitch go by.

baggio202
04-30-2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Dumbest thread of the day, not even close. That ball was smoked. Crushed. Scalded. 2 feet any direction and he is on second with nobody out and the game tied. Just not the Sox night tonight. Sometimes that's the way things go...

no your response was the dumbest post of the night..we didnt need a ball "SMOKED" in that situation...all we needed was alittle ground ball to 2nd and maggs ties it up for us and its on to extra innings...that the whole point..its called TEAM baseball

we saw it out of brian daubach sunday...with maggs on 2nd and no one out daubach took a high inside pitch and tomahawked into the ground to the right side....you could plainly see he had nothing else on his mind but getting that runner to 3rd base with one out ..he accomplished his job...next batter was carlos lee...he hits a soft liner up the middle...just out of the reach of the 2nd baseman...the infield was playing in to cut off the run..had daubach failed to get the runner over to 3rd that little liner by carlos is caught and there are two outs and a runner on 2nd still....its called winning baseball..something the sox havent done the past two years..its why we underachieve

bc2k
04-30-2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
If that ball was hit 5 feet to the left or the right, Valentin scores and we'd all be praising Frank's "agressiveness" in not taking the first pitch.

But it wasn't. It was an out.

doublem23
04-30-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
But it wasn't. It was an out.

Good hitters do that 7 out of 10 times...

Frank had the perfect mindset, saw a pitch he could smoke from Bradford, got it, and nailed it dead on. He put a perfect, perfect swing on it. Can't blame fron some guy was right there.

Given the way he'd been taking too many pitches at the start of year, getting in a hole in the count, I'm glad he turned on the first pitch he saw he could hit. With Chad Bradford, sometimes, you only get 1 to turn on per at bat.

voodoochile
04-30-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
But it wasn't. It was an out.

Just like 2 out of every 3 at bats for all of the hitters in the game. What's your point?

You guys kill me... Yeah, if Frank manages to get a pitch to hit to the right side and manages to get Jose over, then maybe he scores. Maybe not. Who knows. Maybe Frank tries to go the other way on an inside pitch and gets jammed and pops up - of course then you would all be calling for his head for popping up. Personally, I think you try to hit the pitch you get to the best of your ability. Frank did - it didn't work out. But, even if he does get Jose to third with one out that is still no guarantee of a tie game. Maybe they walk Magglio and then Carlos' LD turns into a inning ending DP. You cannot claim that because Frank's completely smoked line drive ended up in Chavez's mitt that it was what cost the Sox the game, period. Well, you can, but it doesn't make it true.

Here's a news flash - the Sox are going to lose at least 60 games this year. Some of those are going to be one run affairs when the other team has their Cy Young candidate on the mound pitching well. That's what happened tonight. Nothing more. Nothing less. You can blame it on Frank or Rowand or Carlos or Magglio or Colon or whoever you want to. Me? I think it was just one of those nights.

StepsInSC
04-30-2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Dumbest thread of the day

Couldn't have said it better myself. I mean SERIOUSLY, any major leaguer out there can hit the ball exactly where it needs to be hit every at bat

Originally posted by baggio202
all we needed was alittle ground ball to 2nd and maggs ties it up for us and its on to extra innings

Because its 100% GUARENTEED that when Maggs gets up there he can hit a SF. You know, since he (unlike Thomas) has mental telepathy and control everytime where the ball goes

ATTENTION: THOMAS IS THE SOLE REASON WE LOST THIS GAME. Because he didn't play TEAM ball the TEAM lost this game. Nothing any other White Sox member could have done could have won us this game, except Thomas moving the runner over. Its not maggs fault for going o-fer when he came up a lot with runners on. It's not Rowand's fault for being an completely worthless pile of crap, nah, its all on Frank's shoulders.



Sheesh

bc2k
04-30-2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
there was no excuse for lining out to 3rd base with jose on 2nd and no outs in the 8th down 3-2....if i had to pick one at bat to define this team that would be it...a selfish at bat...

Yep Baggs, I said the same thing in the shoutbox "I'll ask again: Where is Thomas's normal plate patience in the late innings? First pitch swinging with no outs and the tying run on second in the 8th with a new pitcher. Skirt"

Originally posted by baggio202
this was a playoff type game..two contenders...zito vrs colon..top playoff pitchers...this is exactly how playoff games go..you get very few chances and when you get them each player has to do his job for the team to ensure your best odds of capitalizing on that chance....thomas didnt do that.

Ditto.


Originally posted by voodoochile
Dumbest thread of the day, not even close. That ball was smoked. Crushed. Scalded. 2 feet any direction and he is on second with nobody out and the game tied. Just not the Sox night tonight. Sometimes that's the way things go...

It's not the end result we're complaining at; it's the first pitch swinging that he did. On a pitcher he hadn't seen that night. With the tying run and smart baserunner on second base. With no outs. Pulling that first pitch.

This guy took three walks in this game and suddenly his patience disappears in a clutch situation, his most important at bat of the night. I'm glad he won't be here through 2006.


Originally posted by baggio202
this is on jerry manuel for not enforcing the basics of baseball..if these guys knew that if they didnt try to hit to RF when the situation called for it , or if they made a piss poor effort to get the bunt down that they would be benched for a game or two

Right Baggs, why is bad play and dumb mistakes not policed? Because our manager is SCARED of his players, avoids all confrontation with his OWN team.

doublem23
04-30-2003, 12:46 AM
LOL... Thank you guys for the entertainment... I really needed something to laugh at after tonight's loss....

Jesus H. ****ing Christ. Ridiculous.

voodoochile
04-30-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
LOL... Thank you guys for the entertainment... I really needed something to laugh at after tonight's loss....

Jesus H. ****ing Christ. Ridiculous.

And one more time, just to make sure there is no confusion...

:threadsucks

bc2k
04-30-2003, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by doublem23


Good hitters do that 7 out of 10 times...

Good point Dubs, Frank isn't a good hitter.

Originally posted by doublem23

Frank had the perfect mindset, saw a pitch he could smoke from Bradford, got it, and nailed it dead on. He put a perfect, perfect swing on it. Can't blame fron some guy was right there.

Given the way he'd been taking too many pitches at the start of year, getting in a hole in the count, I'm glad he turned on the first pitch he saw he could hit. With Chad Bradford, sometimes, you only get 1 to turn on per at bat.

I don't disagree that the pitch Thomas hit was a good one to pull, but that he shouldn't have been looking to pull the ball in that situation.


Originally posted by voodoochile
Here's a news flash - the Sox are going to lose at least 60 games this year. Some of those are going to be one run affairs when the other team has their Cy Young candidate on the mound pitching well. That's what happened tonight. Nothing more. Nothing less. You can blame it on Frank or Rowand or Carlos or Magglio or Colon or whoever you want to. Me? I think it was just one of those nights.

Please don't spit out the Hawk theory, "Every team wins 60 and loses 60, it's what you do with the rest." Garbage, how many games is Detroit going to win this year. And how do you know which losses are of the 60 predestined losses, and which losses are the ones from the "what you do with the rest" category.

Originally posted by StepsInSC


Couldn't have said it better myself. I mean SERIOUSLY, any major leaguer out there can hit the ball exactly where it needs to be hit every at bat



Because its 100% GUARENTEED that when Maggs gets up there he can hit a SF. You know, since he (unlike Thomas) has mental telepathy and control everytime where the ball goes

ATTENTION: THOMAS IS THE SOLE REASON WE LOST THIS GAME. Because he didn't play TEAM ball the TEAM lost this game. Nothing any other White Sox member could have done could have won us this game, except Thomas moving the runner over. Its not maggs fault for going o-fer when he came up a lot with runners on, nah, its all on Frank's shoulders.



Sheesh

Did you see the game tonight?

StepsInSC
04-30-2003, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
Good point Dubs, Frank isn't a good hitter.

You're right, he's a great hittter.

Did you see the game tonight?

Nope. Did I say something that out of line? Did Maggs not leave 3 LOB?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming one person for this loss. Whereas you (you = Frank bashers in general) seem to have no problem putting the blame solely on Thomas' shoulders after you crap your pants yelling about how its a team game.

baggio202
04-30-2003, 01:02 AM
you guys are asking al lthe time...wh yhas this team disappointed us...wjhy have the twins beat us the past two years despite the sox being the better team on paper..these are reasons why...

i know i got one ally...darrrin jackson also said frank has to atleast give it one shot to RF

and to make one thing clear...im a big thomas supporter..i thin khe is the greatest player to ever play for the sox and i want to retire as a white sox...but that effort in the the 8th cost us big time...

i didnt cost us the game..but it cost us our last real opportunity to get to extra innings..should have worded it that way from the start

bc2k
04-30-2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
Did you see the game tonight?


Originally posted by StepsInSC
Nope.

Nuff said.

doublem23
04-30-2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by bc2k

I don't disagree that the pitch Thomas hit was a good one to pull, but that he shouldn't have been looking to pull the ball in that situation.


I'm more amazed he saw such a good pitch to hit from Chad Bradford. The guy's holding hitters to a .170 BA this year thus far. If Frank takes that "for the team," that could have been the only pitch to hit in that situation.

I admit in a perfect world were hitters have some sort of kinetic control over where a baseball goes after they hit it, a blooper to the right side of the field would have been perfect, but given the fact that he was facing one of the toughest relief pitchers in the American League, I'm rather happy he didn't stay there and wait for that "perfect" pitch to hit. There was something there, he put a good swing on it, and hit it on the head. 5 feet any other way, and the Sox tie the game up. That's baseball. It doesn't always work.

I don't understand your mindset. Your logic is that you'd rather pass up a pretty good pitch to hit from a really, really tough reliever in some boner fantasy that just maybe he'll toss you another cookie? Guys don't get ERAs in the 2's by making multiple mistakes per an at bat. Had Frank been facing someone like Steve Sparks who's ERA is roughly the population of Detroit, then I see your beef.

Granted I didn't see the entire game tonight, but from what I saw if you're looking for a scapegoat to lay the blame for this loss on, there are far better ones than Frank Thomas.

*cough*paulkonerko*cough**cough*aaronrowand*cough*

StepsInSC
04-30-2003, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
Nuff said.

Thats nice. I must have missed the part at the beginning of the game where they announce how the fate of the game is squarely dependant upon Thomas' shoulders.

baggio202
04-30-2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
I'm more amazed he saw such a good pitch to hit from Chad Bradford. The guy's holding hitters to a .170 BA this year thus far. If Frank takes that "for the team," that could have been the only pitch to hit in that situation.

I admit in a perfect world were hitters have some sort of kinetic control over where a baseball goes after they hit it, a blooper to the right side of the field would have been perfect, but given the fact that he was facing one of the toughest relief pitchers in the American League, I'm rather happy he didn't stay there and wait for that "perfect" pitch to hit. There was something there, he put a good swing on it, and hit it on the head. 5 feet any other way, and the Sox tie the game up. That's baseball. It doesn't always work.

I don't understand your mindset. Your logic is that you'd rather pass up a pretty good pitch to hit from a really, really tough reliever in some boner fantasy that just maybe he'll toss you another cookie? Guys don't get ERAs in the 2's by making multiple mistakes per an at bat. Had Frank been facing someone like Steve Sparks who's ERA is roughly the population of Detroit, then I see your beef.

Granted I didn't see the entire game tonight, but from what I saw if you're looking for a scapegoat to lay the blame for this loss on, there are far better ones than Frank Thomas.

*cough*paulkonerko*cough**cough*aaronrowand*cough*

you really believe that a major league cant hit a ball to the right side when needed???...its easy to go to RF if you are right handed unless you get caught looking for a fastball and see a change up...you cant place the ball inbetween players but it is real easy to hit the ball somewhere to the right side of 2nd base....thats not hard at all..look nack in the minny seris to guzman's at bat in the first game and daubach at bat in the 3rd game i nthe same situation...both guys on very tough pirtches suceeded...it can be done..rather easily

you dont understand b2ck mindset??..i understand it perfectly..it was this teams mindset in '00 and its what propelled anaheim last year...

voodoochile
04-30-2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
Good point Dubs, Frank isn't a good hitter.

:whoflungpoo

Maybe if you keep saying it often enough, you will actually convince someone other than yourself.

I don't disagree that the pitch Thomas hit was a good one to pull, but that he shouldn't have been looking to pull the ball in that situation.

So he should ignore how the other team is pitching him? Don't quit your day job and expect to find work in baseball. Insight like that will NOT get you a job.

Please don't spit out the Hawk theory, "Every team wins 60 and loses 60, it's what you do with the rest." Garbage, how many games is Detroit going to win this year. And how do you know which losses are of the 60 predestined losses, and which losses are the ones from the "what you do with the rest" category.

Actually, I think it was Tommy Lasorda's mentor who first said that. Not a bad baseball mind Tommy, overall. But, still, the point remains. The team IS going to lose 60 games this season (at least) and sometimes those are close games where the other team gets a little lucky (by having linedrives fall in their mitts) and their staff ace pitches well. When that happens, you just shake your head and keep going - BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TO EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE!

Did you see the game tonight?

Every minute. I was there and Frank's LD was right down the 3rd base line. Chavez was almost directly in front of me all night long.

bc2k
04-30-2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
I admit in a perfect world were hitters have some sort of kinetic control over where a baseball goes after they hit it, a blooper to the right side of the field would have been perfect, but given the fact that he was facing one of the toughest relief pitchers in the American League,

I wouldn't be bashing Thomas if he didn't get a hit to the right side. But he didn't make an attempt, which is where the criticism is coming from. He didn't need to get a hit to the right side, didn't need "kinetic control" (though I found that humorous), all he need to do was ground out to that side.

Originally posted by doublem23

I'm rather happy he didn't stay there and wait for that "perfect" pitch to hit

Weren't you the one preaching the importance of Thomas's OBP? :o:

Originally posted by doublem23

boner fantasy

hahahah

doublem23
04-30-2003, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by bc2k

Weren't you the one preaching the importance of Thomas's OBP? :o:

wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

ShoelessFred
04-30-2003, 01:24 AM
it all comes down to fundamental baseball. if you are in the eight inning down by one run, with a runner on second with no outs, you "get him over and get him in" you accomplish this either by bunting(which you are not going to have frank do, because he can't) or hitting the ball to the right side. while you can call frank aggressive you can also call him STUPID. do you guys remember our 2000 club? they got the runner over and in at almost every opportunity, EVEN FRANK. it was a team concept back then. guys were giving themselves up and guys were picking each other up. this team does not do that. and who knows, by trying to hit the ball to the right side maybe frank gets a basehit and jose scores. but there was no reason for frank not to do HIS JOB.

bc2k
04-30-2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Don't quit your day job and expect to find work in baseball. Insight like that will NOT get you a job.

I'm not one of those guys who hopes for a job in baseball. I have about as good a chance at that as Thomas does at ever seeing .300 again.

MisterB
04-30-2003, 01:29 AM
All I can say:

Winners put defeat behind them, Losers waste time looking for someone to blame.

Buehrle vs. Mulder tomorrow. Another chance to WIN.

baggio202
04-30-2003, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by ShoelessFred
it all comes down to fundamental baseball. if you are in the eight inning down by one run, with a runner on second with no outs, you "get him over and get him in" you accomplish this either by bunting(which you are not going to have frank do, because he can't) or hitting the ball to the right side. while you can call frank aggressive you can also call him STUPID. do you guys remember our 2000 club? they got the runner over and in at almost every opportunity, EVEN FRANK. it was a team concept back then. guys were giving themselves up and guys were picking each other up. this team does not do that. and who knows, by trying to hit the ball to the right side maybe frank gets a basehit and jose scores. but there was no reason for frank not to do HIS JOB.

thank you fred...you said it much better than i tried to

i think that team concept idea left with von joshua :?:

Paulwny
04-30-2003, 06:25 AM
How many people would be praising Frank if he gave himself up and hit the ball to the right side, playing team baseball?

It's an old saying that winning managers and winning teams are able to accomplish :
"Get'em on, Get'em over, Get'em in"

When you're not hitting and not scoring runs you have to do the little things, and take advantage of every opportunity.

guillen4life13
04-30-2003, 07:11 AM
Here's all I really have, and can say: You guys are complaining and trying to bash someone because you see the Sox lost. My point is that you're bashing for the sake of bashing... Thomas would have had an RBI had the ball been just 6-12 INCHES to Chavez's right. It was an out, and that's the whole point? You guys show me a hitter who is ALWAYS patient at the plate in such situations. I'll bet you couldn't. Thomas is up there with being the best, at least now. He walked 3 times, and I mean, come on! Bashing him for this? 6-12 inches nearer to the foul line, and you all would be praising him (and yes, I sincerely believe that all of us, in entirety, would be praising him). I'm gonna reiterate what Voodoo said: This wasn't our day. I wish it was just as much as you, but both teams played a really good game. Zito was on, Colon was pretty much on, Foulke was on, though Paulie beat himself in that AB, Wunsch was able to work out of a jam, and so on. There's a game today that we can all watch, or listen to and hopefully it's another well played game (by the Sox), in which they win.

Some of you guys need to chill out.

Kilroy
04-30-2003, 07:20 AM
This thread sucks, its the stupidest thread of the season so far, and countless other superlatives.

Good ****ing god, if the bat hit 1/16th of an inch lower on that ball, we would have watch it land if the left field seats. Which of you whiners would be complaining about that?? I know one thing, if Thomas had watched that fat-ass pitch go right down the middle because it wasn't a good pitch to push to the right side, people would be complaining about how he looks at too many good pitches to hit, etc. You take what the pitcher gives, and when you're one of the team's power hitters/run producers, when they throw one in your wheel-house, you try and put it in the stands where it belongs.

The fact is, no one knows what mind-set Frank walked to the plate with, and whether that changed when he saw that ****ing meat-ball that Bradford laid in there.

Some people just gotta have something to complain about. How about complaining about Crede who looks completely lost at the plate, and has for 2 weeks now? How bout Konerko who got 6 pitches in his wheel-house from Foulke and couldn't get the bat on one of them? I'm sure we could find a few more things to list here, but one person in this thread had it exactly right; the irony of this bull**** thread that Thomas is taking all the blame for the team's loss because he didn't play team ball.

MHOUSE
04-30-2003, 08:10 AM
This thread does suck. Frank was unlucky that Chavez was right there. He absolutely smoked that ball and a foot or so either way and it would've been an RBI double. I liked that he aggressively went after the first pitch. If anyone I'd blame Paulie for missing 3 good pitches to hit in the 9th. He was pissed and I was too! Glad he busted his slump though.

harwar
04-30-2003, 09:31 AM
There are so many people that just love to dump on BIG FRANK no matter what he does.Last night was pure bad luck.Franks and C Lees' balls were both hit right on the button but right at people.When a team is winning those are both doubles and we win.

Iwritecode
04-30-2003, 09:49 AM
I have a feeling that these same people would still be pissing and moaning if Frank had lined out to first base even though he "went the other way"...

Some people just need to have something to complain about...

Dadawg_77
04-30-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by ShoelessFred
it all comes down to fundamental baseball. if you are in the eight inning down by one run, with a runner on second with no outs, you "get him over and get him in" you accomplish this either by bunting(which you are not going to have frank do, because he can't) or hitting the ball to the right side. while you can call frank aggressive you can also call him STUPID. do you guys remember our 2000 club? they got the runner over and in at almost every opportunity, EVEN FRANK. it was a team concept back then. guys were giving themselves up and guys were picking each other up. this team does not do that. and who knows, by trying to hit the ball to the right side maybe frank gets a basehit and jose scores. but there was no reason for frank not to do HIS JOB.

Your version of fundamental baseball is outdated and wrong. Say Frank bunts, thus now we a runner on third and one out. We have one chance for a sacrifice fly and two chances for a hit to tie the game. Say the ball is six inches to either side, Frank is at second, no outs and its a tie game. Given the probabilities of what happens when an average major leaguer bats, swinging away trying to get a hit not just moving the runner over gives the team the better chance to win the game. I could do the math if you don't believe.

Also sometimes you need to swing at the first pitch. If the pitcher knows you won't swing at the first pitch they will start laying it up there to get ahead 0-1. Now the hitter needs to be more defensive. A hitter who is aggressive will cause the pitcher to be more cautious on the first pitch. Bradford laid one up there and got lucky Chavez was there. Them the breaks.

voodoochile
04-30-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Your version of fundamental baseball is outdated and wrong. Say Frank bunts, thus now we a runner on third and one out. We have one chance for a sacrifice fly and two chances for a hit to tie the game. Say the ball is six inches to either side, Frank is at second, no outs and its a tie game. Given the probabilities of what happens when an average major leaguer bats, swinging away trying to get a hit not just moving the runner over gives the team the better chance to win the game. I could do the math if you don't believe.

Also sometimes you need to swing at the first pitch. If the pitcher knows you won't swing at the first pitch they will start laying it up there to get ahead 0-1. Now the hitter needs to be more defensive. A hitter who is aggressive will cause the pitcher to be more cautious on the first pitch. Bradford laid one up there and got lucky Chavez was there. Them the breaks.

The Sox hit several balls hard that didn't fall in last night. In addition, Bradford was getting tagged. 3 of the 4 batters he faced hit the ball real hard, but only one of them fell in.

The part I find funny is all the moaning about Konerko NOT hitting a homerun against Foulke last night. I was sitting in front of third, so it was hard to see how fat those pitches were, but still. Moaning about a guy not hitting a homer is just plain silly...

Kilroy
04-30-2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The Sox hit several balls hard that didn't fall in last night. In addition, Bradford was getting tagged. 3 of the 4 batters he faced hit the ball real hard, but only one of them fell in.

The part I find funny is all the moaning about Konerko NOT hitting a homerun against Foulke last night. I was sitting in front of third, so it was hard to see how fat those pitches were, but still. Moaning about a guy not hitting a homer is just plain silly...

I'm not moaning about him not hitting one out, but if you'd seen those pitches on TV, you would know why there was comment about them. They were center-cut, here-I-am-just-hit-me, right down the middle of the strike zone FASTBALLS. No change ups. If Paulie wasn't sucking like a cheap hooker right now, at the very least, he would have knocked one of those pitches into the gap off the wall.

gosox41
04-30-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
there was no excuse for lining out to 3rd base with jose on 2nd and no outs in the 8th down 3-2....if i had to pick one at bat to define this team that would be it...a selfish at bat...

had thomas just grounded out to 2nd base then if naggs hit that topper off the plate over bradford's head jose scores easy and we are in extra innings...

there can be no excusing thomas...he has to step into the box with the proper mindset of "im looking for a pitch early in the count to drive to RF"....now if frank had two strikes on him and got an inside pitch aNd line out hard to 3rd i could live with it...but on the FIRST FRIGGEN PITCH HE SEES IN THE AT BAT!!!!..CMON FRANK!!!!!!!1..you 've been in the league like 13 years now..you know better than that..

this was a playoff type game..two contenders...zito vrs colon..top playoff pitchers...this is exactly how playoff games go..you get very few chances and when you get them each player has to do his job for the team to ensure your best odds of capitalizing on that chance....thomas didnt do that..and instead of going to extra innings kieth foulke's us in the 9th :angry:

im not a thomas basher...but in this case he deserves to be taken to task because his mistake was he didnt have the right mindset for that situation..and thats something that should NEVER happen...

If Frank finds a pitch he feels he can drive, then I'm all for him doing that.

Bob

Iwritecode
04-30-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The part I find funny is all the moaning about Konerko NOT hitting a homerun against Foulke last night. I was sitting in front of third, so it was hard to see how fat those pitches were, but still. Moaning about a guy not hitting a homer is just plain silly...

Even Hawk mentioned it last night. Basically Keith was throwing BP fastballs right down the heart of the plate. Paulie should have been able to get good wood on at least one of them and drive the ball somewhere instead of fouling them off and finally popping one up.

Anyway, I thought that the mindset to take against Foulke was to sit on his fastball and then hit it hard when you get it...

CHISOXFAN13
04-30-2003, 10:28 AM
Even if Thomas got the runner over, Magglio hit a weak grounder back to Bradford. Who's to say Hose scores anyway?

Jucier Cruz
04-30-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The Sox hit several balls hard that didn't fall in last night. In addition, Bradford was getting tagged. 3 of the 4 batters he faced hit the ball real hard, but only one of them fell in.

The part I find funny is all the moaning about Konerko NOT hitting a homerun against Foulke last night. I was sitting in front of third, so it was hard to see how fat those pitches were, but still. Moaning about a guy not hitting a homer is just plain silly...


These were 90 MPH fastballs right down the middle. He didn't hit a single one hard. A homer would have been nice but a hit would have better. Joe Crede is the guy that is becoming a concern in my mind. His at-bat was terrible.

bc2k
04-30-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Your version of fundamental baseball is outdated and wrong. Say Frank bunts, thus now we a runner on third and one out. We have one chance for a sacrifice fly and two chances for a hit to tie the game. Say the ball is six inches to either side, Frank is at second, no outs and its a tie game. Given the probabilities of what happens when an average major leaguer bats, swinging away trying to get a hit not just moving the runner over gives the team the better chance to win the game. I could do the math if you don't believe.


Nobody lobbied for Thomas to bunt. And are you aware that a batter can also get hits to right field?


Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Also sometimes you need to swing at the first pitch. If the pitcher knows you won't swing at the first pitch they will start laying it up there to get ahead 0-1. Now the hitter needs to be more defensive. A hitter who is aggressive will cause the pitcher to be more cautious on the first pitch. Bradford laid one up there and got lucky Chavez was there. Them the breaks.

That is true, but why does Thomas always lose his plate patience late in the game, during clutch situations? I have no problem with him swinging first pitch to mix it up a little (especially with his first inning home runs).

Dadawg_77
04-30-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
That is true, but why does Thomas always lose his plate patience late in the game, during clutch situations? I have no problem with him swinging first pitch to mix it up a little (especially with his first inning home runs).


That was a sweet pitch to hit, you swing at that pitch.

RKMeibalane
04-30-2003, 11:19 AM
I have to agree with voodoo and doublem23 on this. I don't think Frank did anything wrong in his at-bat. He probably went up there thinking that he would swing at the first "good" pitch he saw, which just happened to be the first one. He hit the ball hard. It didn't amount to anything, but I don't have a problem with him being more aggressive in that situation.

Think about it. Frank had been patient the entire game. He had drawn three walks, and then he was left stranded when Maggs and Lee couldn't drive him in. I didn't watch the game on TV, so I have no idea how each of them looked against Zito. Assuming neither looked comfortable against him, then Frank's actions make perfect sense. Because Maggs and Carlos couldn't get it done earlier, Frank probably decided to "take matters into his own hands."

Lest we forget, Maggs couldn't drive Valentin in, nor could Lee. I guess Maggs can't get it done, either. I mean, he didn't smoke the ball into the gap. He would've been able to do that last year. He must be getting old. His skills have declined. I think we should trade him.

One more thing. As others hinted at earlier, no one would be complaining if that ball ended up rolling down the line into the corner. Last night didn't go well for the Sox. It happens.

Paulwny
04-30-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Thomas is taking all the blame for the team's loss because he didn't play team ball.

I'm not blaming Frank entirely for last night's loss. It's a continuation of the lack of situational hitting by this team.
When you're not scoring runs you have to move base runners, as a team we're not doing this.

RKMeibalane
04-30-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
That was a sweet pitch to hit, you swing at that pitch.

Agreed. Hitters are taught to be patient, and Thomas is among the best ever at applying this patience when he is at the plate. However, hitters are also taught that they should never pass up a good pitch to hit, especially in a situation where an extra-base hit could change a game. This is what happened last night. Thomas saw a pitch he liked, and he smoked it. Things didn't work out, but that's part of baseball. If Frank had watched that pitch go by, people would be complaining about his lack of aggressiveness.

It has been said many times before, but I think it's worth repeating. The city of Chicago, including some Sox fans, loves to hate Frank Thomas. And that's a damn shame.

bc2k
04-30-2003, 11:28 AM
Open question to all Frank supporters: Why does Thomas not bring his normal plate patience into late game, clutch situations, where we need it most?

dougs78
04-30-2003, 11:33 AM
Well, I'm going to have to side with the "should have moved him over," camp on this one. Think about the situation, man on second with no one out and Thomas, ORdonez and Lee coming up. How can we not get that run in? I'm not faulting Frank for swinging away if he had a pitch he thought he could drive (which he did). Obviously Frank has earned the right to use his own judgment in that situation. However, what I will say is that this is yet another example of how the Sox fail to do the very little things that win ballgames. As Baggs says, those are precisely the little things that cause the Twins to have 13 more wins even though the pythagorean wins are teh same. This is precisely why we have trouble in close, well-pitched games.

Its one of those things that you can't fault on the micro level, but after it happens so many times you can find fault at the macro level. I think that is more what Baggio is saying.

RKMeibalane
04-30-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
Weren't you the one preaching the importance of Thomas's OBP? :o:


If Frank had gotten a hit in that situation, his batting average would have increased, as would have his on-base percentage.

I think Frank made the right choice last night. You will never convince me otherwise.

Juan Pizarro
04-30-2003, 11:40 AM
The team had no offense going for five innings. You've got to capitalize on a leadoff double like that. The bottom of the eighth is different than the bottom of the third. It's then that situational hitting must be stressed.

And that's where I agree with the premise of this thread. I'm no Frank basher, but you've got to think fundamentally in that situation. For at least the first two strikes, you look to go the other way. That line drive, as smoked as it was, killed the momentum that Jose had just provided.

There are no guarantees in baseball, but executing situationally improves your chances of success.

Iwritecode
04-30-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
Open question to all Frank supporters: Why does Thomas not bring his normal plate patience into late game, clutch situations, where we need it most?

Probably because he gets tired of standing on first or second and not having the guys behind him drive him in...

BTW, how many times does this occur? You make it sound like he goes up and swings at the first pitch in every AB after the 8th inning. I can't tell you how many times I've seen him take that first pitch for a strike and have that be the best pitch he sees during the AB. If it looks good, swing hard, drive it somewhere and hope it doesn't land in someones glove...

bc2k
04-30-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
If Frank had gotten a hit in that situation, his batting average would have increased, as would have his on-base percentage.

Yes, and the more pitches you see, the more likely you will get that hit.

Ventura23Fan
04-30-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Even Hawk mentioned it last night. Basically Keith was throwing BP fastballs right down the heart of the plate. Paulie should have been able to get good wood on at least one of them and drive the ball somewhere instead of fouling them off and finally popping one up.

Anyway, I thought that the mindset to take against Foulke was to sit on his fastball and then hit it hard when you get it...

Yes, I think you have to go up against Foulke looking for the fastball at the risk of looking foolish swinging at the change or the slider. Paul obviously did not have that mindset when he faced Keith last night. But Keith's a smart pitcher. He kept throwing fastballs because he could see that Paul was not taking good swings at them. Foulke is very hittable if you guess right, either fastball or change. But most times Keith is the one that outthinks the hitters. A 1-2-3 ninth with two weak popups and a K. Man I miss Keith.

As for Franks AB in the eighth, both sides in the argument have good points. However, I must admit I cringed when Frank pulled the first pitch.

Dadawg_77
04-30-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Yes, and the more pitches you see, the more likely you will get that hit.

Not really, you wait until you get a pitch you can handle. If you can handle the first pitch go after it. If you can't wait til the next pitch. Taking pitches isn't a magical formual for getting hits, just taking bad and hard to handle pitches help since you usally get a pitch you can handle.

czalgosz
04-30-2003, 01:27 PM
*sigh*... right-handed control pitchers know that Frank will almost always take the first pitch, so they usually throw a cookie on the first pitch, pretty much guaranteeing an 0-1 count. Rick Reed did it to Thomas to great effect earlier in the week, and Bradford tried to do the same thing. He almost paid for it.

What good would a walk have done, anyhow? When Ordonez bounced the next one in front of the mound, it would have been a guaranteed double-play. Why isn't anyone criticizing Ordonez for his weak follow-up AB?

Iwritecode
04-30-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
*sigh*... right-handed control pitchers know that Frank will almost always take the first pitch, so they usually throw a cookie on the first pitch, pretty much guaranteeing an 0-1 count. Rick Reed did it to Thomas to great effect earlier in the week, and Bradford tried to do the same thing. He almost paid for it.


I agree completely.

Originally posted by czalgosz
Why isn't anyone criticizing Ordonez for his weak follow-up AB?

Because he doesn't wear #35 on his jersey...

Foulke You
04-30-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Open question to all Frank supporters: Why does Thomas not bring his normal plate patience into late game, clutch situations, where we need it most?

Flashback to the Royals series two weeks ago:

Thomas up in the bottom of the 8th inning (clutch situation)...works a count and BAM! go ahead homer that would have been the game winner if not for Koch's blown save. The very next day Thomas was up in the bottom of the 9th with a runner on 3rd, works a count and shoots a fly ball to RF off of a tough Jason Grimsley to win the game on a sac fly. Where was all of your "Frank has no patience late in the game or clutch situations" talk during this series?

bc2k
04-30-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Not really, you wait until you get a pitch you can handle. If you can handle the first pitch go after it. If you can't wait til the next pitch. Taking pitches isn't a magical formual for getting hits, just taking bad and hard to handle pitches help since you usally get a pitch you can handle.

Yeah, Frank really "handled" that pitch. Frank didn't see Bradford all game like he saw Zito. And if you have seen what a pitcher has, you have better success than if you didn't see him.

kermittheefrog
04-30-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Yeah, Frank really "handled" that pitch. Frank didn't see Bradford all game like he saw Zito. And if you have seen what a pitcher has, you have better success than if you didn't see him.

Have we really gotten to the point where we criticize everything the Sox do mercilessly? I would think Frank Thomas' plate discipline is one thing that no one could really be upset with. Yet this is not the case. Amazing.

bc2k
04-30-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
*sigh*... right-handed control pitchers know that Frank will almost always take the first pitch, so they usually throw a cookie on the first pitch, pretty much guaranteeing an 0-1 count. Rick Reed did it to Thomas to great effect earlier in the week, and Bradford tried to do the same thing. He almost paid for it.

As obvious as that is to us, that is not the case. If all pitchers knew to start Thomas off with a strike, he would have a lot less walks. I often ponder how I know this and the advanced scouts do not.

Originally posted by czalgosz
*
What good would a walk have done, anyhow? When Ordonez bounced the next one in front of the mound, it would have been a guaranteed double-play. Why isn't anyone criticizing Ordonez for his weak follow-up AB?

Plate patience does not have to result in a walk. Thomas should have had the patience to wait for a ball he could take the other way.

And I don't know how you can say Ordonez would have done exactly the same thing had Thomas walked.


Originally posted by Iwritecode


I agree completely.



Because he doesn't wear #35 on his jersey...

How about because he had a much better opportunity than Ordonez did?


Originally posted by Foulke You


Flashback to the Royals series two weeks ago:

Thomas up in the bottom of the 8th inning (clutch situation)...works a count and BAM! go ahead homer that would have been the game winner if not for Koch's blown save. The very next day Thomas was up in the bottom of the 9th with a runner on 3rd, works a count and shoots a fly ball to RF off of a tough Jason Grimsley to win the game on a sac fly. Where was all of your "Frank has no patience late in the game or clutch situations" talk during this series?

Every fat hog finds bacon once in a while, but do me a favor and keep watching. Notice the difference in his approach between late game, clutch situations, and normal at bats. Maybe it's so obvious to me since I've seen a lot of games this year.

chisox06
04-30-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
This thread sucks, its the stupidest thread of the season so far, and countless other superlatives.

Good ****ing god, if the bat hit 1/16th of an inch lower on that ball, we would have watch it land if the left field seats. Which of you whiners would be complaining about that?? I know one thing, if Thomas had watched that fat-ass pitch go right down the middle because it wasn't a good pitch to push to the right side, people would be complaining about how he looks at too many good pitches to hit, etc. You take what the pitcher gives, and when you're one of the team's power hitters/run producers, when they throw one in your wheel-house, you try and put it in the stands where it belongs.

The fact is, no one knows what mind-set Frank walked to the plate with, and whether that changed when he saw that ****ing meat-ball that Bradford laid in there.

Some people just gotta have something to complain about. How about complaining about Crede who looks completely lost at the plate, and has for 2 weeks now? How bout Konerko who got 6 pitches in his wheel-house from Foulke and couldn't get the bat on one of them? I'm sure we could find a few more things to list here, but one person in this thread had it exactly right; the irony of this bull**** thread that Thomas is taking all the blame for the team's loss because he didn't play team ball.

Then why in the history of Franks brilliant career has he never been a clutch hitter? Hitting clutch means you need a different mental attitude at the plate, and Frank has NEVER learned that and its disgusting. You better believe I woulda been cheering if he hit one in the seats, but guess what, he didn't. I would have cheered just as much for a sac fly to right or a blooper into center. The fact is Thomas had one job to do, get the runner over and he didn't. Over aggressiveness is all it is, no need to let loose on the first pitch, I dont care how hard you hit it, if its right at someone (AND NOT IN THE AIR) then it doesn't really matter, an out is an out. I am still a VERY proud member of the Anti-Frank Thomas club. But this wasnt an example of how his "skills diminished" He's been pullin this crap his whole career.

Foulke You
04-30-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by bc2k

Every fat hog finds bacon once in a while, but do me a favor and keep watching. Notice the difference in his approach between late game, clutch situations, and normal at bats. Maybe it's so obvious to me since I've seen a lot of games this year.

I've seen every game this year and have been at the park for 3 of them so I guess I'm not the baseball sage that you are.

Let me remind you that Frank owns a team leading .443 on base percentage while walking 23 times on the season. .443 means that Frank is on base 1 out of every 2 times he comes to the dish this season. Does that sound like a selfish hitter with bad plate discipline? I think not.

maurice
04-30-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Have we really gotten to the point where we criticize everything the Sox do mercilessly?

Nah, just everything Frank does. The options for irrational bashing have been limited since Foulke got traded.

It's hard to stomach criticism of a Hall-of-Fame player who went 0-for-1 with a scalding lineout and all 3 of the Sox walks -- especially in a game where, for example, the guy behind him went 0-for-4 with 3 left on and a GiDP.

On the bright side, Colon was pretty solid, Wunsch continued his scoreless streak, Graff hit his 3rd homer, and Crash was 1-for-2 with a RBI, HBP, and OF Assist. Also, prior to his ridiculous last at-bat, Kone-head was 2-for-3 and primed to come out of his slump.

I can think of worse results than a 1-run loss to a Cy Young winner. Let's come back and take the next two. :gulp:

BTW: when you gonna update your blog, Kermie? Thought you might have something interesting to say about Stewart's performance so far.

maurice
04-30-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by chisox06
Then why in the history of Franks brilliant career has he never been a clutch hitter?

Hmmm . . .
Ninth among all active players in RBI.
First among all White Sox players in RBI.
100+ RBI in nine separate seasons.
143 RBI in a single season.
etc.

Amazing how he was able to drive in all those runs, since he's always been such a bad clutch hitter.

Over aggressiveness is all it is, no need to let loose on the first pitch . . . .

I'm still not sure why it's a good thing to take strike one right down the middle aganst a pitcher with a 2.45 ERA, 0.89 WHIP, and .176 BAA.

Iwritecode
04-30-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
How about because he had a much better opportunity than Ordonez did?

HUH? :?:

How did their AB's differ besides the number of outs when they stepped to the plate?

Maggs had the exact same opportunity to hit the ball to the right side as FT did. He didn't get the job done either. I don't see anyone bashing him though.

Kilroy
04-30-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by chisox06
Then why in the history of Franks brilliant career has he never been a clutch hitter? ...The fact is Thomas had one job to do, get the runner over and he didn't...

How does a player get 1300 RBI in 14 seasons w/out being clutch? Who was it that hit a go ahead home run last week in the 8th against the O's?

And sorry, but Thomas, Ordonez, or PK step in, I don't expect them to just be trying to move the runner. Anyone else, yes. Those 3, no.

Kilroy
04-30-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
HUH? :?:

How did their AB's differ besides the number of outs when they stepped to the plate?

Maggs had the exact same opportunity to hit the ball to the right side as FT did. He didn't get the job done either. I don't see anyone bashing him though.

Not only did Maggs not get the job done, but I seem to remember the ball being fielded on the left side of the mound. Where was he going?

AngelLeroy
04-30-2003, 03:36 PM
I honestly don't see the point of this thread. The Sox can't score runner from 3rd base with less than 2 outs this season anyway.

I also don't see why people expect the middle of the Sox lineup to act like journeymen players who hit at the end of the order. The 3-6 spots are paid to drive in runs, not hit weak grounders to the right side to move a runner to third base. If someone wants to claim that's "team" baseball, fine, thats your opinion. I just don't think you'll find any other winning team that expects the guys in the middle of the lineup to sacrifice bunt or give up an at bat to move a runner from first to second or second to third.

Something tells me that if Thomas did sacrifice the runner over, and the next inning the A's scored 6 runs, people would be complaining that "the Sox have to go for the big inning with a runner on second, no one out, and the middle of the order up. It's things like this that keep this team a loser."

kermittheefrog
04-30-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by maurice
BTW: when you gonna update your blog, Kermie? Thought you might have something interesting to say about Stewart's performance so far.

Hmmmmm. It's always nice when someone shows they care about the crap you write. I am going to have something by Thursday evening. I would really like to talk about what's going on with the Sox right now and said to myself yesterday I need to write something.

kermittheefrog
04-30-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by AngelLeroy
I honestly don't see the point of this thread. The Sox can't score runner from 3rd base with less than 2 outs this season anyway.

I also don't see why people expect the middle of the Sox lineup to act like journeymen players who hit at the end of the order. The 3-6 spots are paid to drive in runs, not hit weak grounders to the right side to move a runner to third base. If someone wants to claim that's "team" baseball, fine, thats your opinion. I just don't think you'll find any other winning team that expects the guys in the middle of the lineup to sacrifice bunt or give up an at bat to move a runner from first to second or second to third.

Something tells me that if Thomas did sacrifice the runner over, and the next inning the A's scored 6 runs, people would be complaining that "the Sox have to go for the big inning with a runner on second, no one out, and the middle of the order up. It's things like this that keep this team a loser."

You summed that up pretty well.

Nellie_Fox
04-30-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Open question to all Frank supporters: Why does Thomas not bring his normal plate patience into late game, clutch situations, where we need it most? What evidence do you have to back up that assertion? I've seen him take plenty of late-inning walks. Do you have statistics that shows that he gets fewer walks or swings at more first pitches after the seventh inning?

Because if you don't, then I suspect that it is just your irrational dislike for Frank that causes you to see it that way.

No matter what the big guy does, a couple of you are going to always bust on him. I've seen many a thread on this board with people going nuts because he lets so many first pitch strikes go by. I've seen people say "every pitcher in baseball knows he won't swing at the first pitch." So now he swings at the first pitch, hits it right on the screws, and somehow he's wrong.

Frank is paid to go up and drive the ball, not hit some weak-ass grounder to the right side. Would you expect Babe Ruth to give up his at bat to advance a runner? Hank Aaron? No, of course not. You want them to hit the ball hard, and take your chances.

If he had grounded out to the second baseman and the runner had been stranded at third to end the game, you'd be going nuts about how Frank needs to produce in RISP situations and didn't get it done. Seriously.

voodoochile
04-30-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
No matter what the big guy does, a couple of you are going to always bust on him. I've seen many a thread on this board with people going nuts because he lets so many first pitch strikes go by. I've seen people say "every pitcher in baseball knows he won't swing at the first pitch." So now he swings at the first pitch, hits it right on the screws, and somehow he's wrong.


Thanks, Nellie. I was going to bring this up, but I get tired of banging my head against the wall on this topic. I can't think of another player of Frank's caliber in major league histroy who gets as little respect as he does for his performance.

And, you are exactly right I have seen threads bashing Frank for being too patient and waiting for walks in late game situations. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't...

bc2k
04-30-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
What evidence do you have to back up that assertion? I've seen him take plenty of late-inning walks. Do you have statistics that shows that he gets fewer walks or swings at more first pitches after the seventh inning?

Because if you don't, then I suspect that it is just your irrational dislike for Frank that causes you to see it that way.

Nellie, why do I need evidence to back up my opinion? I'm just a fan that watches the Sox and hits the message boards after the game. This theory of mine was not formulated by scouring stat books under my blanket with a flashlight. I could be completely wrong.

All I can ask any of you is to watch his at bats a little more closely and then agree or disagree with my theory.

Nellie_Fox
04-30-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
All I can ask any of you is to watch his at bats a little more closely and then agree or disagree with my theory. Well, living in Minnesota, I'm limited to WGN, ESPN and national network games. As for watching him more closely, for years I have stopped whatever I'm doing to watch when Frank comes to bat. If I watched any more closely I'd be in the TV.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-30-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Have we really gotten to the point where we criticize everything the Sox do mercilessly? I would think Frank Thomas' plate discipline is one thing that no one could really be upset with. Yet this is not the case. Amazing.

Kermie, somebody is going to have to explain to me why the hits, the walks, the sacrifices, the runs scored, and the rbi's that a ballplayer achieves early in the game are not precisely as valuable as those other players achieve late in the game.

Whine, whine, whine about "clutch hitting" when clearly nobody knows what the hell it is, or what its relative value could possibly be to "non-clutch hitting". What a worthless argument.

When I look at the boxscore, all the runs listed in the "R" column look EXACTLY the same to me. How do other people manage to value them as "clutch" and "non-clutch", I'll never know.

Maybe they're just trolls, eh?

voodoochile
04-30-2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Maybe they're just trolls, eh?

Starting to wonder myself, PHG. Starting to wonder myself...

bc2k
04-30-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Kermie, somebody is going to have to explain to me why the hits, the walks, the sacrifices, the runs scored, and the rbi's that a ballplayer achieves early in the game are not precisely as valuable as those other players achieve late in the game.

Maybe they're just trolls, eh?

Allow me to answer what clutch is. When the outcome of the game can be altered with your at bat, that is clutch.

voodoochile
04-30-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Allow me to answer what clutch is. When the outcome of the game can be altered with your at bat, that is clutch.

Technically speaking isn't that true of every RBI that gives a team the lead or brings them back to tie? I mean since no one knows what the final outcome will be...

Daver
04-30-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Nellie, why do I need evidence to back up my opinion? I'm just a fan that watches the Sox and hits the message boards after the game. This theory of mine was not formulated by scouring stat books under my blanket with a flashlight. I could be completely wrong.



It is logic like this which has most of the members here convinved you rode the short bus to school everyday.

RKMeibalane
04-30-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Starting to wonder myself, PHG. Starting to wonder myself...

I am also starting to wonder about this. I don't see why people complain so much about when the runs are scored. As far as I'm concerned, a three-run homer in the first inning is just as valuable as the same thing in the seventh inning. Three runs is three runs. Or am I missing something here?

The fact of the matter is this: the Frank-haters have once again found an excuse to open their mouths. There's no need to mention names. Everyone here knows who I'm talking about. Last night, Frank was retired during a crucial part of the game. In spite of the fact that several other players failed to deliver, Frank is the one singled out, simply because he swung at the first pitch in his at-bat.

Now, while I can understand the argument that a hitter should be more patient at the plate, I see no reason why Frank was wrong in doing what he did. He found a pitch he could drive, and he hit it hard. Chavez played him perfectly, so the end-result was a line-out. That happens during the course of a baseball season.

I can't help but wonder what the reaction of certain people on this board would be if it had been Magglio Ordonez who had swung at the first pitch. Would people still be complaining? I seriously doubt it.

Some are angry because Frank did not try to go the other way. Let me ask you this. Has it occurred to some of you that Oakland probably knew that a ball hit to the right side was a possibility? Therefore, doesn't it make sense that they would pitch Frank in such a way as to decrease the likelyhood of that happening? Even if Frank had taken the first pitch, he may not have gotten a pitch that he could hit to the right side. I'm sure Bradford is familiar with situational baseball.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-30-2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Allow me to answer what clutch is. When the outcome of the game can be altered with your at bat, that is clutch.

LOL! EVERY scoring opportunity fits that description--including a single swing of the bat for a solo home run on the first pitched ball to start the game.

Get this through your thick skull: The outcome of EVERY game is determined by which team scores the most runs--regardless of when they scored them.

You wouldn't know "clutch" if it dropped out of the sky, landed on your face, and wiggled.

Paulwny
04-30-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane


Some are angry because Frank did not try to go the other way. Let me ask you this. Has it occurred to some of you that Oakland probably knew that a ball hit to the right side was a possibility? Therefore, doesn't it make sense that they would pitch Frank in such a way as to decrease the likelyhood of that happening? Even if Frank had taken the first pitch, he may not have gotten a pitch that he could hit to the right side. I'm sure Bradford is familiar with situational baseball.

I'm not a Frank hater, I just think he should have tried to hit the ball to the right side.
Sure pitchers adjust but so does a batter, until he has 2 strikes.
This late in the game you hope that if Frank makes an out, it's a productive out and Jose is at 3rd with 1 out.

bc2k
04-30-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
LOL! EVERY scoring opportunity fits that description--including a single swing of the bat for a solo home run on the first pitched ball to start the game.

Get this through your thick skull: The outcome of EVERY game is determined by which team scores the most runs--regardless of when they scored them.

You wouldn't know "clutch" if it dropped out of the sky, landed on your face, and wiggled.

Okie dokie, take my original description of clutch and add the stipulation of 7-9 innings. Viola.

Print out this bc2k guideline to reference during the game if you get confused:

* The closer the game, the more clutch the situation
* Fighting off pitches until a pitcher makes a mistake
* Following the procedure of "Get 'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in."
* The better the pitcher, the better the team, the more clutch it is to succeed.

Note: All of the above are considered clutch when occuring during the previous explained clutch situation.

If you don't understand that let me explain clutch by telling you what White Sox hitters fit that descripion.

Clutch: Herbert Perry, Jose Valentin, Tony Graffanino, Robin Ventura.

Unclutch: Frank Thomas, Julio Ramirez

Two runs off of Ted Lilly does not mean the same as two runs off of Mariano Rivera since the outcome of a game will usually be decided at that point.

Daver
04-30-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Okie dokie, take my original description of clutch and add the stipulation of 7-9 innings. Viola.

Print out this bc2k guideline to reference during the game if you get confused:

* The closer the game, the more clutch the situation
* Fighting off pitches until a pitcher makes a mistake
* Following the procedure of "Get 'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in."
* The better the pitcher, the better the team, the more clutch it is to succeed.

Note: All of the above are considered clutch when occuring during the previous explained clutch situation.

If you don't understand that let me explain clutch by telling you what White Sox hitters fit that descripion.

Clutch: Herbert Perry, Jose Valentin, Tony Graffanino, Robin Ventura.

Unclutch: Frank Thomas, Julio Ramirez

Two runs off of Ted Lilly does not mean the same as two runs off of Mariano Rivera since the outcome of a game will usually be decided at that point.

Even more short bus logic.

WhiteSoxWinner
04-30-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Allow me to answer what clutch is. When the outcome of the game can be altered with your at bat, that is clutch.

Originally posted by bc2k
take my original description of clutch and add the stipulation of 7-9 innings

If the other team averages 4 runs a game, and we score five in the first six innings, these are non-clutch hits and runs because they are before the seventh inning? What if a guy pitches lights out all game long, but give up a meatball a guy can drive in the first inning? Non-clutch to get that pitch and hit a dinger?

Clutch can happen any time during a game. You can't limit the stats to the last few innings.

AngelLeroy
04-30-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
* Fighting off pitches until a pitcher makes a mistake


The first pitch thrown to Thomas in the 8th was pretty fat. If he let it go by, taking the count to 0-1, he probably wouldn't have seen anything better.

joecrede
04-30-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I can't help but wonder what the reaction of certain people on this board would be if it had been Magglio Ordonez who had swung at the first pitch. Would people still be complaining? I seriously doubt it.

Maggs is beyond reproach. If he were as scrutinized as Thomas is more people (at least somebody) would talk about his first-half last year being a major contributor to last year's lost season.

Jjav829
04-30-2003, 05:42 PM
Let me preface this by saying that I have nothing against of you personally.

Call me a troll. Call me a Frank Thomas hater. Call me whatever the hell you want to call me. I don't give a damn. Im going to say my piece, and I might not ever look at this thread again, who knows. After reading this thread, I am pissed off.

Let me start off with the AB itself. The idea that Frank cost the team the game is stupid. That said, baggio was right for the most part. The at-bat was selfish. Any team that understands what fundamental baseball is, understands the idea of going the other way. Does this mean you are giving up the at-bat? No! Frank should have been trying to go the other way. Yes, as a major league player you SHOULD know how to go the other way. It is possible to control where the ball goes to an extent. Second, why is there an assumption that Frank would have been automatically out? Do you not trust Frank's ability to get a hit to the opposite field? If he would have tried to go the other way, would that have been a guaranteed out? No. He could have still managed to drive in the run by getting a hit to right field. However, if he wouldn't have gotten a hit he could have at least done the team good by moving the runner over. The reason Maggs isn't being criticized is because the situation is different(See: situational baseball). With 1 out and a runner on 2nd in the late innings there isn't as much reason to move the runner over. If you move the runner over but are out, there are 2 outs which negates the chance the get a sac fly. With 0 outs, the idea is to make sure the runner gets to 3rd so that with 1 out, the next batter can try to elevate the ball to get a sac fly. This is something that teams like the Twins and Angels understand. Apparently the Sox, and some people here don't understand that idea. Anyone listening to the game on TV could clearly pick up the disappointment in Hawk's voice as he wondered why Frank wasn't trying to go the other way.

Secondly, how many of us here haven't seen Frank walk up to the plate in the 5th inning and take the first pitch right down to center of the plate for a strike? How many people here don't wonder why he doesn't jump all over some of those pitches and crush them over the fence? Yet, in the 8th inning he loses that patience and he comes up and swings at the first pitch which is inside. He made absolutely no attempt to go the other way. We are talking about a guy who is hitting a measly .118 with RISP and .240 overall. The one thing he IS doing well is being patient and drawing walks. He should have remembered that.

Third is just a general thought for some of you to think about. Has Frank Thomas ever done anything wrong at the plate? You might answer yet but I am sure there a few people here that might say no. I don't know. Maybe it's because I am better at looking at things unbiased than others, but I've never had a problem criticizing or praising any player regardless of how much I like or dislike them. I have no problem saying that Brett Favre is the greatest QB I have ever seen regardless of the fact I hate the Packers with a passion, and no problem saying that I wish Maggs was more patient or that I think he could become a better fielder regardless of how much I like Maggs and the Sox. Maybe it's just something I am better at doing than other people. Objectivity, apparently it's a skill.

OK, I feel better now. I'll get off my soapbox. Hopefully I haven't pissed too many people off, but I had to say that. If I have, o well.

chisox06
04-30-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Let me preface this by saying that I have nothing against of you personally.

Call me a troll. Call me a Frank Thomas hater. Call me whatever the hell you want to call me. I don't give a damn. Im going to say my piece, and I might not ever look at this thread again, who knows. After reading this thread, I am pissed off.

Let me start off with the AB itself. The idea that Frank cost the team the game is stupid. That said, baggio was right for the most part. The at-bat was selfish. Any team that understands what fundamental baseball is, understands the idea of going the other way. Does this mean you are giving up the at-bat? No! Frank should have been trying to go the other way. Yes, as a major league player you SHOULD know how to go the other way. It is possible to control where the ball goes to an extent. Second, why is there an assumption that Frank would have been automatically out? Do you not trust Frank's ability to get a hit to the opposite field? If he would have tried to go the other way, would that have been a guaranteed out? No. He could have still managed to drive in the run by getting a hit to right field. However, if he wouldn't have gotten a hit he could have at least done the team good by moving the runner over. The reason Maggs isn't being criticized is because the situation is different(See: situational baseball). With 1 out and a runner on 2nd in the late innings there isn't as much reason to move the runner over. If you move the runner over but are out, there are 2 outs which negates the chance the get a sac fly. With 0 outs, the idea is to make sure the runner gets to 3rd so that with 1 out, the next batter can try to elevate the ball to get a sac fly. This is something that teams like the Twins and Angels understand. Apparently the Sox, and some people here don't understand that idea. Anyone listening to the game on TV could clearly pick up the disappointment in Hawk's voice as he wondered why Frank wasn't trying to go the other way.

Secondly, how many of us here haven't seen Frank walk up to the plate in the 5th inning and take the first pitch right down to center of the plate for a strike? How many people here don't wonder why he doesn't jump all over some of those pitches and crush them over the fence? Yet, in the 8th inning he loses that patience and he comes up and swings at the first pitch which is inside. He made absolutely no attempt to go the other way. We are talking about a guy who is hitting a measly .118 with RISP and .240 overall. The one thing he IS doing well is being patient and drawing walks. He should have remembered that.

Third is just a general thought for some of you to think about. Has Frank Thomas ever done anything wrong at the plate? You might answer yet but I am sure there a few people here that might say no. I don't know. Maybe it's because I am better at looking at things unbiased than others, but I've never had a problem criticizing or praising any player regardless of how much I like or dislike them. I have no problem saying that Brett Favre is the greatest QB I have ever seen regardless of the fact I hate the Packers with a passion, and no problem saying that I wish Maggs was more patient or that I think he could become a better fielder regardless of how much I like Maggs and the Sox. Maybe it's just something I am better at doing than other people. Objectivity, apparently it's a skill.

OK, I feel better now. I'll get off my soapbox. Hopefully I haven't pissed too many people off, but I had to say that. If I have, o well.

Exactly, nice post I agree 100%. Ive seen Frank especially this year take cookies right down the middle for strike one, and the first pitch here he swings for the fences.

Jjav829
04-30-2003, 05:49 PM
clutch- 6. A tense, critical situation (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clutch)

I think the problem with this whole clutch thing is that some people are confusing "clutch" with "important". Is a solo shot in the first inning important? Yes. Is it clutch? No, at least not in the way that clutch is used in today's terms. I don't believe it has to be in late innings. A game tying base hit in the 5th inning of a 4-2 ball game with 2 outs is clutch. It is a turning point in the game, and you came through. Clutch. A 2-run go ahead double when trailing 4-3 in the 8th inning. Clutch. That is how I define clutch.

RKMeibalane
04-30-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Let me preface this by saying that I have nothing against of you personally.

Call me a troll. Call me a Frank Thomas hater. Call me whatever the hell you want to call me. I don't give a damn. Im going to say my piece, and I might not ever look at this thread again, who knows. After reading this thread, I am pissed off.

Let me start off with the AB itself. The idea that Frank cost the team the game is stupid. That said, baggio was right for the most part. The at-bat was selfish. Any team that understands what fundamental baseball is, understands the idea of going the other way. Does this mean you are giving up the at-bat? No! Frank should have been trying to go the other way. Yes, as a major league player you SHOULD know how to go the other way. It is possible to control where the ball goes to an extent. Second, why is there an assumption that Frank would have been automatically out? Do you not trust Frank's ability to get a hit to the opposite field? If he would have tried to go the other way, would that have been a guaranteed out? No. He could have still managed to drive in the run by getting a hit to right field. However, if he wouldn't have gotten a hit he could have at least done the team good by moving the runner over. The reason Maggs isn't being criticized is because the situation is different(See: situational baseball). With 1 out and a runner on 2nd in the late innings there isn't as much reason to move the runner over. If you move the runner over but are out, there are 2 outs which negates the chance the get a sac fly. With 0 outs, the idea is to make sure the runner gets to 3rd so that with 1 out, the next batter can try to elevate the ball to get a sac fly. This is something that teams like the Twins and Angels understand. Apparently the Sox, and some people here don't understand that idea. Anyone listening to the game on TV could clearly pick up the disappointment in Hawk's voice as he wondered why Frank wasn't trying to go the other way.

Secondly, how many of us here haven't seen Frank walk up to the plate in the 5th inning and take the first pitch right down to center of the plate for a strike? How many people here don't wonder why he doesn't jump all over some of those pitches and crush them over the fence? Yet, in the 8th inning he loses that patience and he comes up and swings at the first pitch which is inside. He made absolutely no attempt to go the other way. We are talking about a guy who is hitting a measly .118 with RISP and .240 overall. The one thing he IS doing well is being patient and drawing walks. He should have remembered that.

Third is just a general thought for some of you to think about. Has Frank Thomas ever done anything wrong at the plate? You might answer yet but I am sure there a few people here that might say no. I don't know. Maybe it's because I am better at looking at things unbiased than others, but I've never had a problem criticizing or praising any player regardless of how much I like or dislike them. I have no problem saying that Brett Favre is the greatest QB I have ever seen regardless of the fact I hate the Packers with a passion, and no problem saying that I wish Maggs was more patient or that I think he could become a better fielder regardless of how much I like Maggs and the Sox. Maybe it's just something I am better at doing than other people. Objectivity, apparently it's a skill.

OK, I feel better now. I'll get off my soapbox. Hopefully I haven't pissed too many people off, but I had to say that. If I have, o well.

I can find nothing wrong with anything you said. I respect your opinion. I too am dissapointed that the Sox lost last night. Obviously, the game may have turned out differently had Frank been successful in his at-bat. However, the same can be said of several other players who made mistakes earlier in the game.

I think the one thing that all of us can take away from last night is this: the Chicago White Sox have a long way to go before they can start thinking about the post-season. Yes, they lost by only one run last night, but that would not have happened if several people had done their jobs properly.

The Sox need to work a great deal on fundamentals. Whether that means they need to think more about moving a runner over or learning how to field ball in the outfield is anyone's guess. As a team, the Sox have struggled with the basics of baseball, and good teams do not do this. There's plenty of blame to go around for things that have happened thus far in 2003.

Jjav829
04-30-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I can find nothing wrong with anything you said. I respect your opinion. I too am dissapointed that the Sox lost last night. Obviously, the game may have turned out differently had Frank been successful in his at-bat. However, the same can be said of several other players who made mistakes earlier in the game.

I think the one thing that all of us can take away from last night is this: the Chicago White Sox have a long way to go before they can start thinking about the post-season. Yes, they lost by only one run last night, but that would not have happened if several people had done their jobs properly.

The Sox need to work a great deal on fundamentals. Whether that means they need to think more about moving a runner over or learning how to field ball in the outfield is anyone's guess. As a team, the Sox have struggled with the basics of baseball, and good teams do not do this. There's plenty of blame to go around for things that have happened thus far in 2003.

No, doubt. I don't blame Frank for losing the game. I've never felt that a game turns on one single play, at-bat, shot, throw, etc. The Sox are very fundamentally poor. Ironically enough, this is the same team that features something called FUNdamentals which supposedly teaches young kids the fundamentals of the game. Maybe the players should stop by.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-30-2003, 06:12 PM
Gee, I didn't know baseball had a clock. Some of you folks seem to think offensive production in the seventh, eighth, and ninth inning is more valuable than the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. You've been spending too much time watching the NFL, I guess. Go soak your heads, and come back when you feel better.

SHOW ME THE CLOCK IN BASEBALL. Tell me how you know how much time is left in the game--or even how many batters are left before it ends. This is some valuable information God is sharing with you. Please share it with the rest of us!

There is not one single person walking the face of the Earth who knew when last night's game would end. Nobody had any idea which at-bat was the deciding at-bat. Every at-bat is clutch because there is no clock!

BASEBALL GAMES LAST UNTIL THE WINNING TEAM GETS (AT LEAST) 27 OUTS.

As Earl Weaver noted, you can't just run the ball into the line and kill the clock. Either the last batter makes the 27th out, or the game continues. Furthermore, either the pitcher offers three balls inside the strike zone, or the game continues, too. You have to give EVERY batter his chance. As Earl noted, that's what makes it the greatest of all games.

Some of you people don't understand baseball at its most fundamental level. Get a clue already.

Tell the Kansas City Royals how much time was left in that game they blew in Toronto earlier this week. See how stupid you make yourselves sound explaining "clutch" to them.

I'm guessing some of you think that extra run they didn't score in the fifth inning wasn't clutch. Go figure.

voodoochile
04-30-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I can find nothing wrong with anything you said. I respect your opinion. I too am dissapointed that the Sox lost last night. Obviously, the game may have turned out differently had Frank been successful in his at-bat. However, the same can be said of several other players who made mistakes earlier in the game.

I think the one thing that all of us can take away from last night is this: the Chicago White Sox have a long way to go before they can start thinking about the post-season. Yes, they lost by only one run last night, but that would not have happened if several people had done their jobs properly.

The Sox need to work a great deal on fundamentals. Whether that means they need to think more about moving a runner over or learning how to field ball in the outfield is anyone's guess. As a team, the Sox have struggled with the basics of baseball, and good teams do not do this. There's plenty of blame to go around for things that have happened thus far in 2003.

Okay, I agree that the Sox need to work on situational hitting, but what ticks me off is the way people like to single Frank out. Yes, I admit. I am a Frank fan. He is my favorite Sox player of all time. I am currently having a jersey done up with his name and number - my first Sox jersey ever. My main complaint with this thread last night is the way the whole game became Frank's fault because he happened to make an out at a crucial time in the game.

I cut Frank slack, not strictly because I am a fan of his, but because he has had SO MANY years of proving what a great player he is. Has he ever made a mistake? Sure. Do I ignore them? More than I do for Julio Ramierez (I can't believe someone would even put them in the same sentence - proves beyond a doubt they are strictly a hater, IMO). I do the same thing for Maggs, Paulie, Jose, Buehrle and others from the past. That is because they have EARNED the right to be cut some slack.

I have no problem with saying that in hindsight it would have been nice for Frank to try to move the runner over, but I cannot fault his logic of trying to drill a cookie either and regardless of the situation, I don't want him to try and do something with the baseball that doesn't make sense (like trying to go the other way with an inside fastball). The fact also still remains that Frank absolutely killed that pitch. Yes, maybe if he hits it the other way, the Sox score a run - of course there are NO guarantees ever. In the end it goes down as another example for the haters of Frank's inability to come up big. Still the fact remains - aside from the fact that the A's happened to have a fielder standing in exactly the right spot (through luck, planning or whatever) and arguably the situation - you cannot ask a hitter to do more than Frank did with that pitch. Sometimes bad things happen after everything goes right. That's because there are 8 men in front of the hitter and one behind trying to prevent him from succeeding. That's baseball. That's all. So call it an example of Frank's failing, it doesn't mean you are correct.

ChiSoxBobette
04-30-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by baggio202
there was no excuse for lining out to 3rd base with jose on 2nd and no outs in the 8th down 3-2....if i had to pick one at bat to define this team that would be it...a selfish at bat...

had thomas just grounded out to 2nd base then if naggs hit that topper off the plate over bradford's head jose scores easy and we are in extra innings...

there can be no excusing thomas...he has to step into the box with the proper mindset of "im looking for a pitch early in the count to drive to RF"....now if frank had two strikes on him and got an inside pitch aNd line out hard to 3rd i could live with it...but on the FIRST FRIGGEN PITCH HE SEES IN THE AT BAT!!!!..CMON FRANK!!!!!!!1..you 've been in the league like 13 years now..you know better than that..

this was a playoff type game..two contenders...zito vrs colon..top playoff pitchers...this is exactly how playoff games go..you get very few chances and when you get them each player has to do his job for the team to ensure your best odds of capitalizing on that chance....thomas didnt do that..and instead of going to extra innings kieth foulke's us in the 9th :angry:

im not a thomas basher...but in this case he deserves to be taken to task because his mistake was he didnt have the right mindset for that situation..and thats something that should NEVER happen...

If BIG FRANKS line shot gets through hes a hero but because the A's 3rd baseman catches it he's the goat. There just no pleasing you Frank Thomas haters. Lots of players have been making mistakes and I think our teams biggest mistake is sticking with this guy who's our batting instructor, another year where he can't get them out of a prolonged batting slump. Now we have Maggs, Jimenez & Crede slumping. What does this guy get paid for anyway. You don't see other supposed playoff teams going through this year in & year out. GET RID OF THE GUY ALREADY!

Go White Sox

baggio202
04-30-2003, 07:07 PM
if you go back and look up anything i posted in the past i dont think youll find any criticism of thomas...frank is one of my favorites and hope retires with the white sox..

that said..this not the frank thomas of the early to mid 90's...since '01 he has struggled to carry a 250 batting average..can he be the thomas of old??... i hope so..i pray he can..but right now he is a very average...it wouldnt have hurt frank one bit to go to RF...

even the frank of old made outs 2 of every 3 times he came to the plate...no one should be above situational hitting

baggio202
04-30-2003, 07:17 PM
geeezzz..first at bat tonight ..thomas works the count and drives one deep into RF....talk about adding insult to injury :D:

WhiteSoxWinner
04-30-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by baggio202
geeezzz..first at bat tonight ..thomas works the count and drives one deep into RF....talk about adding insult to injury :D:

But it wasn't clutch time. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. I wasn't trying to incite a riot.)

dougs78
04-30-2003, 08:35 PM
I don't know how many of you have played competetive sports before, but I would wager that most of you that have would agree that there is such a thing as "clutch." Clutch has nothing to do with time of the game it has everything to do with the mental approach under adverse conditions. It just so happens that one adverse condition that occurs in every contest is facing a loss in the face near the end of a game.

Anyone who has ever batted with 2 outs in the ninth down by a run, stood at the free throw line trailing by 1 with 0:03 to go, or dropped back to pass on 4th and goal at 8, trailing by 7 knows that nerves have a funny way of screwing up the mental approach to performing otherwise simple physical functions. That is to say that the pressure of knowing that this could the "last chance," may cause someone to change the mentality at the plate. For some that means changing for the worse and not doing the same thing the would do if the situation were less adverse. For some others, that means finding another gear that they didn't even know they had and performing in a way that is better than usual.

The latter are the players who are considered clutch.

This reality can not be denied.

Kilroy
04-30-2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by baggio202
...it wouldnt have hurt frank one bit to go to RF...

No kidding. We agree. But... I'm not gonna rip the guy, like the person who started this thread ( I don't know who that was... ), because he picked out a fat pitch and tried to deposit it in the bleachers somewhere. That's what each and every one of us wants to see him do each and every time he steps in the box.

As easily as that ball found its way into Chavez's mitt, it could have just as easily found its way to the left field concourse. And when Maggs steps in right after and hits a weak grounder to the left of the mound, it seems strange that Thomas gets singled out for his at-bat when Maggs doesn't.

RKMeibalane
04-30-2003, 10:25 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by voodoochile

I'm a Frank Thomas fan, too voodoo. I agree that it's wrong that certain people single him out every time something bad happens. I've given up trying to reason with the Frank-haters. As I said before, I don't think Frank did anything wrong by swinging at that pitch. I would have done the same thing in his position. If you get a pitch you can drive, you swing. It's not selfish. It's part of baseball.

Having said that, I think the White Sox as a team have a lot of things they need to work on, so they won't lose as many games like they did last night. I mean, if Aaron Rowand had not fielded a ball poorly, Frank's at-bat probably wouldn't have mattered as much.

baggio202
04-30-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
[QUOTE]Originally posted by voodoochile

I'm a Frank Thomas fan, too voodoo. I agree that it's wrong that certain people single him out every time something bad happens. I've given up trying to reason with the Frank-haters. As I said before, I don't think Frank did anything wrong by swinging at that pitch. I would have done the same thing in his position. If you get a pitch you can drive, you swing. It's not selfish. It's part of baseball.

Having said that, I think the White Sox as a team have a lot of things they need to work on, so they won't lose as many games like they did last night. I mean, if Aaron Rowand had not fielded a ball poorly, Frank's at-bat probably wouldn't have mattered as much.

anyone know where you can get the scorecard of tonights game..like to know how many outs went to the left side...everyone knows you gotta take a pitcher like mulder the other way...we had an all right handed line up tonight...it seemed like chavez was awful busy tonight

Jjav829
04-30-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
No kidding. We agree. But... I'm not gonna rip the guy, like the person who started this thread ( I don't know who that was... ), because he picked out a fat pitch and tried to deposit it in the bleachers somewhere. That's what each and every one of us wants to see him do each and every time he steps in the box.

As easily as that ball found its way into Chavez's mitt, it could have just as easily found its way to the left field concourse. And when Maggs steps in right after and hits a weak grounder to the left of the mound, it seems strange that Thomas gets singled out for his at-bat when Maggs doesn't.

Maybe you didn't read my post. It is situational hitting. The reason that Thomas was criticized is because the situation called for him to try to go the other way and he didn't. Maggs situation did not call for him to attempt to go the other way, so he isn't being ripped. In fact if Thomas does his job in moving the runner over Maggs weak ground out might score the runner. Who knows. But that game is done and we have a new game to bitch about, so on to that one.

ShoelessFred
04-30-2003, 11:24 PM
Your version of fundamental baseball is outdated and wrong. Say Frank bunts, thus now we a runner on third and one out. We have one chance for a sacrifice fly and two chances for a hit to tie the game. Say the ball is six inches to either side, Frank is at second, no outs and its a tie game. Given the probabilities of what happens when an average major leaguer bats, swinging away trying to get a hit not just moving the runner over gives the team the better chance to win the game. I could do the math if you don't believe.

i'd like to see you do the math instead of just spewing some baseless propaganda. are you sure you are not the iraqi information minister? the fact of the matter is that FRANK LINED OUT. you guys keep talking 4 feet this and 4 feet that. close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. if he HITS the ball the the right side, he moves the runner over and maybe even gets a basehit to score the runner. my main point was this is how most people were taught to play the game. i played college ball and it basically goes without saying the you HIT IT TO THE RIGHT SIDE. you guys remember JOSE CANSECO? even he knew to hit the ball to the right side with a man on second. he tried to do it everytime he was in that situation with the sox. and more times then not he got the job done and he even got an RBI a couple of times by getting a basehit.

also remember this guys...

FRANKS AT-BAT DIDN'T COST US THE GAME. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE DONE, THE TEAM HAS MANY OTHER PROBLEMS THAT ALL START WITH THE SLEEPY EYED GUY IN THE DUGOUT.

Iwritecode
05-01-2003, 01:40 PM
Looks like I missed most of the fun when I left.

Anyway, the thread has earned this:


:tomatoaward