PDA

View Full Version : Jayson Stark STILL doesn't get it


Ol' No. 2
04-20-2005, 10:03 AM
Those of you listening to Mike & Mike this morning (Take my advice. Just stick a pin through your lip. It's much less painful.) heard Jayson Stark state his reasons why Frank Thomas is not deserving of the HOF. His reasons were that there were a lot of other players in the same era putting up big numbers, so Thomas doesn't stand out. Right, Jayson. Here's a list:

Jose Canseco
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Barry Bonds
Jason Giambi

Now what do these guys all have in common?:rolleyes:

Mickster
04-20-2005, 10:06 AM
[Arnold Horshack voice] Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh! [/Arnold Horshack voice]

hdog1017
04-20-2005, 10:08 AM
I thought of the exact same thing when Stark opened up his blow-hole and spewed his nonsense.

Mickster
04-20-2005, 10:14 AM
Here's a funny cartoon about some of Stark's "comparable" players.


Click on the picture and enjoy! LINKY (http://www.thehomerunguys.com/)

Frater Perdurabo
04-20-2005, 10:24 AM
I usually listen to other stations in the morning. But today I listened to the DFW ESPN affiliate. Too bad Mike and Mike don't take callers during the morning (at least when I have been listening), because if they did, they would have heard an earful from me.

Has it been pointed out the punditocracy that Frank Thomas missed out on a third MVP award by just a few votes to an admitted steroid user in 2000?

Where do these idiots draw the line before they reconsider their pontifications? Is steroids not enough? Hypothetically, what if it was discovered Giambi used a corked bat? Or a wood-covered aluminum/ceramic bat? How much does someone have to cheat before the punditocracy completely discredits the cheaters and recognize the achievements of those they cheated?

World records and wins in other sports routinely are expunged when cheating - especially doping -- is known to have taken place. So, when does the punitive action meet the verbal outrage? How many times does someone have to cheat before it becomes wrong and the cheaters face consequences?

Mr. Stark, does being a member of the media and being a Hall of Fame voter excuse you from having to reconsider your opinions on the basis of new evidence, sir?

:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:

spawn
04-20-2005, 10:26 AM
I seem to recall at the time Frank was putting up those numbers he was being compared to Ted Williams. So 8 straight years of hitting .300, 20+ homers, 100 rbi's, and 100 BB, and 2 MVP's and he's not an HOFer? But I guess because he didn't hit 60-70 homers in a season, he's not worthy. I like this section I found in wikpedia:

He is notable not for his below-average defense at first base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_base), but for being one of the best pure hitters in baseball's history. He has been compared to being as close to a right-handed version of Ted Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams) as there is. A slugger who hits 35-40 home runs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_run) per year as a matter of course, hits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_average) .330 or better most years, and quite importantly, draws well over 100 walks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_on_balls) each season, Thomas has proven himself to be one of the top five right-handed hitters ever; and the second best hitter since 1990, behind only Barry Bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Bonds). His career on base percentage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_base_percentage) is among the top ten of all ballplayers in history. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Thomas_%28AL_baseball_player%29)
Yeah, he definitely doesn't belong in the Hall...Gimme a F***** break!:rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
04-20-2005, 10:36 AM
I seem to recall at the time Frank was putting up those numbers he was being compared to Ted Williams. So 8 straight years of hitting .300, 20+ homers, 100 rbi's, and 100 BB, and 2 MVP's and he's not an HOFer? But I guess because he didn't hit 60-70 homers in a season, he's not worthy. I like this section I found in wikpedia:


Yeah, he definitely doesn't belong in the Hall...Gimme a F***** break!:rolleyes:In fact, during the broadcast, Greenburg mentioned that Thomas' numbers compare well with Joe DiMaggio...then proceeded to dismiss this because DiMaggio played 50 years ago.:?: Yeah, Greeny, you mean like when players WEREN'T on steroids???

samram
04-20-2005, 10:47 AM
Mr. Stark, does being a member of the media and being a Hall of Fame voter excuse you from having to reconsider your opinions on the basis of new evidence, sir?

:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:


No, but it does excuse him from having a functioning brain.

As for his "getting it," it reminds me of the scene in City Slickers, where, after hearing Billy Crystal try to explain to Daniel Stern how to set his VCR for the 1000th time, Bruno Kirby explodes and says "He doesn't get it, he's never gotten it, and he'll never get it."

Irishsox1
04-20-2005, 10:55 AM
Greenberg and Stark are both former beat reports and they don't like Thomas because Frank has had run ins with the media, especially the beat writers. They are letting there personal opinions of Frank get in the way of the cold hard facts. The guy won 2 MVP's, and put up a lot of numbers during the steroid era and his numbers should be looked at in a different light due to the fact that Frank didn't use steroids.

spawn
04-20-2005, 11:00 AM
In fact, during the broadcast, Greenburg mentioned that Thomas' numbers compare well with Joe DiMaggio...then proceeded to dismiss this because DiMaggio played 50 years ago.:?: Yeah, Greeny, you mean like when players WEREN'T on steroids???
Another stat I forgot to throw in there was Frank also scored 100 runs during that time period as well.

Kadafi311
04-20-2005, 11:02 AM
Those of you listening to Mike & Mike this morning (Take my advice. Just stick a pin through your lip. It's much less painful.) heard Jayson Stark state his reasons why Frank Thomas is not deserving of the HOF.

Unfortunately, I was listening. The guy is a real sack.

I loved his argument for Ken Griffey Jr. getting into the HOF because he was the "best player in the league for several years". Using that same logic, was there a better hitter than Frank in the 1990's? No. In fact, as most of you know, he is the only player in MLB history to hit over .300 / 20HR / 100RBI / 100BB / 100RS for seven straight seasons (1991-1997). In the eighth year (1998) he had the other stats but only hit .265.

He's going to hit 500HR. He's going to reach 2,500 hits. He's going to reach 1,700+ RBI. He's going to hold a .300+ career average. He's a 1st or 2nd ballot HOF. And the ONLY way he's not a 1st ballot is if he doesn't win a World Series. End of story.

Fungo
04-20-2005, 11:11 AM
I thought of the exact same thing when Stark opened up his blow-hole and spewed his nonsense.

ditto. He made his case for Thomas getting in when he said that.

spawn
04-20-2005, 11:21 AM
Not that it will make a difference, but I just fired off an e-mail to Dumb and Dumber in the Morning stating the reason Frank is a HOFer. I'm sure my e-mail will change their collective minds!

Chicago83
04-20-2005, 02:28 PM
Who cares what these jokers think? When it comes down to Frank's time for voting, people who really know baseball will be voting and thus Frank will be in the HOF.

Knockoutinthepar
04-20-2005, 02:41 PM
The question is: when will baseball see these other players for what they are? When will we reach that breaking point in history? Its no doubt that Frank Thomas will be recognized in due time, but when will it come? How? As those those Congressmen asked, in between their Sosa/McGuire butt-munching competions, What will it take?