rangercal

The "number one" sox fan mayor Daleys favorite word or at least what he called Brandon Mccarthy. "Whatshisname" . http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-daleysox01.html

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2005 @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 02:45 AM) I hate to say it. But how often do Prior, Wood or any of the white players get booed there? Not often. Then look at how guys like Hawkins and Sosa were treated. Just sayin. don't forget how alfonseca was treated. I never heard borowski get booed when he sucked.

mypenisisbiggerthanyours

Birthday Happy!!!!!!!

Frank Will make an impact with this team. Was their anyone else you would rather have out there with the bases juiced tonight? K-rod was pitching around him for a reason.

Your right ss

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 10:45 AM) He doesn't hit 25% of the time. He hits like 21% of the time. Oh, and I've been calling for Randa for quite a while. enough said. Put me in your club.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 02:29 PM) Frank is my childhood hero. I even have a shrine in my office with a bunch of bobblehead dolls, autographed balls, an autographed bat, plaques, starting lineup figures, every mag he's ever been on the cover of, etc. That said, he could never f*** with Nap or Cobb. Frank is my childhood here as well. I respect what nap and Cobb did. Didn't Nap hit .426 one year? amazing. I still don't doubt Frank would be up there with them. Frank in his peak was one of the best ever IMO.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 02:16 PM) That argument also kinda voids whatever Christy Matthewson, Mordecai Brown, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Cleveland Alexander, and other legendary pitchers did in the Dead Ball Era as well. I don't think they are as great as people make them to be either. All those pitchers may be in my top 25 pitchers of all-time but not top 10.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 02:14 PM) That's a good point. A 1910 leaderboard for averages: Lajoie-CLE .384 Cobb-DET .383 Speaker-BOS .340 Collins-PHA .324 Knight-NYY .312 Oldring-PHA .308 Easterly-CLE .306 Murphy-PHA .300 Delahanty-DET .294 Chase-NYY .290 Look at what the starting lineup for the 1910 Detroit Tigers hit, and then look at what all of their bench scrubs and pitchers hit: 1910 Detroit Tigers The average WHIP ratio in 1910 was between 1.25 and 1.30. Eddie Walsh had a WHIP of 0.81. That is an insane difference. You wanna talk about greatness? Walsh was the best in his era. I just don't think you could compare him to someone like Bob Gibson, or Randy Johnson.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 02:10 PM) Which kinda voids the arguement about Frank Thomas's streak of .300 30 100 100 out the window doesn't it? Could Frank have put up any one of those numbers in 1910, let alone all of them? Not a chance. Obviously no one would have those numbers. I may be going on a limb here, but I feel Frank would have still been the best hitter in that era. I don't think many guys out there were 6'5 250. Frank would have been a beast back then.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 08:17 AM) This is an ESPN game on national TV... we all know what that means does this have to do with Koch?

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 02:00 PM) If the post in which I compared him to Matthewson, Brown, Johnson, and Alexander ain't enough to convince you that he's arguably one of the 10 greatest pitchers of all time and easily the most valuable player in Chicago White Sox history, then nothing will. Not to hijack this outstanding thread, but here are my Top 10 pitchers of all time: Walter Johnson Christy Matthewson Mordecai Brown Ed Walsh Sandy Koufax Bob Gibson Steve Carlton Pedro Martinez Randy Johnson Roger Clemens Honorable mention: Cy Young Tom Seaver Satchell Paige Lefty Grove Warren Spahn my top 3. 1 Gibson 2 Johnson 3 Clemens

Here's some food for thought. White sox team batting avg 1910 .211 the leader on the team was Patsy Dougherty with an avg of .248 That's an example how the rest of baseball was too. You don't think that affects a whip? Would you throw anything but strikes if you knew your competition was batting below .250? That's why no one ever got walked. It's not really about control.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) There was no such thing as a passed ball in that era. regardless, he was still among the league leaders .

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 01:42 PM) I'm not sure that I'm following your logic, cal. His ERA wouldn't be anywhere close to 1.82...I conceded as much. But if you look at WHIP ratios over time for the legends, they're consistent. The best guys are always in the 1.05 to 1.15 range, whether it's Christy Matthewson in 1906 or Randy Johnson in 2004. I agree that whip is the BEST way to judge a pitcher. I just don't believe that his whip won't be higher in a different era. in 1910 walsh gave up 242 hits in 369 innings. Would he give up only 242 hits pitching 369 innings in 1970? I really don't think so.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 01:18 PM) Why not? You should say that there's no way in hell he'd have the best ERA in major league history at 1.82, but WHIP is a measure of control. He's gonna have that wicked control regardless of the era he plays in. Wild Pitches 1906-11-2 1907-14-1 1908-10-8 1911-8-7 1912-10-5

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 01:08 PM) That WHIP ratio in nearly 3000 IP tells me everything I need to know, actually. Compare with others from the Dead Ball Era: Ed Walsh: 0.99 WHIP/2964 IP, 1.82 ERA Christy Matthewson: 1.10 WHIP/4780 IP, 2.13 ERA Cy Young: 1.13 WHIP/7354 IP, 2.63 ERA Grover Alexander: 1.12 WHIP/5190 IP, 2.56 ERA Walter Johnson: 1.06 WHIP/5914 IP, 2.17 ERA Three Finger Brown 1.06 WHIP/3172 IP, 2.06 ERA Chief Bender 1.11 WHIP/3017 IP, 2.46 ERA Eddie Plank 1.20 WHIP/4495 IP, 2.35 ERA Jack Chesbro: 1.15 WHIP/2896 IP, 2.68 ERA Rube Waddell: 1.10 WHIP/2961 IP, 2.16 ERA Addie Joss: 1.03 WHIP/2327 IP, 1.89 ERA You see all of them legends? That's the golden age of pitching, right there, and the Sox had the guy with the best WHIP and the best ERA? And he ain't even an option on this list? I'm just saying. FWIW you are right that he should be on the list to get voted in. I would say he is actually more deserving than Baines and minoso.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 01:18 PM) Why not? You should say that there's no way in hell he'd have the best ERA in major league history at 1.82, but WHIP is a measure of control. He's gonna have that wicked control regardless of the era he plays in. I look at WHIP first and foremost in all cases when analyzing pitchers. It might be my favorite baseball stat, period. It's simple to understand, simple to explain, etc. W/L records are truly misleading. I know that some guys are gamers like a Russ Ortiz or whatever where you can just throw the stats out the window, because if the offense scores 6, he'll allow 5. If the offense scores 3, he'll allow 2. But in the vast, vast majority of cases, IMO W/L records aren't all that they're cracked up to be. Put it this way. No way in hell he would have a 1.82 era or whip under 1 in an even era. You don't think your competition helps determine your whip? What would Mark Buehrles WHIP be if he faced KC all his starts? What about Texas? Hammerhead, his whips would not be the same.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 01:06 PM) Sounds good to me. Personally I like to compare a players dominance within an era to decide how they would compare to someone else that wasn't playing at the sametime. I think Ed Walsh was about as good as you got during his time, so that is how he should be judged. On a side note, if you had to select a neutral era, where pitchers and hitters were about even, what do you think it would be? Obviously the last 15-20 years have been way skewed towards hitters, while up until the mid 1920's and the late 60's were the biggest pitchers eras. I think its fair to say his era would be higher. Most people would agree that the difference between pitching in The AL compared to the NL can be about a 1/2 run on the era. ( because of the DH obviously) We are talking about the difference in the entire lineup rather than 1 player. What kind of difference can that have on an era? I'm saying 1 run. Which would put his career era at a still impressive 2.82. But not as dominant as the 1.82.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 08:09 AM) So should we discount Frank's numbers because he played in the "live" ball era? Lets meet somewhere down the middle. Say the 1970's. Frank probably would still have close to his numbers, ed walsh no way in hell would have a whip under 1.

I bet those idiots who wrote those letters to hawkins forgot that Ernie banks, Fergie Jenkins and Derrek Lee are all the same color as hawkins. The morons :headshake

I'll take the sides of cub/former cub players over cub fans any day! Cub fans are racist. Lots of their fans don't know any color outside of white.

QUOTE(SHAFTR @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 04:19 AM) I've always thought that fans should only vote for the top 5 players in each League. That way, the 5 most popular players in each league would start and that would free up more room for deserving players. I like your thinking.

somebody has a boyfriend!