Who was the White Sox opening day 3rd baseman in 2000?

The Milkman Herbert Perry

I'll go with Craig Wilson

I'll go with Craig Wilson

 

It was Craig Wilson.

 

I simply guessed...and guessed wrong.

Edited April 8, 200817 yr by Y2HH

This might be a trick question though.

I remember it was either the first or second game of the season... Valentin was hurt so Wilson played SS for a game or two.

 

If it wasn't Craig Wilson, The Milkman wasn't around yet... It would have been Paul Konerko.

You sure it wasn't Greg Norton?

I'm going with Carlos Lee (this is almost definitely wrong). I know PK played third that season, but I'm not sure about opening day.

Edited April 8, 200817 yr by G&T

Who was the White Sox opening day 3rd baseman in 2000?

 

Craig Wilson

 

Jerry Manual was Manager of the Year and Frank got robbed as the MVP to 'roid boy.

 

Edit:

 

Did a couple searches, and there is conflicting information. But, I would say it is not Wilson.

Konerko and he went 2-4 with a HR and double. I love Baseball-reference.com

I know you may all be suprised by this, but that means Wikipedia is wrong! They have Craig Wilson listed as opening day starter at 3B!

 

And I'm not sure why I thought Herbert Perry was our 3B then...but I did.

I know you may all be suprised by this, but that means Wikipedia is wrong! They have Craig Wilson listed as opening day starter at 3B!

 

And I'm not sure why I thought Herbert Perry was our 3B then...but I did.

 

wiki wrong? Clear your cache

I know you may all be suprised by this, but that means Wikipedia is wrong! They have Craig Wilson listed as opening day starter at 3B!

 

And I'm not sure why I thought Herbert Perry was our 3B then...but I did.

If wikipedia is wrong, that means almost every paper I've written the last four years could be factually incorrect.

 

And I'm not sure why I thought Herbert Perry was our 3B then...but I did.

 

Herbert came around about a month into the season and held onto the job.

I think Wilson's career ended after his 20 games as the 3B for the Sox in 2000.

If wikipedia is wrong, that means almost every paper I've written the last four years could be factually incorrect.

 

I would never use wiki as a cited source, but I do look at the discussion pages and their sources for good ideas. Usually credibility is just two clicks away.

I would never use wiki as a cited source, but I do look at the discussion pages and their sources for good ideas. Usually credibility is just two clicks away.

 

Indeed. Anyone who believes Wiki on face value deserves what they get.

Indeed. Anyone who believes Wiki on face value deserves what they get.

 

Like pages getting edited by the likes of us.

I would never use wiki as a cited source, but I do look at the discussion pages and their sources for good ideas. Usually credibility is just two clicks away.

 

I've given students failing grades on papers a few years ago for inaccurate information with wikipedia as sources. I now tell them if it's referenced as a source they will fail. The best source of information is primary research anyway not research cited in another report.

I've given students failing grades on papers a few years ago for inaccurate information with wikipedia as sources. I now tell them if it's referenced as a source they will fail. The best source of information is primary research anyway not research cited in another report.

 

I agree, but I see a future where that will change. I've read a couple of studies that wiki was as accurate as most other encyclopedias. Basically the difference is in having many volunteers versus paying someone to write and article. The bigger the subject, the more accurate it becomes. But today, not credible enough.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-scores...id=200004030TEX

 

 

I've given students failing grades on papers a few years ago for inaccurate information with wikipedia as sources. I now tell them if it's referenced as a source they will fail. The best source of information is primary research anyway not research cited in another report.

 

Back when I was doing papers in college, the Internet was kind of an unknown thing still...so if you cited the Internet, teachers were afraid to disagree with it. I used this to my advantage quite a bit...sometimes more than I should have. More often than not, my first 2 or 3 references were legit, then the rest were all made up Internet based references...I scammed quite a few A's and B's that way in college (UIC) with totally made up facts.

 

Today, since almost everyone has access to the Internet (which means they have access to the web, which 99% of people think *IS* the Internet), this scam doesn't work as effectivly.

 

I also used to rip off open source code for programming sections of my labs (Computer Science), or hacking/cracking my way through the network before network security was even a thing to steal other peoples work and hand it in as my own.

 

All of that led to a successful career in Internet Security.

 

So be sure to tell your students...sometimes, cheaters DO win.

It was Paulie! (It was on the Scoreboard yesterday.)

Konerko was the home opening day 3b, Craig Wilson started the first game of 2000 at 3b.

I would never use wiki as a cited source, but I do look at the discussion pages and their sources for good ideas. Usually credibility is just two clicks away.

 

 

Konerko was the home opening day 3b, Craig Wilson started the first game of 2000 at 3b.

So wikipedia wins again?

So wikipedia wins again?

I don't know, it depends on the context of the scoreboard person.

 

Perhaps it was pertaining to the Sox home opener.

 

 

I don't know, it depends on the context of the scoreboard person.

 

Perhaps it was pertaining to the Sox home opener.

It was ... I researched, wrote and displayed the question: Who was the White Sox starting third baseman in the 2000 home opener? and the answer was Paul Konerko. The cool thing about that was I saw Paulie motion to the board when it was up there which is a rarity.