April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 04:20 PM) Why aren't you reading the thread correctly? 1. Read the 1st post word for word. No, I'm reading it correctly. It's your analysis that's flawed. Having the best numbers in franchise history and being the greatest player in franchise history are not the same thing.
April 7, 200916 yr Author QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 10:16 PM) No, I'm reading it correctly. It's your analysis that's flawed. Having the best numbers in franchise history and being the greatest player in franchise history are not the same thing. No. You are STILL not reading it correctly. You still have not acknowledged point #1 and have not come to the realization that I did not bring up Collins. Actually, I can see where you would say not to compare eras IF Collins posted the majority of his SOX numbers during the deadball era, but the majority of his Sox years were AFTER the dead ball era. during the Dead Ball Era with the sox Collins posted batting averages of 1915 .332 1916 .308 1917 .289 1918 .276 1919 .319 The year's with the Sox after the dead ball era? 1920 .372 1921 .337 1922 .324 1923 .360 1924 .349 1925 .346 1926 .344 Good averages if you don't care much for extra base hits. As long as Ruth,Aaron and Griffey are compared, I think it would be ok to Compare Collins/Thomas. Start posting facts. You are the one with a FLAWED analysis. You provide strong opinions with no substance.
April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 04:45 PM) Why are you comparing stats from a player who played in the early 1900s to those from a guy who played 60 years later? You're right, you have to adjust for the era by using a stat like OPS+. Collins topped 150 for the Sox once (165). Frank top 165 in each of his first eight seasons including a staggering 211 in '94. That's a massive amount of ground for Collins to make up with his defense.
April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 08:01 PM) No. You are STILL not reading it correctly. You still have not acknowledged point #1 and have not come to the realization that I did not bring up Collins. Start posting facts. You are the one with a FLAWED analysis. You provide strong opinions with no substance. I realize that this may come as a shocker to you, but pitchers are players as well. Care to explain how you're going to compare Frank to Ed Walsh?
April 7, 200916 yr Author QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 12:16 AM) I realize that this may come as a shocker to you, but pitchers are players as well. Care to explain how you're going to compare Frank to Ed Walsh? What are you talking about?
April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (Jeremy @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 10:35 PM) You're right, you have to adjust for the era by using a stat like OPS+. Collins topped 150 for the Sox once (165). Frank top 165 in each of his first eight seasons including a staggering 211 in '94. That's a massive amount of ground for Collins to make up with his defense. A small part of me dies whenever I think about what could've been in 1994. Frank was having one of the great statistical seasons in the history of the sport. And it could've easily went down as the greatest statistical season in the history of the sport.
April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 09:18 PM) What are you talking about? I'm talking about THIS... QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 07:49 PM) He has the greatest numbers in franchise history. He is the greatest White Sox player of all time. Please explain how Frank was a "greater player" than Ed Walsh, and provide your basis for comparison. The last time I checked, pitchers are players as well. My point is that, unless your team was lucky enough to have Babe Ruth or Willie Mays or your franchise is only a decade old, it's almost impossible to determine a franchise's "greatest player" of all time. Was Stan Musial really a better player than Bob Gibson? Comparing players who put on a Sox uni 80 years apart is almost inherently a case of "apples and oranges," and comparing position players to pitchers muddles the situation even further.
April 7, 200916 yr Author QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) I'm talking about THIS... Please explain how Frank was a "greater player" than Ed Walsh, and provide your basis for comparison. The last time I checked, pitchers are players as well. My point is that, unless your team was lucky enough to have Babe Ruth or Willie Mays or your franchise is only a decade old, it's almost impossible to determine a franchise's "greatest player" of all time. Was Stan Musial really a better player than Bob Gibson? Comparing players who put on a Sox uni 80 years apart is almost inherently a case of "apples and oranges," and comparing position players to pitchers muddles the situation even further. So you are going to compare a Dead ball era pitcher to our franchise leader in just about every offensive category, a guy who was clean during a tainted era? You obviously have some hatred for Frank Thomas. Get over it.
April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 12:16 AM) I realize that this may come as a shocker to you, but pitchers are players as well. Care to explain how you're going to compare Frank to Ed Walsh? What does this have to do with the topic rangercal tried to start?
April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 12:57 AM) A small part of me dies whenever I think about what could've been in 1994. Frank was having one of the great statistical seasons in the history of the sport. And it could've easily went down as the greatest statistical season in the history of the sport. It very well could've been. That year was just insanity.
April 7, 200916 yr I want Frank to bat 3rd and play first /patiently waits for rangercal to ask if I read the thread
April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 08:54 AM) So you are going to compare a Dead ball era pitcher to our franchise leader in just about every offensive category, a guy who was clean during a tainted era? You obviously have some hatred for Frank Thomas. Get over it. Yeah, and that would explain why a #35 jersey currently hangs in my closet. Good one. You're obviously a Frank fanboy who is massively biased in dismissing the accomplishments of a HOF pitcher who is the all-time career leader in ERA (1.82) and has a career 1.00 WHIP. Walsh's 13 years with the Sox included a 40-win season, two 27-win seasons, three 300+ inning seasons, and two 400+ inning seasons. Walsh was clearly one of the greatest pitchers to ever play the game and your dismissal of him as a "dead ball era" pitcher is nothing short of weak. I'm not advocating Walsh as the greatest Sox player ever, but using him as an example of the folly of comparing completely different players from completely different eras. Edited April 7, 200916 yr by WCSox
April 7, 200916 yr Author QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) Yeah, and that would explain why a #35 jersey currently hangs in my closet. Good one. You're obviously a Frank fanboy who is massively biased in dismissing the accomplishments of a HOF pitcher who is the all-time career leader in ERA (1.82) and has a career 1.00 WHIP. Walsh's 13 years with the Sox included a 40-win season, two 27-win seasons, three 300+ inning seasons, and two 400+ inning seasons. Walsh was clearly one of the greatest pitchers to ever play the game and your dismissal of him as a "dead ball era" pitcher is nothing short of weak. I'm not advocating Walsh as the greatest Sox player ever, but using him as an example of the folly of comparing completely different players from completely different eras. Why don't you start a new thread and quit hijacking my thread? Dead Ball era pitchers should be closely looked at, but it was the dead ball era so they never get the same recognition for winning 40 games like today's pitchers would. You have a better point with Collins, but that is not what this thread is about. Nice to see you post numbers for a change though. That's the 1st post from you I took somewhat seriously.
April 7, 200916 yr Author QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 01:39 PM) I want Frank to bat 3rd and play first /patiently waits for rangercal to ask if I read the thread
April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 12:01 PM) Why don't you start a new thread and quit hijacking my thread? I asked you to justify your "Frank is the greatest Sox player ever" statement and you threw a "You hate Frank!" hissy fit. When you make dubious claims on this board, you're going to get called on it. Dead Ball era pitchers should be closely looked at, but it was the dead ball era so they never get the same recognition for winning 40 games like today's pitchers would. Again, you fail to recognize the obvious. Name a modern-era pitcher who could throw 2900 innings and 250 CGs over just 13 seasons, while being absolutely dominant in the prime of his career. Nice to see you post numbers for a change though. That's the 1st post from you I took somewhat seriously. I don't know what's worse: your assertion that Frank is the best ever and that Ed Walsh shouldn't even be considered, your refusal to defend your position, or your assertion that the Sox should re-sign Frank to some stupid, symbolic one-day contract. Combined, they make for one really poor thread.
April 7, 200916 yr Author QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) When I chimed in with Matt Walsh (who no one gives a f*** about) it was the start for one really poor thread. Fixed jk I'm done man. If you really care that much about Walsh, start a new thread and I might chime in. If not, I'm dropping it now, because this thread is about Frank Thomas.
April 7, 200916 yr QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 12:26 PM) Fixed jk I'm done man. If you really care that much about Walsh, start a new thread and I might chime in. If not, I'm dropping it now, because this thread is about Frank Thomas. Fair enough.
April 8, 200916 yr QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 09:49 PM) He says he's not ready to call it a career. If nobody calls, I hope we do before the season is over. I'm not talking about filling a role, I'm talking about closing his career with us. He has the greatest numbers in franchise history. He is the greatest White Sox player of all time. If our organization has any class, they will do the right thing. Here is the latest story I found on him http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...sp&c_id=mlb Edit: As stated above , not filling a role. Sign him to a 1 day contract and let him retire with us. There are no 1 day contracts in MLB! The NFL has them though.
April 8, 200916 yr There are no 1 day contracts in MLB! The NFL has them though. Jeff Nelson and JT Snow say otherwise.
April 8, 200916 yr Retrire Frank, and keep that lifetime batting average over .300 (.301) This has always bothered me. Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs and Pete Rose get remembered for being hitters with their BA's. Frank Thomas will be remembered as a slugger and an on base machine. Who cares about batting average? It also grinds my gears how a fair amount of Sox fans, who can remember, rip on John Kruk retiring just to keep his BA at .300. Why is that different for Frank? Personally I'd rather see him get to 600 home runs if it meant his career BA would drop to .275-/280 (that would take a lot.)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.