best Sox player of all-time

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I turned 10 in Novenber of that year, but I can say for sure that I was a Sox fan as far back as 1964.  Probably even earlier, but I can't remember any particular thing that I can pinpoint as earlier that has to do with baseball or the Sox.

 

And I turned 10 in December of 67' . Favorite players Ken Berry and Joel Horlen. But I'd vote for Frank as best though his HOF election because of DH ing is not guaranteed. Last week I hear Rex Hudler (Angel's color man ) ask Steve Physioc (Angels PBP man ) if he thought Frank belongs in the HOF and his answer was "not yet . " I really don't know what else Frank can do to convince some of these people except get 500 HR. His credentials already should make him a lock.

Edited June 1, 2005 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[hammerhead johnson]

Ed Walsh

2964 IP

195-126

0.99 WHIP

1.82 ERA

 

That 1.82 ERA is the best for an SP in Major League history.

 

Might as well throw him in as an option, yeah?

[rangercal]

Ed Walsh

2964 IP

195-126

0.99 WHIP

1.82 ERA

 

That 1.82 ERA is the best for an SP in Major League history.

 

Might as well throw him in as an option, yeah?

*cough* dead ball era *cough*

[Texsox]

Any thoughts on Big Frank's lack of playing time on the defense? I will agree that Frank is the greatest batter I have seen. I am troubled voting him the greatest Sox player of all time for the same reasons I would have trouble voting for a pitcher, the lack of all around play.

 

And please, don't take this as a Frank bash. I love watching Frank battle a pitcher. I don't want to disrespect the man.

[southsider2k5]

*cough* dead ball era *cough*

 

So should we discount Frank's numbers because he played in the "live" ball era?

[ISF]

I didn't vote for Frank, because I feel best of all-time should include defensive career as well as offensive.

 

IMO, that came down to Shoeless or Nellie. I went with Nellie.

[rangercal]

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.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

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.

[hammerhead johnson]

*cough* dead ball era *cough*

 

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.

[hammerhead johnson]

ed walsh no way in hell would have a whip under 1.

 

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.

Edited June 1, 2005 by hammerhead johnson

[RockRaines]

Frank is one of the best hitters of this ERA. He is the best to ever play in chicago. His multiple 300 BA 100 RBI 100 walks 100 hits 30 hr seasons I believe has only been matched by Ted Williams who did it three times. I believe Frank did it 11 times. I could be wrong, it was in the paper not too long ago. Not to mention that he is a three time AL MVP, taking one away from the cheater Giambi.

[qwerty]

Frank is one of the best hitters of this ERA.  He is the best to ever play in chicago.  His multiple 300 BA 100 RBI 100 walks 100 hits 30 hr seasons I believe has only been matched by Ted Williams who did it three times. I believe Frank did it 11 times.  I could be wrong, it was in the paper not too long ago.  Not to mention that he is a three time AL MVP, taking one away from the cheater Giambi.

 

 

From 1991--his first full season in Chicago--to 1997, Thomas became the only player in history to hit better than .300 with at least 20 home runs, 100 RBI, 100 walks and 100 runs scored for seven consecutive seasons.

 

Only Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams and Jason Giambi accomplished that feat for as many as four consecutive seasons.

 

Frank has recorded at least 100 RBI, 100 walks and 100 runs scored in the same year nine times, third most in baseball history behind Babe Ruth (12) and Lou Gehrig (11)

Edited June 1, 2005 by qwerty

[rangercal]

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.

[rangercal]

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.

Edited June 1, 2005 by rangercal

[rangercal]

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.

[hammerhead johnson]

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 help determines 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.

 

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.

[rangercal]

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

[southsider2k5]

Wild Pitches

1906-11-2

1907-14-1

1908-10-8

1911-8-7

1912-10-5   

There was no such thing as a passed ball in that era.

[rangercal]

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.

[rangercal]

There was no such thing as a passed ball in that era.

regardless, he was still among the league leaders .

[RockRaines]

Pretty elite company if you ask me...but thats just my opinion. :rolly

[hammerhead johnson]

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.

 

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

[rangercal]

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.

[Wanne]

While Carlton and Frank rank right up there at the top...still...one of my ALL-TIME favorites and really needs to be on this list IMO...Dick Allen.

 

[rangercal]

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