Unload...

[WCSox]

So do I get to cherry-pick 5 comparable starters from the AL at that time that could easily step in and replace what the Sox rotation did to minimize their importance? And no, the SP would not have been able to overcome the massive difference between Frank and Mo Vaughn. They are both black, though. So I guess you can hang on to that.

 

Frank and Mo Vaughn were both elite hitters who won MVPs. Sure, Frank was better, but your assertion that the Sox wouldn't have won the division with Vaughn instead of Frank is silly. We can agree to disagree on that, as your man-love for Frank seems to be getting in the way of your ability to think objectively.

 

Frank Thomas was the single most important player by a wide margin on that '93 team. Sure, it's easy to say SP > Frank because that's basically 4 guys against 1. But that's a straw-man argument. And a pretty weak one at that.

 

And you apparently don't know what a straw man argument is, either.

Edited May 21, 2010 by WCSox

[Jordan4life_2007]

Frank and Mo Vaughn were both elite hitters who won MVPs. Sure, Frank was better, but your assertion that the Sox wouldn't have won the division with Vaughn instead of Frank is silly. We can agree to disagree on that, as your man-love for Frank seems to be getting in the way of your ability to think objectively.

 

And your lame attempt to try to minimize Frank's importance by overrating Mo Vaughn is just as silly.

 

And you apparently don't know what a straw man argument is, either.

 

I know exactly what it is. Your argument is basically 4 > 1. That's pretty easy to tear apart in this case. The Giants had a pretty good pitching staff in 2002 when they were 5 outs away from a title. But I'll still go out on a limb and say Barry Bonds was just a tad more important.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Jordan4life

[WCSox]

I've said all that I have to say. Have a nice evening.

 

[SoxAce]

Frank and Mo Vaughn were both elite hitters who won MVPs. Sure, Frank was better, but your assertion that the Sox wouldn't have won the division with Vaughn instead of Frank is silly. We can agree to disagree on that, as your man-love for Frank seems to be getting in the way of your ability to think objectively.

 

I actually agree with J4L on this one. There is a reason Hargrove (the Indians manager at the time of course) said that pitchers should not be alone with Frank at the dish. Or why Ted Williams called him one of the best RH hitters he has ever seen during that era.

 

93' Mo: .297-.390-.525-.915 139 OPS+ BB:79 SO:130 (29 HR 101 RBI) 3.3 WAR

93' Frank: .317-.426-.607-1.033 177 OPS+ BB:112 SO:54 (41 HR 128 RBI) 6.7 WAR

 

Both great hitters like you said. But you can get Mo Vaughn out. Frank was just a freak of nature.

Edited May 21, 2010 by SoxAce

[WCSox]

I actually agree with J4L on this one. There is a reason Hargrove (the Indians manager at the time of course) said that pitchers should not be alone with Frank at the dish. Or why Ted Williams called him one of the best RH hitters he has ever seen during that era.

 

93' Mo: .297-.390-.525-.915 139 OPS+ BB:79 SO:130 (29 HR 101 RBI) 3.3 WAR

93' Frank: .317-.426-.607-1.033 177 OPS+ BB:112 SO:54 (41 HR 128 RBI) 6.7 WAR

 

Both great hitters like you said. But you can get Mo Vaughn out. Frank was just a freak of nature.

 

In the historical sense, I'd say that Mo was more of a "very good" hitter than a "great" one. And, at the very least, Mo wasn't quite at his prime in '93.

 

I also think that the '93 Sox, having three other hitters with an OPS+ of 110 or higher and five other players with an OBP of .350 or higher, had more than enough of an offensive supporting cast to replace a "great" hitter with a "very good" one and still ride their outstanding pitching to a division title. I don't give much credence to WAR, but the Sox won the AL West by a comfortable 8 games that year, so even this statistical analysis supports my argument.

Edited May 21, 2010 by WCSox

[MattZakrowski]

I actually agree with J4L on this one. There is a reason Hargrove (the Indians manager at the time of course) said that pitchers should not be alone with Frank at the dish. Or why Ted Williams called him one of the best RH hitters he has ever seen during that era.

 

93' Mo: .297-.390-.525-.915 139 OPS+ BB:79 SO:130 (29 HR 101 RBI) 3.3 WAR

93' Frank: .317-.426-.607-1.033 177 OPS+ BB:112 SO:54 (41 HR 128 RBI) 6.7 WAR

 

Both great hitters like you said. But you can get Mo Vaughn out. Frank was just a freak of nature.

 

Seeing as we won the division by 8 games, we'd have still won it with a replacement level 1B if you take WAR as a literal win measurement metric, but when you win a division by 8 games, you can say that about almost any player on a team. Frank is either the second or third best hitter I've ever seen.

[iamshack]

Seeing as we won the division by 8 games, we'd have still won it with a replacement level 1B if you take WAR as a literal win measurement metric, but when you win a division by 8 games, you can say that about almost any player on a team. Frank is either the second or third best hitter I've ever seen.

I think what WAR fails to take into account, especially in Frank's case, is the benefit he had on the rest of the hitters in our lineup. Undoubtedly SEVERAL hitters in our lineup benefitted tremendously from the damage (and potential damage) Frank did in our lineup. Take Frank out of that lineup, and replace him with a replacement-level player, and many of the other hitters around him probably see a pretty significant drop in their production as well. The entire character of the offense would have been dramatically affected.

[WCSox]

I think what WAR fails to take into account, especially in Frank's case, is the benefit he had on the rest of the hitters in our lineup. Undoubtedly SEVERAL hitters in our lineup benefitted tremendously from the damage (and potential damage) Frank did in our lineup. Take Frank out of that lineup, and replace him with a replacement-level player, and many of the other hitters around him probably see a pretty significant drop in their production as well. The entire character of the offense would have been dramatically affected.

 

One thing that some people (not necessarily you) tend to forget about the '93 Sox is that Frank's supporting cast was pretty solid. And many of these guys were highly-productive players on previous teams...

 

Tim Raines - 880 OPS, .401 OBP, 21 SB

Robin Ventura - .820 OPS, 22 HR, 27 2B

Ellis Burks - .793 OPS, 24 2B

Lance Johnson - .311 BA, 35 SB

Joey Cora - .351 OBP

 

Not a ton of HR power in that lineup, but when SIX of your starters are posting an OBP of .350 or higher, you're going to score runs.

 

[iamshack]

One thing that some people (not necessarily you) tend to forget about the '93 Sox is that Frank's supporting cast was pretty solid. And many of these guys were highly-productive players on previous teams...

 

Tim Raines - 880 OPS, .401 OBP, 21 SB

Robin Ventura - .820 OPS, 22 HR, 27 2B

Ellis Burks - .793 OPS, 24 2B

Lance Johnson - .311 BA, 35 SB

Joey Cora - .351 OBP

 

Not a ton of HR power in that lineup, but when SIX of your starters are posting an OBP of .350 or higher, you're going to score runs.

Absolutely. But how many of those guys experienced some significant additional success because of Frank being the monster offensive force that he was?

 

I will admit that Joey posting a .351 OBP in front of Frank there is a minor miracle. Considering how limited his offensive skills were, he saw an incredible number of pitches and the fact that they didn't just throw him meatball fastballs to force him to hit his way on base is pretty surprising to me.

[greg775]

The homestand ended with a 2-3 record, and now the Sox go to Cleveland and Tampa Bay. They are a combined 2-7 against those teams, and five of the Indians’ 16 wins have come against the Sox.

 

A line in the Tribune story.

Another reason for KW to think about unloading salary as this team continues to struggle heading into June.

[Balta1701]

A line in the Tribune story.

Another reason for KW to think about unloading salary as this team continues to struggle heading into June.

The Indians are without Sizemore and Cabrera.

 

If we can't take 2 of 3 in this series, with D1, Peavy, and Buehrle on the mound, there's something seriously wrong.

[ThunderBolt]

The Indians are without Sizemore and Cabrera.

 

If we can't take 2 of 3 in this series, with D1, Peavy, and Buehrle on the mound, there's something seriously wrong.

Honestly, it's not like either of those players really did anything when the Indians kicked our asses fthe first time anyway. The pitching shut us down.

[greg775]

The Indians are without Sizemore and Cabrera.

 

You really think that matters a bit?

Sox can lose a series to anybody at any time no matter who the opposition throws out there or how few fans there are in the stands.

Edited May 24, 2010 by greg775

[bighurt574]

The Indians are without Sizemore and Cabrera.

 

If we can't take 2 of 3 in this series, with D1, Peavy, and Buehrle on the mound, there's something seriously wrong.

 

Sadly, 2/3 doesn't even do all that much, especially with 4 @TB next.

 

If we're going to make any noise, this is really a series we need to sweep.

[greg775]

Four at Tampa Bay might really be the start of the firesale and/or coaching staff demotions.

I don't know how anybody would figure we'd win more than one of those four. One win max. You are right. Sox need to sweep this series somehow heading into 0-for-4 land or 1-for-3 land.

[dyuen]

The Indians are without Sizemore and Cabrera.

 

If we can't take 2 of 3 in this series, with D1, Peavy, and Buehrle on the mound, there's something seriously wrong.

 

dude i think we both know already that there is something seriously wrong

[fathom]

Four at Tampa Bay might really be the start of the firesale and/or coaching staff demotions.

I don't know how anybody would figure we'd win more than one of those four. One win max. You are right. Sox need to sweep this series somehow heading into 0-for-4 land or 1-for-3 land.

 

We actually play Tampa pretty tough.

[greg775]

Maybe so, but if you had to bet your life savings or be killed on the spot, would you actually bet for anything better than a split?

I think 3 of 4 for Tampa is the safe bet with a TB sweep a possibility.

 

This roadtrip could give a lot of support to the Ozzie haters.

If we don't win the Cleveland series and get boatraced by TB, he probably would deserve to be fired, judging on our overall performance and the ridiculousness of getting beat by the Indians again.

He won't be fired, cause he's Ozzie, but this road trip will say a lot about whether our team is mediocre or simply rotten.

Edited May 24, 2010 by greg775

[SoxAce]

The Indians are without Sizemore and Cabrera.

 

If we can't take 2 of 3 in this series, with D1, Peavy, and Buehrle on the mound, there's something seriously wrong.

 

We shouldn't be 1-5 against that even with those two in the line-up.

[fathom]

He won't be fired, cause he's Ozzie, but this road trip will say a lot about whether our team is mediocre or simply rotten.

 

It's so scary people think this way. No one person should ever be more important than the success of the organization.

Edited May 24, 2010 by fathom

[southsider2k5]

Sadly, 2/3 doesn't even do all that much, especially with 4 @TB next.

 

If we're going to make any noise, this is really a series we need to sweep.

 

We have a much better record against .500+ teams than we do against losing teams.

[southsider2k5]

It's so scary people think this way. No one person should ever be more important than the success of the organization.

 

I have yet to hear anyone from the organization say anything remotely like this, so it really doesn't matter. Who cares what regular fans think at the end of the day?

[greg775]

It's so scary people think this way. No one person should ever be more important than the success of the organization.

 

A 1-5 record on this road trip combined with the total performance of the team would probably be cause for canning a manager of a team that many picked to win the division.

The difference is he has a track record of being a good manager.

Big difference.