BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: ESPN Chicago: Levine: Thomas steers clear of steroid talk

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, February 12, 2010

ESPN Chicago: Levine: Thomas steers clear of steroid talk

And Holy Craperal! Ozzie Guillen thinks Thomas is better than Luis Aparicio and Nellie Fox! (trips over carreon luggage)

I covered Thomas his entire career from Aug. 2, 1990 until he walked out as a world champion with the 2005 White Sox. I remember him as a guy who was totally self-immersed in his at-bats. Certainly all great players are selfish about getting on base, and Frank was no different. Over the years, some teammates took exception to the fact that Thomas would take a walk on a borderline pitch rather than trying to put a ball in play and drive in a runner from third base.

In fairness to Thomas, his strike zone was his strike zone. Until 2001, Thomas and the umpires saw eye to eye on balls and strikes. During that season, Thomas made the mistake of questioning the umpires publicly which ended up in him losing the inside corner for the rest of his career.

From 2001 on, Thomas never hit higher than .277. In 2000, the Big Hurt’s career average was over .320. He ended up hitting a composite .301. To his credit, Thomas re-invented himself, becoming a pull hitter after spending the first 10 seasons of his career using the whole field.

“The game is one of adjustment,” Thomas said Friday. “I did what I had to do after pitchers started to pound the insider corner on me. You have to make adjustments. That’s the nature of the game.”

Repoz Posted: February 12, 2010 at 07:35 PM | 45 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, History, Hall of Fame, Chi White Sox, Steroids

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Josh1 Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:00 PM (#3459535)

How are walks selfish? Sportswriters often bash them, and historically racking up RBI at the cost of outs gets MVP votes. Joe Carter, Juan Gonzalez (Tigers version), Jim Rice, and countless others made a lot more money and achieved a lot more fame than their production justified, and Frank is the selfish one?

2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3459538)

I always thought walks were self-less. Like "I'd rather get on-base for the good of the team, than try to grab the headlines with a big hit." I've never understood why the CW is exactly the opposite.

3. Biscuit_pants Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:08 PM (#3459543)

How are walks selfish? Sportswriters often bash them, and historically racking up RBI at the cost of outs gets MVP votes. Joe Carter, Juan Gonzalez (Tigers version), Jim Rice, and countless others made a lot more money and achieved a lot more fame than their production justified, and Frank is the selfish one?

The thought was that Thomas was a LOT more likely to drive in the run than the people below him so by taking a walk the chances of scoring went down. He was not criticized for taking the walks with bases empty or a runner on first but with runners in scoring position.

4. Hack Wilson Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:09 PM (#3459544)

Whether that means retiring his No. 35 or adding to the statue collection on the outfield concourse,

No put the statue near first base, Frank's defense was pretty statuesque toward the end.

And Ozzie probably never saw Nellie Fox play, players were better in the 50s.

5. Joe Mauer Power Hour Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3459545)

How are walks selfish?

It's because of those god damn stat geeks! They love walks and they don't care about winning! They just want to have a high OPS or VORP or FLURG! WAR doesn't actually lead to real wins in the standings!

6. hokieneer Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:19 PM (#3459558)

Thomas made the mistake of questioning the umpires publicly which ended up in him losing the inside corner for the rest of his career.

“The game is one of adjustment,” Thomas said Friday. “I did what I had to do after pitchers started to pound the insider corner on me. You have to make adjustments.

Couldn't have been the bat speed slipping that caused him to get pounded more inside. It had to be a big conspiracy.

7. Josh1 Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:26 PM (#3459566)

The thought was that Thomas was a LOT more likely to drive in the run than the people below him

The White Sox were usually able to put a good hitter behind Frank during his prime -- Ventura, Baines, Belle, Franco, and Pasqua were all strong hitters when they followed him; only George Bell was mediocre.

8. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:42 PM (#3459579)

without question the most popular player among fans in White Sox history.

I wouldn't say that.

9. hokieneer Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:49 PM (#3459587)

without question the most popular player among fans in White Sox history.

Scotty Pods is probably more popular.

10. Cris E Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:50 PM (#3459589)

11. Biscuit_pants Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:52 PM (#3459591)

The White Sox were usually able to put a good hitter behind Frank during his prime -- Ventura, Baines, Belle, Franco, and Pasqua were all strong hitters when they followed him; only George Bell was mediocre.

Not defending the thought, just repeating it. Also none of those hitters really could carry Thomas' jock hitting wise at the time.

12. Joe Mauer Power Hour Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:55 PM (#3459592)

Ted Williams was another hitter who was selfish for walking too much. Apparently what kept him from greatness was not driving in enough runs (or something - frankly I'm a bit confused by the entire argument.)

I think the most confusing part might be "kept him from greatness." When I think of Ted Williams, greatness is one of the first things that comes to mind.

13. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 12, 2010 at 08:58 PM (#3459595)

besides--all them walks clog the bases

14. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:04 PM (#3459601)

This is the first time I have heard the theory that Frank's decline was due to the umps turning on him. I doubt there was some concerted effort on a large enough scale to cause that much of a change but what do I know?

15. The Curly W Theory Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:10 PM (#3459607)

16. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:15 PM (#3459613)

Okay, I have a serious question for White Sox fans: in today's Tribune, Dave Van Dyck said Frank Thomas was "arguably" the White Sox greatest hitter of all time. Who else do you think is in that argument?

Depending on who you're arguing with, it's probably Shoeless Joe and Eddie Collins or Carlos Quentin and Gordon Beckham.

17. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:23 PM (#3459619)

The Sox have had a couple of guys who were great hitters but weren't with the team that long. Dick Allen hit .307/.398/.589 in three seasons with the Sox, in an era where runs were very hard to come by. He had a Big Hurt-esque 181 OPS+ with the Sox.

Joe Jackson was there for roughly four and a half seasons, and wasn't quite as good as Allen: .340/.407/.499, but just a 159 OPS+. Thomas has him beat easily.

18. Josh1 Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:30 PM (#3459624)

The thought was that Thomas was a LOT more likely to drive in the run than the people below him so by taking a walk the chances of scoring went down. He was not criticized for taking the walks with bases empty or a runner on first but with runners in scoring position.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, obviously no one posting on here agrees with this reasoning, but it is of course what critics said about Thomas and Williams. Let's counter-factually assume the critics' reasoning was correct that these guys should have swung more for the benefit of the team. In this case the players aren't contributing as much as they could and deserve criticism, but I just don't understand how they're being selfish: they're passing up the glory of the RBI for the mediocrity of the walk. They're being selfless to the point of fault, not selfish. They're the exact opposite of the Ayn Rand style ideal selfishness -- the superior are stepping back and letting the mediocre take the lead.

19. Ron Johnson Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:38 PM (#3459628)

#14 I've posted this before but I think it bears repeating. Thomas had a few unexpectedly rocky years in the wake of a messy divorce. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that a player could get screwed up in that kind of situation, but it manifested itself in a screwy way.

In 1998 he hit .277/.396/.516 vs RHP. About 90 points of OPS lower than what you'd expect but how many players would consider this unacceptable?

He just flat stunk against lefties. .226/.327/.365. I have no idea how almost all of his decline can come against LHP. According to ESPN, he'd hit .385/.507/.815 in the previous 3 years against lefties.

You can apply this to the ump conspiracy theory too.

20. KingKaufman Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:38 PM (#3459629)

Thomas made the mistake of questioning the umpires publicly which ended up in him losing the inside corner for the rest of his career.

If this is true -- and I have not the slightest idea whether it is or not -- how is it not just as shocking and just as damning as the Tim Donaghy scandal in the NBA?

Maybe more shocking. Donaghy affected the outcomes of games for money. This would have been umpires doing the same for ... peevishness?

21. Biscuit_pants Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:40 PM (#3459630)

obviously no one posting on here agrees with this reasoning, but it is of course what critics said about Thomas and Williams. Let's counter-factually assume the critics' reasoning was correct that these guys should have swung more for the benefit of the team. In this case the players aren't contributing as much as they could and deserve criticism, but I just don't understand how they're being selfish: they're passing up the glory of the RBI for the mediocrity of the walk. They're being selfless to the point of fault, not selfish. They're the exact opposite of the Ayn Rand style ideal selfishness -- the superior are stepping back and letting the mediocre take the lead.

Gotchya. They used the word selfish to mean he refused to expand his zone even when, they thought, it would help the team.

22. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:42 PM (#3459633)

I remember Thomas, early in his career, complaining about called strikes at the knees that he thought were inside. He didn't make a big deal about it, but I don't remember a big deal later on when he questioned the umpires publicly.

23. Repoz

Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:42 PM (#3459635)

It's because of those god damn stat geeks! They love walks and they don't care about winning! They just want to have a high OPS or VORP or FLURG! WAR doesn't actually lead to real wins in the standings!

Did you clip that from Harold Reynolds? He's been pissin' and moaning all weak about how "plate discipline" doesn't lead to runs or some such.

24. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:50 PM (#3459640)

He just flat stunk against lefties. .226/.327/.365. I have no idea how almost all of his decline can come against LHP. According to ESPN, he'd hit .385/.507/.815 in the previous 3 years against lefties.

He recovered a little to .253/.387/.453 vs LHP in 1999, and he was back at .407/.549/.824 (242 OPS+) in 2000. Maybe his ex-wife was left-handed.

25. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:58 PM (#3459647)

Okay, I have a serious question for White Sox fans: in today's Tribune, Dave Van Dyck said Frank Thomas was "arguably" the White Sox greatest hitter of all time. Who else do you think is in that argument? Because I can't see much case for anyone else, and I figure I must be forgetting someone obvious. It sure as heck isn't Bill Melton.

Frank Thomas is head and shoulders above all other White Sox hitters. If you're trying to figure out the best White Sox player, maybe Luke Appling or Eddie Collins were better, but there's no argument when it comes to pure hitting.

Just to put things in perspective, here's the list of team leaders in home runs -

1. Frank Thomas, 448
2. Paul Konerko, 319
3. Harold Baines, 221
4. Carlton Fisk, 214
5. Magglio Ordonez, 187
6. Robin Ventura, 171
7. Jermaine Dye, 164
8. Bill Melton, 154
9. Carlos Lee, 152
10. Ron Kittle, 140

The White Sox have not been known for having a lot of power hitters.

26. Artie Ziff Posted: February 12, 2010 at 09:59 PM (#3459649)

Kinda surprising, I guess. I figured one more season for Thomas. The drug issue will always be raised. I'm sure he was involved early, but I still bet he makes the Hall Of Fame on first or second try. Sad to see him go.

27. The Curly W Theory Posted: February 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM (#3459665)

I never cease to be amazed by the Ziffbot.

28. Srul Itza Posted: February 12, 2010 at 10:32 PM (#3459667)

Per BB-REF, and yes some of this is duplicative, Frank Thomas is the career leader on the White Sox in OBP, SLG (and of course OPS), Runs Scored, Total Bases, Doubles, Home Runs, RBIs, Walks (and Strikeouts), OPS+, RC, Adjusted Batting Runs, Adjusted Batting Wins, XBH, IBB, and Sac Flies.

There ain't no arguably about it -- he is clearly the greatest hitter in White Sox history.

29. tl; dr (Voxter)

Posted: February 12, 2010 at 10:48 PM (#3459674)

The drug issue will always be raised.

Thomas may not be the most popular person with the press, but they do seem to think he's clean. He's like the only guy other than Jeter for whom the drug issue is almost never raised, at least as regards his own performance.

30. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: February 12, 2010 at 10:50 PM (#3459678)

Thomas may not be the most popular person with the press, but they do seem to think he's clean. He's like the only guy other than Jeter for whom the drug issue is almost never raised, at least as regards his own performance.

Forget it, Voxter - it's Artietown.

31. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: February 12, 2010 at 10:54 PM (#3459679)

Adj. Batting Runs Rank Player BtRuns PA
1. Frank Thomas 704 8602
2. Eddie Collins 335 7405
3. Minnie Minoso 258 5914

32. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: February 12, 2010 at 11:33 PM (#3459695)

No conspiracy. Personal problems, tad more heft and then age.

33. Walt Davis Posted: February 12, 2010 at 11:41 PM (#3459698)

Man, it's depressing to see Bill Melton all the way down to #8 on that list now. If I had ever cared, I would remember when he set the Sox career record. Just another sign I'm getting old -- and the evil impact of evil steroids!

34. Bob Meta-Meusel Posted: February 13, 2010 at 01:32 AM (#3459737)

The White Sox were usually able to put a good hitter behind Frank during his prime -- Ventura, Baines, Belle, Franco, and Pasqua were all strong hitters when they followed him; only George Bell was mediocre.

Not defending the thought, just repeating it. Also none of those hitters really could carry Thomas' jock hitting wise at the time.

Belle could. Unfortunately, they were only teammates for two years, 1997 and 1998. Thomas was great in '97 and had the bad year in '98, while Belle had an off year in '97 and a great year in '98.

Even as someone who isn't a White Sox fan, I remember thinking before the '97 season started that they might be one of the best 3-4 hitter combinations ever... right up there with Ruth-Gehrig, Aaron-Mathews, Mays-McCovey and maybe one or two others. It was a shame that it never worked out that way.

35. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 13, 2010 at 01:58 AM (#3459743)

How are walks selfish? Sportswriters often bash them, and historically racking up RBI at the cost of outs gets MVP votes. Joe Carter, Juan Gonzalez (Tigers version), Jim Rice, and countless others made a lot more money and achieved a lot more fame than their production justified, and Frank is the selfish one?

The silly theory is that the batter is protecting his batting average at the expense of driving in runs. But as you say, given how much credit players got/get for RBI, it's odd to call that tradeoff "selfish."

36. bjhanke Posted: February 13, 2010 at 04:12 AM (#3459788)

You'll never ever get a "productive out" by taking a walk. If you expand your strike zone, you will make more outs, some of which will end up being productive. I'm serious. I've heard sports media types say this in almost those words. In fact, consider this from the very post that started this thread: "Thomas would take a walk on a borderline pitch rather than trying to put a ball in play and drive in a runner from third base." That is, he was giving up sacrifice flies and slow ground outs for those lousy walks.

And let's face it; we're never going to convince the guys who believe this. Earl Weaver spent his entire career trying to convince them of the value of walks and the three-run innings that result, and all that happened was that he got typed as the manager who loved the three-run homer, not the manager who was right about walks. And Earl had a lot more credibility with the media than the whole of sabermetrics has. - Brock Hanke

37. bbc is prejudice bout men Posted: February 13, 2010 at 04:27 AM (#3459792)

i hear a lot how wonderful it is when hitters swing at pitches out of the zone to "put the ball in play."

i would like to know, of all pitches out of the strike zone that are swung on, what is the contact rate? of those that are hit and not missed, what is the % of hits, fouls, outs and GIDPs? and of the outs, how many were sac flies and groundouts that scored a run?

38. smileyy Posted: February 13, 2010 at 04:30 AM (#3459793)

@34 - Belle/Ramirez. Unfortunately, that was early in Manny's career, when he wasn't quite fully Manny Ramirez yet. Cleveland had to settle for a 147 OPS+ from Manny the year Belle hit 50 HRs...

39. bunyon Posted: February 13, 2010 at 04:34 AM (#3459796)

Personal problems, tad more heft and then age.

So, Big Hurt is the most human of superstars.

40. Tripon Posted: February 13, 2010 at 04:34 AM (#3459797)

Did Thomas get a ring for 2005?

41. Josh1 Posted: February 13, 2010 at 04:49 AM (#3459800)

The silly theory is that the batter is protecting his batting average at the expense of driving in runs.

I had thought of the selfish protection of batting average at the expense of RBI argument, and as you allude, it is logically inconsistent. If sacrificing BA for RBI is good for the team and earns a player glowing articles from the sportswriters, MVP votes, and more money (all of which were probably true in the 80s-90s: Vaughn, Dawson, Bell, Gonzalez, Carter...), yet Thomas refused to do it, he was stubborn and a bad teammate, not selfish. He was acting against his own interest. Selfish behavior occurred if Thomas was batting in a manner benefiting his own fame and pocketbook at the expense of his team. The logically consistent story I can imagine is that Thomas thought most observers and team owners writing the checks believed that BA should not be sacrificed for RBI, but Thomas knew they were wrong yet nonetheless intentionally protected his batting average at the expense of RBI in order to play to the delusions of everyone else at the cost of his team. The logic is torturous.

42. Ron Johnson Posted: February 13, 2010 at 04:53 AM (#3459804)

#37 BBC that varies quite a bit. Best I can tell on the limited data I've seen there are only a handful of players who can actually help the team when putting the ball in play on balls out of the zone.

This is stuff I expect to see more on. Last year's Gold Mine had a little bit on the subject.

43. SoSH U at work Posted: February 13, 2010 at 05:14 AM (#3459806)

Did Thomas get a ring for 2005?

Yes. He was with the club all year, and played some during the regular season.

44. Biscuit_pants Posted: February 13, 2010 at 05:27 AM (#3459808)

#37 BBC that varies quite a bit. Best I can tell on the limited data I've seen there are only a handful of players who can actually help the team when putting the ball in play on balls out of the zone.

I also think it depends on your definition of out of the zone. There are some pitches that are out of the zone that are still good pitches to hit and some that are not going to be hit hard IF contact is made. Players like Vlad, Soriano, and Nomar can hit balls hard that should never be swung at.

It is a hard question to answer. I would guess that the broad answer would be it is not beneficial to swing at balls outside the zone but if they were able to determine that a ball was 1 or two inches off the zone I would think the numbers would not be that much off balls in the zone.

45. bbc is prejudice bout men Posted: February 13, 2010 at 08:59 PM (#3459995)

what i mean by out of the zone is anything not in the pitchfx strike zone, not the ump's weird eric gregg zone of the day (and i most certainly do remember carlos the jackal hitting an ankle high pitch offn Oogly tavares over the RF fence in the 04 playoffs - game 4 i think)

i got like NO idea how to use any data from the pitchfx me not knowing how to do programs, but i was wondering if anyone else here knew how to

hint hint pleeeeeeeeeeeeeze??????????

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, February 12, 2010

ESPN Chicago: Levine: Thomas steers clear of steroid talk

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics