Who should be on the Sox banner?

Im making a skin for the White Sox fans here to use, who should be on the banner?

Buehrle

Paul Konerko

kenny williams!!!!

Mix of old legends and new guys would be cool.

Nellie Fox!

This:

I'd say a mix of old and new

Nellie Fox

Frank Thomas

Konerko, Buehrle, Rios

Nellie Fox...has there ever been a player worshiped so much that really wasn't all that great? His defense was superb, yeah, but that's about it....

Lefty said:

Nellie Fox...has there ever been a player worshiped so much that really wasn't all that great? His defense was superb, yeah, but that's about it....

Click to expand...

Well when you thrive as a teams leadoff hitter (hitting .303/.363/.387 from 1951 through 1960) with top of the line defense, yea, you're a damn good player. Or what about the fact that he had about 5 times as many walks as K's in that time period as well. He's an all time great and for reason. You say "His defense was superb, yeah, but that's about it" like it's nothing :smh:

Got teeth? Keith doesn't. said:

Well when you thrive as a teams leadoff hitter (hitting .303/.363/.387 from 1951 through 1960) with top of the line defense, yea, you're a damn good player. Or what about the fact that he had about 5 times as many walks as K's in that time period as well. He's an all time great and for reason. You say "His defense was superb, yeah, but that's about it" like it's nothing :smh:

Click to expand...

But you can't just pick and choose seasons from a guy who's career spanned 19 years. He had an OPS+ above 100 only 5 times in his career, and was never 25% better than league average (i.e. his OPS+ never topped 125 on the off chance it did manage to creep above 100).

Yeah, he didn't strike out a ton, whoopee. The thing is, those plate appearances that didn't result in a K didn't really amount to that many walks, either: he had a .360+ OBP only 5 times in his career.

So ok, he had stellar defense and an impotent bat that was rarely better than league average (and OPS+ is adjusted for league and park factors, so I don't want to hear about how he didn't play in an offensive juggernaut of an era, he still was bad relative to his peers). That's....really not all that much to get excited about. He was a Juan Pierre-type with a plus glove, fantastic

Lefty said:

But you can't just pick and choose seasons from a guy who's career spanned 19 years. He had an OPS+ above 100 only 5 times in his career, and was never 25% better than league average (i.e. his OPS+ never topped 125 on the off chance it did manage to creep above 100).

Yeah, he didn't strike out a ton, whoopee. The thing is, those plate appearances that didn't result in a K didn't really amount to that many walks, either: he had a .360+ OBP only 5 times in his career.

So ok, he had stellar defense and an impotent bat that was rarely better than league average (and OPS+ is adjusted for league and park factors, so I don't want to hear about how he didn't play in an offensive juggernaut of an era, he still was bad relative to his peers). That's....really not all that much to get excited about. He was a Juan Pierre-type with a plus glove, fantastic

Click to expand...

Did you just compare him to Pierre?

:smh:

For one, Pierre's career line is skewed from only 2 out of 7 seasons posting a wRC+ above 100. Fox? 9 out of 15 seasons, and about 4 of the other 6 were basically from his declining seasons.

In fact, for saying some dumb shit like "foxx=pirre wit more D", :slap:

Also, if you're going to use OPS+, use it correctly ffs. a 125 OPS+ is only 12.5% better than the league average since each OPS+ point or w/e you want to call it is worth half a %. 110 OPS+=5% better than the league average.

Got teeth? Keith doesn't. said:

Did you just compare him to Pierre?

:smh:

For one, Pierre's career line is skewed from only 2 out of 7 seasons posting a wRC+ above 100. Fox? 9 out of 15 seasons, and about 4 of the other 6 were basically from his declining seasons.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you can dismiss some 24% of a player's career (assuming by "declining seasons" you mean all the years he played after 1960, his last above average [barely] wRC season) just because they don't make your already stupid argument work.

And I was comparing the accolades Fox receives for "not striking out" to those that Pierre receives, yes, because the two didn't really get on-base all that much for all that "not striking out". In fact, Fox's wOBA is a meager .325 for his career! So yeah, he didn't make outs by way of the K, he found other ways to make them.

Your "DAH, HE WAS GREAT IN HIS PRIME, AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIME PERIOD YOU CAN CONSIDER" argument is laughable, because you know what? Lot's of players are really good in their prime, that's why they call it a "prime".

In fact, for saying some dumb shit like "foxx=pirre wit more D", :slap:

Click to expand...

Oh shut the fuck up and quit acting like I'm saying Nellie fucking Fox is Juan Pierre and actually read and, though it may be hard for you, understand my argument: Nellie Fox is a player that is praised for rarely striking out, though that lack of type of out making didn't manifest in fewer outs made, much like Juan Pierre. Furthermore, Fox was never more than a singles hitter that would luck his way into some doubles now and again, much like, you guessed it, Juan Pierre. Obviously the two are different players, but they are of the same ilk.

Also, if you're going to use OPS+, use it correctly ffs. a 125 OPS+ is only 12.5% better than the league average since each OPS+ point or w/e you want to call it is worth half a %. 110 OPS+=5% better than the league average.

Click to expand...

You're such a fucking moron. Why in the hell would they scale a statistic where one point is only worth half a percentage point? I guess what I'm trying to say is: that's not how OPS+ works, and maybe you should actually understand some of the things you post about before you actually post about them.

Also, do you not realize that your imagined scaling of OPS+ actually makes Fox look like even less of a talented offensive producer?

Lefty said:

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you can dismiss some 24% of a player's career (assuming by "declining seasons" you mean all the years he played after 1960, his last above average [barely] wRC season) just because they don't make your already stupid argument work.
I wasn't dismissing it, just saying that Fox's "prime" basically was his entire career.

And I was comparing the accolades Fox receives for "not striking out" to those that Pierre receives, yes, because the two didn't really get on-base all that much for all that "not striking out". In fact, Fox's wOBA is a meager .325 for his career! So yeah, he didn't make outs by way of the K, he found other ways to make them.
You do know wOBA favors power hitters, right? Fox had about an .075 ISO for his career but with a near .350 career OBP. Give me a .250/.350/.400 hitter over a .250/.300/.450 hitter any day of the week.

Your "DAH, HE WAS GREAT IN HIS PRIME, AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIME PERIOD YOU CAN CONSIDER" argument is laughable, because you know what? Lot's of players are really good in their prime, that's why they call it a "prime".
Like I said, his prime was basically his entire career until his last few seasons. I'm not talking about a 3 or 4 year period but rather a decade in which he was a star at the plate in his time (1 MVP, 6 top 10 finishes). I'm going to take it you aren't a Sox fan in which I can reply to you with that he's one of the hitters whose overall skill goes beyond his batting line. 4th lowest K% all time, record for consecutive games played at 2nd base, classic small ball player at which he excelled with. There is a reason he's regarded so highly and no fucking batting line shows us completely how great of a ballplayer he was.

Click to expand...

:dunno:

we have very few Sox fans here, and the ones we have fight, lol.

Lefty said:

You're such a fucking moron. Why in the hell would they scale a statistic where one point is only worth half a percentage point? I guess what I'm trying to say is: that's not how OPS+ works, and maybe you should actually understand some of the things you post about before you actually post about them.

Also, do you not realize that your imagined scaling of OPS+ actually makes Fox look like even less of a talented offensive producer?

Click to expand...

You do realize how much of a dumbass you are right now? OPS+ was originally made out to be every 2 points on the OPS+ scale equals 1% better or worse than the league average?

:slap:

And if you knew one fucking thing about Fox it would be that he was praised unanimously for his defense. Listen to anyone who actually seen him play and no one mentions anything about his ability to not K out before they went on hours raving about how good he turned the DP.

o boy..............

:dunno: It's just a fucking banner.

I wasn't dismissing it, just saying that Fox's "prime" basically was his entire career.

Click to expand...

I know what you were saying, and it's fucking stupid. I already showed you that years after 1960 constitutes 24% of his career, add in the seasons in which he had at least 500 PA's but a below-average wRC+, and you have yourself 35% of Fox's career spent below league-average.

So, unless you're the type that would tell a student that getting a D on a 100-point test is "basically acing it", you're a fucking idiot. Just do yourself a favor and stop trying to find ways to discount or dismiss the below-average years Fox had at the dish.

You do know wOBA favors power hitters, right? Fox had about an .075 ISO for his career but with a near .350 career OBP. Give me a .250/.350/.400 hitter over a .250/.300/.450 hitter any day of the week.

Click to expand...

No, you moron, OPS is the stat that tends to favor power hitters simply because of the difference in how OBP and SLG are scaled. wOBA was actually created to eliminate that tendency, and it's results are scaled just like OBP.

Like I said, his prime was basically his entire career until his last few seasons.

Click to expand...

No shit. If you hack off enough years of any player's career, their prime is bound to be their "whole career". I refer you to my point about those years you want to forget about making up almost 25% of his entire career. Jesus Christ, are you stupid.

I'm not talking about a 3 or 4 year period but rather a decade

Click to expand...

But that's all you want to look at, and that's completely stupid. Again, if you want to talk about how good he was in his prime (more on that later), fine, but you have to understand that everybody has a prime, and the very definition of "prime" means that they are going to be good during it! How does this constantly escape you?

in which he was a star at the plate in his time

Click to expand...

Now, onto Fox's "prime": out of every season in which he had a wRC+ of 100 or better (9 out of 19 seasons [47% of his career] , or 9 out of 15 seasons in which he had at least 500 PA's [60% of years with that qualifier]), he topped being 20% better than league average only once in his career. In fact, for all the years he spent above league average, he was never a world beater by any stretch of the imagination, averaging to be just 11% better than the league when he managed to actually be better than the league (this is even including the 136 wRC+ outlier).

That's not being "a star at the plate", that's being just a little bit above league average (again, I even spotted you the huge outlier, take that out and he only managed to be 9% better than league average when he could be considered above that benchmark).

(1 MVP, 6 top 10 finishes)

Click to expand...

Please.

I'm going to take it you aren't a Sox fan

Click to expand...

Actually, I am a Sox fan, I'm just sick and tired of morons like you heaping love on players from years past that have no business receiving the amount of love they get. Then, when confronted with the numbers that prove otherwise (like I have done to you), they start grasping at anything and everything in attempts to 1) actually sound like they know what they're talking about and 2) hold on to their idiotic beliefs (like you are doing now).

I can reply to you with that he's one of the hitters whose overall skill goes beyond his batting line.

Click to expand...

Oh great, here we go. Now you're onto he "DAH, YOU CAN'T QUANTIFY WHAT HE MEANT TO HIS TEAM" route, eh? Even though a few posts before you were indeed attempting to quantify what he meant to his team? Pathetic.

4th lowest K% all time,

Click to expand...

We've already discussed this: he found other ways to make outs and not get on base.

record for consecutive games played at 2nd base,

Click to expand...

Oooooooh, a point in favor for his endurance, wow. Too bad that does nothing to outweigh his barely-above-league-averageness at the dish. You suck.

classic small ball player at which he excelled with.

Click to expand...

You mean, except for the whole "getting on base at clips far and away better than your peers" thing? And the whole "not getting caught stealing" thing (was in the top-10 of the league in CS 6 times, and was caught more times than he successfully stole)? AND the whole "not making outs" (was top-10 in the league in outs made 12 times in his career, leading the league in outs twice) thing?

Then yeah, besides all of that, he was a great small ball player.

There is a reason he's regarded so highly

Click to expand...

No I know already: because of imbeciles like you

and no fucking batting line shows us completely how great of a ballplayer he was.

Click to expand...

Except what those batting lines do show us is that he wasn't that great of a ballplayer. Above-average? Barely (101 wRC+ for his career).

Got teeth? Keith doesn't. said:

You do realize how much of a dumbass you are right now? OPS+ was originally made out to be every 2 points on the OPS+ scale equals 1% better or worse than the league average?

Click to expand...

Oh. My. God. Look, I'm going to explain this to you as plainly as I can, and maybe you can understand it: when someone says "his OPS+ was 90, so he was 10 percent worse than league-average", they aren't talking about that player's OPS specifically. What they are referring to is his OPS+ (I don't know why you would think someone is talking about OPS when they say OPS+, but apparently you do), which actually is 10% worse than league average, because in OPS+, the league average is 100.

That's why you can look at players' respective OPS+ numbers an compare them straightaway without adjusting for league and park effects: OPS+ already accounts for those, and it is scaled so that the league average is always 100. Get it? So when I say Nellie Fox was never 25% better than league average, he actually never was 25% better than average, because in that case we are comparing his OPS+ to the standard league-average OPS+, which is always 100.

And if you knew one fucking thing about Fox it would be that he was praised unanimously for his defense. Listen to anyone who actually seen him play and no one mentions anything about his ability to not K out before they went on hours raving about how good he turned the DP.

Click to expand...

Thankfully you've spared me that droning, now shut the fuck up.