Frank Thomas is Not the Problem

by madmongoose on May 15, 2008 11:59 AM PDT

Blez got all of our attention, but that thread could not have been more misplaced.

As of this writing (before his final PA in today's game) Thomas' line as an A is 277-400-323. OK-- the power's not there (and so it goes for the entire league, it seems), but his OBP is higher than anyone but Cust and he is starting to get hits.

The truth is that other than Thomas we have one guy hitting-- Sweeney-- one guy hitting in the clutch--Brown-- and one guy walking-- Cust (and his power numbers are way down, too)

And that is it. The rest are a combination of the lame and the sick-- metaphorically speaking, that is. So let's consider the following:

A relatively healthy Buck and Chavez should improve things, though only at the margins. But when do we get them both? not until some time in June, it would seem.

Ellis is trailing his career numbers and has been hitting into bad luck-- if the hamstring doesn't linger much he should improve, but he may be on the DL for a couple of weeks.

Realistically we won't get much more in terms of average or OBP from the likes of Brown, Hannahan, Crosby, Suzuki or Cust. it would be nice to see Cust and the two left side guys with, say, twice the number of bombs in the next 40+ games that they have so far (8). but maybe this is simply going to be a year of the pitcher and that can't happen.

The only places I can see for more marked improvement are with Barton-- who is fast becoming a major rookie bust-- and in the OF, where Gonzalez looms if Sweeney, davis and Co. can't cut it.

We're all getting a bit too taken with our start and the surprise of our mound staff-- I am not so interested in how many wins we'll get in the end-- or whether we can really outplay the Angels-- as I am about building a lineup that can compete down the road. So far-- outside of two senior citizens and one journeyman outfielder not destined to remain past this year, I don't see it.

0 recs | Comment 53 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

+1

The overreactions, hyperbole, and negativity around here are killing me.

by 33SwisherSweet on May 15, 2008 12:36 PM PDT 0 recs

is killing me...

by 33SwisherSweet on May 15, 2008 12:40 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well this has been a relatively calm May, by AN standards. I don't know why the struggles

are surprising anyone. The A’s have one of the worst May records over the past 4 or 5 years.

by theblackpearl on May 15, 2008 12:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

If the team

“won’t get much more in terms of average or OBP from…Suzuki”, then they might as well DFA him right now, because his OPS is under .600.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 15, 2008 12:47 PM PDT 0 recs

true enough

But compare him to Barton.

what is the Suzuki upside? Maybe 265-330-380 or some such. What is the Barton upside? One would think 290-400-430 Pretty big difference.

why are Barton and Buck not hitting, and Andre Ethier has hit pretty darn well from the get-go?? Was that the guy who shouldn’t have been let go??

by madmongoose on May 15, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

I blame Jesus.

Asshole.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 15, 2008 1:42 PM PDT up 0 recs

PT:

If I had a way of asking you this privately I would have. Could you refrain from making jokes like that? I don’t make comments that might offend someone’s religion, and everyone should have that same consideration. You probably didn’t mean much harm, and I’m one to make jokes myself about various subjects, but there could be someone that was very offended but didn’t want to say anything. I also don’t think this is the place for that, and other reasons. So regardless of your beliefs, or mine, for the sake of others, can we keep it clean(ish)?

And I hope you don’t feel like I’m telling you what you can or can’t say, considering everyone’s right to freedom of speech, but it’s not really necessary that you say something like that so I hope my request isn’t too unreasonable sounding. And I apologize for my long-windedness.
(Is that a word?)

by passionately objective on May 15, 2008 2:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

This is neither the time nor place for a theological dispute

but the notion that religion should get some unique pass from ridicule is unacceptable to me, particularly in light of the fairly lenient standards (see: remarks on Chavez’s racial authenticity) which hold sway around here in matters of humor.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 15, 2008 3:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

Someone asks you politely to consider

respecting their feelings about a known-volatile issue and you can’t just be conciliatory, PT? He could not have asked in a nicer, less confrontational way. I don’t know why I bother to defend you when you’re mistreated – you sure bring it all on yourself.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on May 15, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

Was my response impolite?

I stated my opinions in a calm and matter of fact manner. I’m not going to say “Oh, gosh, I swear I will never again mention anything to do with religion ever again,” because that would almost certainly be a lie.

If you can’t see the difference between an irreverant generalized crack about religion and targeted harassment, I have to conclude that you’re just not being objective about the situation.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 15, 2008 4:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

The wording of your response was not impolite

However your position itself is impolite. The guy is pointing out to you that words like the ones you posted are particularly offensive. Your response is to justify your offensive remarks. Why can’t you just assimilate the useful information and learn to be less offensive in the future?

It’s not about whether religion is allowed a “free pass”. It’s about the fact that some things are offensive to a lot of people, whether it’s logical or not. Anyone who isn’t a dick would prefer to be less offensive. When someone gives you a friendly hint on how to achieve that goal, you might want to pick up on it.

Nico is right. It’s hard to defend you at times like this.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 15, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

You once jumped all over me for "making a joke at your expense"

And even though I thought it was a trivial little comment (something along the lines of “Paul’s never wrong”) the fact that I somehow offended you was enough for me to realize that it wasn’t cool.
If Paul Thomas expects a “unique pass from ridicule” then how can you argue against Jesus?

by Sacred#24 on May 15, 2008 4:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

I can't tell if you're replying to me or iglew

In any event, I don’t expect a “unique pass from ridicule.” I’ve been ridiculed before; no doubt I will be ridiculed again many a time. I’m a big boy, I can take it.

That doesn’t mean I won’t be irritable if you ridicule me in a mean-spirited way or without any reason for it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 15, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up 0 recs

Jesus Eff'in Christ!

(ironically, blaming Satan is comedy gold).

There is an A in Whimsy.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 15, 2008 11:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well, if nothing else we've identified the issue at hand

Anyone who isn’t a dick would prefer to be less offensive.

All else being equal, anyone who isn’t a dick would prefer to be less offensive. But all else is rarely equal. Sometimes it’s socially necessary to be offensive, like a sit-in at a segregated lunch counter. Were they dicks? Sometimes it’s humorous to be offensive, like a George Carlin routine. Is he a dick?

I thought (not explicitly, of course) that the possible offense was outweighed by the humor value. Maybe I was incorrect. Does that mean that there won’t come a time in future when possible offense IS outweighed by some other value? Not necessarily.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 15, 2008 5:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yes, you were incorrect.

There are indeed times when it’s necessary to be offensive. There are indeed times when something is at stake that is more important than people’s feelings.

The opportunity to call Jesus an asshole as a joke is not one of them.

To clarify: I don’t blame you for the original joke. You thought it would be funny, you didn’t think it was that offensive. You figured the humor outweighed the offense. It was a quick call and you probably didn’t think about it that hard. No problem. We all make judgment calls like that, and sometimes we get them wrong. I don’t blame you for that at all.

But someone wrote back to let you know, in the politest way, that he thought it was not so funny and pointed out how it could offend. At that point you could have said, “Oops, my bad. Sorry if I offended anyone. I didn’t mean to,” at which point PO might have responded with something like “no problem, bro”, and that would be the end of it.

Instead, you told us all that to consider other people’s feelings is “unacceptable” to you, and you basically laid out your intellectual defense for your right to be a dick. Well, OK, I guess that’s your right. But it does help explain why a lot of people don’t like you.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 15, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up 1 recs

PT:

I may not be following your intentions accurately here, but I hope that you are not associating yourself with the participants of the civil rights movement. The Carlin example almost carries weight, except for the fact that it is the appropriate venue to expect that kind of expression.

Either you did, or did not, consider the repercussions of your joke/comment. So you’ve lost me there, but based on the fact you had to qualify whether it was explicitly or not or not I’m assuming you did.

If you did, and were wrong in your assumption, that is OK because from time to time everyone misjudges. How can you realistically know how people are going to take a joke? You can’t, and that’s not your fault either. Nobody knows what everyone thinks about anythying. But if you are aware of the chance of offence being taken to your comment, it was in poor taste (in my opinion) to deem my opposition as “unacceptable”.

Also, predicting possible future instances where a potentially offensive joke would be accepted as appropriate does not justify, in my opinion, our current impasse.

by passionately objective on May 15, 2008 5:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

When I made the comment,

I did not think, in mind-speech, to myself “Gee, this might be offensive, but I think it’s worth it.” However, undoubtedly some part of my mind performed a similar calculation below the conscious level. That’s what I meant by “not explicitly.”

Now, as for the “unacceptable” line that seems to have set everyone off…

My quote:

the notion that religion should get some unique pass from ridicule is unacceptable to me,

iglew’s reinterpretation:

Instead, you told us all that to consider other people’s feelings is "unacceptable" to you,

Yours:

it was in poor taste (in my opinion) to deem my opposition as "unacceptable".

See the difference? What I said was, basically, that religion is not special to me. It’s not “sacred.” It’s the same as any other opinion about anything, and I’m going to treat it the same way. This is, literally, a matter of conscience for me. You’re not going to persuade me otherwise.

That’s not the same thing as saying either a. “that considering other people’s feelings” is unacceptable (which is obviously a stupid position), or b. “that my joke sucked” is unacceptable (because perhaps it did).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 15, 2008 6:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

The bottom line should be:

That we are on a baseball site, talking baseball. You made a comment that I expressed to you, very respectfully, that you probably should not make in the future, and you decided to defend it by citing other peoples actions, and your own personal beliefs.

You’ve responded defending your use of “unacceptable”, and whether you “explicity” thought it was offensive, which are trivial and fairly meaningless when weighed against the substantive nature of the conversation.

I have not asked for an apology, I did not ask you to change your personal beliefs, I just asked you to respect others. I have asked that you don’t make jokes about topics that are very sensitive and/or offensive.

I have not asked you to do anything that as far as I’ve been able to see everyone else is able to do.

There’s a difference between asking you to change your beliefs and asking you to respect others. Do you see the difference?

by passionately objective on May 15, 2008 9:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

+1

PT, if you are going to say things like “I’m a big boy” then you should be able to say things like “Sorry – didn’t mean to offend.” That’s how big boys act on the cyber-playground! {wets pants}

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on May 15, 2008 9:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

He could have apologised, but then we wouldn't have

had this entertaining discussion.

by OldhamA on May 16, 2008 1:42 AM PDT up 0 recs

+2

Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.

by UncleLeo on May 16, 2008 8:47 AM PDT up 0 recs

I give up

This is hopeless. There’s no point in attempting to explain things if you aren’t interested in hearing the explanation.

You have asked me “to respect others.” Very well. Personally, I believe that I do, at least up until the point at which someone (eg a troll) has comprehensively demonstrated that they’re not worthy of it. You may think otherwise. If you do, I hope time will change your opinion—and I believe, because I happen to know that what I say is sincere and not intended to hurt anyone, that you will.

I have read and considered everything you have written on this thread. Hopefully I can use that information to make my comments to the site more enjoyable in the future. I’m unhappy if my various scribings did more harm than good—but I’m not sorry for writing them, because I did it in good faith. If I was wrong, I was wrong—and perhaps I will be more right next time.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 16, 2008 12:00 AM PDT up 0 recs

Just to be precise:

When I said “respect others”, it was meant to imply “respect other peoples views”, meaning it doesn’t have to mean anything to you to make that joke, but maybe it does to others.

I didn’t mean to imply that you go around disrespecting other people, people have hinted about your past discretions but I wasn’t around for those, I’m just basing my opinion of you on you and me, here and now. If it’s any comfort, I don’t think poorly of you yet :) ......and I’m sorry that this turned into a whole “thing”, it was meant to be a one post wonder.

by passionately objective on May 16, 2008 12:31 AM PDT up 0 recs

Just shut the fuck up.

This is the time for a mea culpa. You’re clearly not capable of that. Shut the fuck up. I can’t even read a Frank Thomas thread without running into this shit. I myself am not Christian, but your response to a not-very-PO’ed PO is absolutely intolerable to me. So shut the fuck up. I couldn’t care less what baseball-related comments you contribute—far outweighed by this bullshit. It more than drags down the site experience. Just stop posting, man, stop posting.

the city dumps fill
the junkyards fill
the madhouses fill
the hospitals fill
the graveyards fill

nothing else
fills.

by Cutthemullet on May 16, 2008 2:40 AM PDT up 0 recs

Eloquently put

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on May 16, 2008 8:09 AM PDT up 0 recs

Well, I won't waste logic on YOU, anyway

If this was face to face, I would start a fight. I would probably (OK, almost certainly) lose it, but I don’t fucking care. I wouldn’t respect myself if I didn’t.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 16, 2008 9:52 AM PDT up 0 recs

You are absolutely correct...

...it is hopeless. Though, not for the reasons you seem to think.

Earlier you used stuff said about Chavez as a reason (excuse?) to rationalize your actions, all the while seeming to conveniently forget (ignore?) that coutesy and respect is a two-way street. To say that ‘x’ is wrong, then use ‘x’ as a justification to do the same thing yourself, then all you’ve really done is confess to hypocisy.

Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.

by UncleLeo on May 16, 2008 8:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

WTFare you talking about?

I never said making cracks about Chavez was wrong. I think it’s a funny and harmless running joke. It’s part of the general sarcastic/snarky tone of the site.

This is amazing. Somehow I’ve managed to get to the point where people are literally inventing things and sticking them in my mouth. No wonder I can’t convince anyone of anything here. I say “violets are blue,” and you read it as “people who think roses are red are assholes.” No wonder I seem like a jerk.

I’m done here. I’m content with what the OP wrote in his last post. The rest of this is bullshit. Y’all can turn this into the Open I Hate Paul thread if you want to. I don’t care, because I won’t be returning to it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 16, 2008 9:58 AM PDT up 0 recs

Seriously

I think everyone got their points across. Isn’t this thread supposed to be about Frank Thomas and how the A’s offense is rather pathetic at the moment? This site and the community as a whole would probably be best served if the subject was dropped about the whole PT/PO religion issues. Although i agree with PO that the Jesus post was in poor taste (whether intended or not is irrelevant at this point), this does seem to have turned into a ‘lets bash PT’ thread. I’ve had my issues with PT in the recent past, but that doesn’t mean i’m going to jump onboard with the bashing. What’s done is done. Let it go and move on.

"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink

by OrlandoAsFan on May 16, 2008 10:22 AM PDT up 0 recs

Agreed...

...in the sense that what can be said on either side pretty much has been said. Anything else would probably be re-hashing on the same old stuff.

Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.

by UncleLeo on May 16, 2008 11:26 AM PDT up 0 recs

Ok, fair enough...

...you didn’t actually say the words that it was “wrong”, but words still have meaning even if not blatently spoken and the implication was there. Either way, you still used it as a justification for your own actions.

Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.

by UncleLeo on May 16, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up 0 recs

In fairnesss,

people who think roses are red are arseholes, and I have the stats to back that up….

by OldhamA on May 16, 2008 7:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

Hmm, I'm in 2 minds about this

I understand and am aware of the rationale behind your reasoning, even though I disagree with most aggressive atheist stands.

OTOH, would you have replaced your Jesus joke with a joke about women? Say, “I blame Susan Anthony / Elizabeth Stanton. What beeatches.” Or how about a crack about Christina Kahrl’s gender identity?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 16, 2008 11:33 AM PDT up 0 recs

Well I have half a mind to...... well maybe I just

have half a mind

by theblackpearl on May 16, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

Sounds like my wit

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on May 16, 2008 12:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

Mine is nit

by theblackpearl on May 16, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

PT:

You’re right about this not being the place for theological dispute, and I’m not going to try and prove to you that the joke you made is not appropriate for a baseball website, since you seem to believe with conviction that it’s OK.

I wasn’t here for the comments on racial authenticity, or I never saw them, but if it was something I felt needed some input I would have done the same.

Generally I wouldn't reccommend using other peoples (possible) poor choice of words to justify your own.  Race nor religion should get a free pass, perhaps, if you're a stand up comedian.  It's almost expected to be part of the act, but not on a baseball site.   Nobody logs in to read that.

Also, I wasn't asking you to never mention religion again, but you should be able to recognize the difference between "praying" the A's start hitting HRs, making a reference to the "baseball gods", and calling the God of a religion an "A-Hole".

Thank you for the assistancf Nico and iglew, but let's agree to all drop it.  I'm really not trying to police anyone or create tension/enemies.  If the AN leadership finds any fault here they'll adress it, and if they don't then they won't.

by passionately objective on May 15, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up 0 recs

Weird

Formatting went all weird on me, sorry.

by passionately objective on May 15, 2008 4:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

If I'm not mistaken,the Chavez racial thing, was from a quote directly from Chavez or Haren, somewhere around

the World Baseball thing.

by theblackpearl on May 15, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think Suzuki's upside is quite a bit higher than that

At least 20 points in OBP and SLG each, but probably closer to 30 for each. Maybe even 40 for SLG (not that he’ll hit for significantly more power, but I expect a .280-.290 average).

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on May 15, 2008 8:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

Not to mention

that Suzuki’s upside isn’t based solely on offensive production. He plays a very difficult position and has been praised by oakland pitchers for his game-calling skills. This is his second season (first full) in Oakland and he is quickly becoming a very good defensive catcher. That being said, his worth is not judged on offense alone, unlike players like Jack Cust or Ryan Sweeney who aren’t performing well defensively.

"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink

by OrlandoAsFan on May 16, 2008 7:29 AM PDT up 0 recs

Hannahan's getting on base at a fair clip.

by OldhamA on May 15, 2008 1:06 PM PDT 0 recs

Frank Thomas is a problem to me.

This team forgot it was in a rebuilding year. He shoudnt be taking ABs away from guys we need to find out about.

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on May 15, 2008 1:31 PM PDT 0 recs

Who is he taking AB's from? Cust would be DH, and Sweeney would be sucking in

LF.

by theblackpearl on May 15, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

Barton....

Since hes struggling Geren is playing Sweeney more..When he could be DHing Barton, he cant cause of Thomas.

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on May 15, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

That makes no sense. If he is struggling, why DH him???? Then you have to sit in the

dugout and think about your last crappy AB, instead of playing defense and trying to forget about it, while concentrating on catching the ball.

by theblackpearl on May 15, 2008 3:54 PM PDT up 0 recs

Makes plenty of sense.

How is he ever gonna get outta slump riding the bench?

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on May 15, 2008 4:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

Then you keep him at 1B, Thomas is then taking AB's from Mike Sweeney, not

Barton, and M Sweeney, is not apart of the future so he is not someone we need to find out about, so Thomas is not taking AB’s away from any player in out future plans.

by theblackpearl on May 15, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well the way you are explaining it thats correct.

but thats not always whats happening. Either way Barton needs to figure it out somehow.

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on May 15, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up 0 recs

I must've missed the part where Barton doesn't play anymore

Seems like he’s getting plenty of at bats.

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on May 15, 2008 8:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

I really wonder if he's healthy

One of the things I liked so much about him last year was he seemed to have the qualities (specifically quick bat, great strike zone judgment) that can keep you out of a prolonged slump. His bat just doesn’t seem as quick this year – could be a longer swing, but could also be a weaker wrist.

But assuming he’s healthy and just sucking, I say play him four days a week, give Mike Sweeney a couple days a week there, give Sweeney another day/week at DH, and you’re playing to win now and later – with later still being priority one.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on May 15, 2008 9:37 PM PDT up 0 recs