Talk:Frank Thomas (designated hitter)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Is is too early to post a player's career stats, if they are still active?

Career Statistics as of early 2004[edit]

GABH2B3BHRRRBIBBIBBSOSHSFHBPAVGOBPSLG
1,8516,6112,048428114181,2551,3901,3861591,077010565.310.428.568

Not at all, be our guest. Meelar 06:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Origin and Meaning of Nickname[edit]

Could anyone please explain his nickname? I know, some reporter named him that way. But that does not explain much, does it? Cheers.

It's just a Hawkism for you, I guess. Maybe because he was sort of prone to injury. 67.175.112.107 06:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--ACTUALLY, Hawk named him "the big hurt" b/c he could put a "hurt" on the ball! he was relatively injury free in his first 7 years.

Okay, cool, that's what I was looking for. How about putting both explanations on the main side? (And now I even know, how to sign... hopefully... Thorsten 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Yes! :-)[reply]


Can someone tell me when and for what reason he earned the nickname Frank "The Tank". I have followed Frank his entire career and have never heard anyone (broadcaster, player, or fan) use this nickname.TeganX7 00:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever called Frank Thomas "The Tank". He was never associated with the movie Old School. Whoever decided to edit the page that way might as well list any made up nickname he or she deems fit for any player. Instead of "Junior" or "The Kid" I think "Kenny The Jet" should be added to the Ken Griffey Jr page because that's an existing Ken nickname and I feel like applying it to any Ken. Seriously ridiculous.Quazvin 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I removed the line in "See Also" which claimed that he was widely regarded as the greatest player in club history. That may be the case (I agree, actually), but the White Sox have had some very good players who could give Thomas a run for his money. Shoeless Joe Jackson comes to mind, as do Luis Aparicio and even Harold Baines. When the DHL Hometown Heroes winners are announced, maybe then it makes sense to put that fact up (assuming, of course, that Frank wins). Otherwise, the claim seems speculative 67.175.112.107 09:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steroids?[edit]

While I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Frank Thomas' career, I'm a fairly active baseball fan and I've never heard anyone express suspicions about him and steroids. On the contrary, he seems to typically be one of the examples of players considered to be clean. I don't want to simply delete the section, but I'm wondering if the author (or anyone else) can provide any links backing up this assertation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.34.40 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a section on steroids in the article. There also have been no public suspicions of steroid use on Thomas' behalf (at least that I can't find any...ANYWHERE). Its inclusion would be speculative, opinion based (not fact), and essentially libel so I'd be careful what you write people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.148.169 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Thomas is regarded among baseball-heads as a "clean crusader" -- somebody who's actively campaigned against them, always been open to tests, etc. I don't have any reliable source but it's been mentioned many many times in broadcasts, and I've certainly never noticed any steroids accusations against him, and I've been following baseball passionately since before he was drafted. -- KirinX 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there SHOULD be a section for Thomas about steroids, but one pointing out that he's long been a vocal opponent of their use, has willingly gone to Mitchell to talk about his concerns, and very likely lost the MVP award in 2000 because he wouldn't use. I'm willing to bet that as more and more players fall under suspicion, Thomas is going to look more and more like a true role model. 160.39.213.109 (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of steroids, there is a claim that Thomas finished second behind Giambi 'Who was found guilty of using steroids.' This claim is unsourced, and while it's certainly true that Giambi ADMITTED steroid use, 'Found guilty' implies that Giambi received official sanction for steroid use from either the league or the criminal courts, which is simply untrue. 86.134.238.195 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots o' Boxes[edit]

I added the (upon reflection) large number of succession boxes with his awards. It may be too much, and even if they are not, they might be made more colorful. Please don't delete entirely without comment, but I wanted to put them up and see what people thought. TeganX7 18:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The teammate of Bo comment.[edit]

I'm going to change that. Bo and Frank were not on the same Auburn team (football or baseball) Bo's first season was 1982 and he finished up at Auburn in 1985, Thomas didn't come in until a year later. Millec4 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

The article had been at Frank Thomas (AL baseball player) for a long time; there was no reason to move it, especially since DH isn't really a position. The clearest way to distinguish the two Frank Thomases is by league, since the earlier one never played in the AL and this one will likely never play in the NL. MisfitToys (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing it by league is stupid. What is the difference in playing in the AL and the NL except for the designated hitter rule? --Street20 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The levels of disambiguation are generally (baseball) and then ([position]) if it's needed to go farther. Position is used in mostly all cases in which disambiguation between two baseball players is needed. As for the "it has been this way for a long time" argument, that doesn't really make much sense. Just because something has been a certain way for a while not only doesn't make it the best way, but that doesn't make it the standard. Generally, the standard is that position be the primary disambiguation between two players of the same name. Ksy92003(talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back and please see the talk page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. --Street20 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, DH is not a position. Anyway, about 90% of the links went to the old title, and widely linked articles shouldn't generally be shifted unless there's a particularly compelling reason to do so (such as when someone changes the name by which they're primarily known). MisfitToys (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


re: White Sox World Series roster[edit]

There seems to be a very small issue developing over this. As far as I can tell, Thomas was on injured reserve. This does not make him an "on the playing roster" guy, but I think most people consider IR players as de facto roster players. He was given a ring and a full share of the World Series money. While it is true that he was not in uniform for any games, and was not on the actual active roster, I think IR guys are considered by most people to be "rostered players" in this regard. I'm not sure if anyone has more definitive information on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issue, just Blue Jay fan vandals causing trouble. You're completely right. Furthermore, following this logic, do we now have to expunge from Wikipedia every player who was injured during the season and didn't play in the World Series? Googie man (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Picture issue[edit]

Picture should be either:

1) Removed, due to its size. or 2) Inserted into a more convenient section of the article, so it does not leave a long blank of space in between sections.

There. Like this better? Better than you giving me the F-word isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hootie86u (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


2008 updates[edit]

An anonymous editor is updating virtually everything that Thomas is doing this year. I'm a big fan,. but in the spirit of an encyclopedia, none of this information is truly important for an encyclopedia. It is information of relatively short term importance. If I am missing something, please note it here and keep on editing.LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

500 homers and 130 something sac flies[edit]

Are you kidding me? What kind of stat is that? You need to get rid of it, an RBI is an RBI.......

Msjayhawk (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Hurt[edit]

Is there a compelling reason we don't have a disambiguation page? That's a lot of italics at the top of this article. Thmazing (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done > Best O Fortuna (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved as proposed, without prejudice against moving to a different disambiguator. Ucucha 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Thomas (AL baseball player) → Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1968) — Naming conventions would suggest identification by sport and year born, since the one born in 1929 also played the same position. AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It's only coincidence and luck that both players stayed in their respective leagues. And if a third player with this name comes along, then what? The only way it would work with the current naming would be if he were Frank Thomas (both leagues baseball player). Easy and obvious move. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DH Thomas also played first base early in his career. OF Thomas also played first and third base. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Frank Thomas (designated hitter). Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Thomas (1990s–2000s baseball) → Frank Thomas — The recent Frank Thomas, I would have to believe, is the primary topic when "Frank Thomas" is thought of or searched for. In addition, the current article title is extremely bulky and not useful. I would suggest moving the article on him to be the primary article, while moving the disambiguation page to reflect. The other baseball Frank Thomas can then receive a slightly shorter disambiguation title. Nlu (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why were these articles moved from Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1929) and Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1968)? GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. I agree the move was not proper based on my understanding of pagenaming policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Last month Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1968) (as it was then) received 1977 views. Frank Thomas (animator) received 2255 views. As such there is no evidence that the baseball player is the primary topic. Also I don't see any evidence that the second player was commonly referred to as Frank J. Thomas. None of the references title him such. I do support returning the baseball players to the correct dab style Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1929) and Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1968) (see below). Tassedethe (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that the number of views is the proper metric here. If we are going by number of views, Hilary Duff might get far more views than any other Hilary or Hillary; that doesn't make her the primary topic. Indeed, it might be precisely that the most recent Frank Thomas is the one who comes to mind the first that there are fewer reasons to read his article (to get information) — not to mention that there are many other Web sites out there on baseball that will provide more information on Thomas the DH than Thomas the animator — such that there are more people with needs to view information about Thomas the animator on Wikipedia than Thomas the DH, such that you're going to get more views on Thomas the animator even though Thomas the DH is still the proper primary subject. --Nlu (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The one that comes to your mind maybe, but I've never heard of any of them so I looked at the numbers. Tassedethe (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In October 2010, Wknight94 moved these articles with the following edit summaries "Born in 1929 (1968), is terrible. No one knows he was born in 1929 (1968) - That's why they openend the article". What the heck was that? How could we not know when these guys were born? their birth years are sourced. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wknight94 meant that very few people would know their birth years enough to know what they are to conduct a search. I am a fan of the AL Frank Thomas, but even I don't know his birth year without looking it up. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I support the principle of the move as the current title is really not helpful in a search. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why not move them to Frank Thomas (baseball, b.1929) & Frank Thomas (baseball, b. 1968)? GoodDay (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose; if anyone is the primary topic, it's Frank Thomas (animator), but I'm certainly willing to concede that there is no primary topic. Powers T 14:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Tewapack above, naming conventions are clear here, you should use the second option, their primary position. The one used above (baseball, born 1958) (example), is the last option.Neonblak talk - 05:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would also like to voice my agreement with Tewapack/Neonblak. Per WP:NC-BASE, those are the proper page titles. -Dewelar (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming by primary position is easily the best option here. — KV5 • Talk • 12:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with naming them by primary positions. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support naming by position (changed my support, see above). Tassedethe (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Frank Thomas (designated hitter). I do not support "Frank Thomas" going to the animator. I would support a disambiguation page for the three (or more) Franks. If views are going to be a measure of this, the designated hitter will see a definitive spike in a few years when he becomes eligible for the hall of fame ... likely a temporary increase. Certainly if coverage is a potential gauge, the designated hitter will have significantly more coverage, though I would not necessarily argue that as a reason for giving him precedence.LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Support naming the baseball articles by position (although I would use 1st baseman for the recent Frank Thomas, but don't have a strong objection to DH). Rlendog (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frank Thomas (designated hitter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t say that Frank Thomas won the 2005 World Series[edit]

Apparently it doesn’t say on Frank Thomas’ Wiki page that he won the World Series in 2005 under Career Highlights and Awards, he was still on the team then despite being injured 184.103.240.103 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Thomas_(designated_hitter)&oldid=1198079951"