In the words of tony bruno "THIS IS A NATIONAL OUTRAGE"...Bert Blyleven is out

[Vitb6]

Interesting article by ESPN.  Top 10 people not in the Hall.  You guys may want to note who is #1.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2003/0107/1488613.html

In addition.  According to ESPN's Jayson Starck...not only did 7 moron's vote for Daryl Kile but 1 SUPER MORON voted for Danny Tartabull!!!  lol

[jcbball86]

wow, how long did it take you to type all that
btw, dont knock the cubs as "pathetic". i agree they arent the best, but they arent pathetic.  the royals, phillies, or brewers would be pathetic in my mind.

i read somewhere (this is for chicagoland people) that it is projected that one of the chicago teams (cubs, white sox, blackhawks, bulls, bears) will win a national championship in the next 5 years.  sorry i dont remember where i read it from, but do you think this is possible?  if anyone, i would say the bears.  all they need is a quarterback.  their defense has proven themselves, i just think they gave up this year.  a-train is very good and edinger is very good as well.  plus good wide recievers like marty booker and crew.  they will have washington back also.  maybe they can get brad banks or carson palmer as QB, miller and chandler cant do it.

[Vitb6]

Took me maybe 20 minutes.

The Phillies are pathetic?  They are better than the Cubs.  IMO, the Cubs are much much more pathetic than the teams you listed, for one reason.  The Cubs are a HUGE market club that make a ton of money.  The tribune company just doesn't want to spend it.  And when they do spend it, they give a lot of money to BS players (i.e.  Rick Aguilera, Bill Mueller, TODD HUNDLEY, Henry Rodriguez...shall I go on?).  Look at the FA's they have picked up so far this off-season (Dusty Baker, Mike Remlinger, Troy O'Leary, Paul Bako, Dave Veres, Shawn Estes, Alfonseca).  And they signed Alfonseca to a 5 mil per season contract!!!  What a waste of money!  With all the premium FA's out there they got nobody they needed.  There best pick-up is a coach.  They wouldn't even spend the cash to get Kent whom Dusty was pleading with the club to get.  Kent even said that he would love to play with Dusty again.  Oh well.  the Cubs will be Cubs.  Unlimited money, limited minds.

While the Royals and the Brewers are terrible teams they are small market clubs and have limited capabilities.  BTW the Royals were actually a decent team last year.  What is killing MLB is that there isn't a salary cap.  Until that day, only big market teams will be able to compete.  Look at Montreal, they have brought up all-star calibur players and then lose them when they are good because they can't afford them.  Now they are shopping Vlad, Vidro, Colon, Vazquez.

And about your question...there will be zero championships here in Chi-town in the next 5 years.  The Bulls suck, Cubs suck, Sox suck, Bears suck, Blackhawks are ok.  I'd put my money on the Blackhawks before any of the other teams.  BTW yes the Bears blow.  There 13-3 season was the worst thing that could have happened to them.  Because of that Jauron and Shoop stayed, when they would have been fired.  I havn't seen more of a stubborn coach in sports history.  Jauron continues to play Dez White, Chandler, Leon Johnson and won't play Marcus Robinson, David Terrell, Burris, Adrian Peterson).  Peterson looked great in the limited time he played and may be something special but we would never know because he kept playing Leon Johnson for no reason.  God does Jauron suck.  The Bears are in for another rude season next year.

[Vitb6]

Brad Banks is too short to play in the NFL right now.  He will need sometime as a back-up or in the CFL.  Did you see him in the Bowl game.  Yikes!  Palmer will be #1, Bears won't get him.  If the Bears were smart they would draft Leftwich and start him immediately.  However, they will probably either move down, draft a defensive player and hope to get Dave Rigone in the 2n rnd.  Just my take.

[jcbball86]

i forgot to mention a new coach, jauron does suck
they should of gotten bledsoe...
yes, the royals were ok last year, but thats about it, before that they were pathetic.
cubs lose some good players too, but not because of funding.

[sucka free]

Vit,

In regards to Ozzie,

*You missed my point about LT.  Completely.  Following your logic about needing offense and defense to make the hall would exclude everyone who was a DH or pitchers for that matter.  You don't need both, usually that's the case...but not everytime

*Below is a link to the baseball hall of fame's website.  I have included the voting criteria that the sportswriters use when voting for a player.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm

 Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

I find it comical that you critized my opinion without even looking at the voting criteria writtern by the hall of fame...sportsmanship, charater, intergrity definitly are considered...

*Mark Grace by the way isn't the best defensive 1st baseman of his era.  You missed JT snow who is much much better.  Baseball experts would definitly back me up on this.  Ozzie was always head and sholders above the rest, Mark grace wasn't even on top.  Smith's defense was legendary, Grace's was very good.

*Ozzie's innovating play at shortstop became the institution.  Trust me, Smith has more range than Omar (although Omar is bery good).

*Although he didn't invent the jump throw, no one else consistently used it simply because no one had to...they couldn't get to the balls necessary to use the throw.  His style of defense, the way he took angles to the ball is who players are taught now.  

*Your take about balls getting hit harder, players being faster, stronger, more runners on base, ect....just dosen't make any sense and has nothing to do with an argument involving Smith's hall status.  Faster players running to first = better throwing arms found in shortstops, balls hit harder = more time to throw the runner out, stronger batters = more range for the shortstops.  Your take about the increased abilities of hitters doesn't work because you didn't take into account the increased abilities of the shortstop.  They balance each other out.  IN my personal opinion, the shorstop position isn't harder in this era as opposed to the 80's.

IN regards to Ryno,

*Juiced Balls?  Steriods?  Unless you have some proof, that is an extremely weak argument agaist Kent.  Very weak.  Pure speculation.

*The ryno argument is a tricky one.  If he had gotten in as a first ballot it wouldn't bother me.  He has a good case to make it in one the first try but I understand why he only got half the votes.  He was a great player and will go in on his next try.  But he was no Joe Morgan.  Sandberg may have had better offensive stats but Morgan was a better player/teammate.  Ryno was not a leader.  Morgan was.  Not being a leader and always playing for a terrible organization is not a good combination, espically when your numbers do not blow people away.  By the way, don't take my word for it.  Take a poll from from people who are around MLB and ask them who they would rather have, morgan or sandberg.  I guareentee the vast majority take Morgan.  And there is a reason for it, morgan was a better player.  Ask yourself this question, if sandberg was so deserving of first ballot status, why did he miss the 75 percet needed by such a large margin?  


*Your right about sosa...that guy is amazing and he is not slowing down anytime soon.  

*Glavine's postseason preformances hurt him in my book.  Unless he's 300 i wouldn't first ballot him.  He is off my list.

*kirby puckett as a first ballot is a total abortion.  That really pissed me off.

You bring up some good arguments and I'll think about your Ryno argument.  The MVP and the 9 gold gloves are impressive.  As for the Smith argument, lets just agree to disagree on that one.

[Vitb6]

Pitchers are completely different than hitters.  Pitchers don't need, nor are they expected, to be good hitters.  Players need to be overall good palyers and Ozzie wasn't even close. But I'm done argueing about Ozzie, you aren't looking at the big picture and are biased...especially if you won't concede my Vizquel statement.  Vizquel is just as good (numbers-wise) as Ozzie and has twice the bat.  But maybe he can't speak english as well and isn't a father of the year.  So I guess he doesn't to be first ballot as much as Ozzie.  

Between Grace and JT Snow, Grace beats him in every category. Their FP% are a was at .996/.995.  But, grace has 8,000 more put outs, 800 more assists, 500 more DP's in only 4 more years.  Not to mention Grace has a career .305 BA to Snow's .263.  Grace also lead the 90's in doubles (or maybe hits...I forget).  SO yes Grace is better than Snow.

Juice balls is speculation?  Hell no...fact.  Look at Kent's #'s for the first 6 years or his career where he didn't hit more than 20 HR's.  The last five years he hit LESS than 30 only once.  Something has to give.

I thought we went over this.  Ryno didn't get the 75% vote because he wasn't loved by the media.  And guess who gets to vote...the writers.  So because Ryno may have snubbed some jerk-off writer of a good story, he didn't get their vote for the Hall.  It is ashame.  And Ryno is no automatic next year either for the mere fact that the Eck and Molitor will be enshrined then, taking away more votes from Ryno.  He will eventually get in.  

And I think more people would vote for Ryno over Morgan.  Once again, Ryno beats him in every offensive cat except SB's AND was a much better defensive player.  How can you even say you'd rather have Morgan.  Morgan was just on a better team.  Period.  Nice arguements SUCKA, but I can't concede to any of your points.  :-)

[Gwynn3k]

it seems to me that most hall of famers spend 5 to 10 years in pergetory awiting ascension into baseball imortality.  i thought ryno would be a first balloter because he revolutionized the second base position.  berty blyleven's numbers are similar to the perm, don sutton's.  like sutton, i think bertus will get in... its only a matter of time.  

as for gary carter, (another perm) he was second only to johnny bench as far as catchers go during the seventies... his defense left much to be desired but unless your are ozzie smith, defense is overlooked.

[sucka free]

*  Since JT came to the national league in 1997, how many gold gloves has Mark Grace won?   Answer is 0.  How many has Snow won?  Answer is 4 (97, 98, 99, 00).  I wonder won is better defensively?

*One dimensional players can make it to the hall of fame 1st ballot.  Just ask Eddie Murray.

*Sandberg dosen't beat Morgan in every offensive category      

         Joe Morgan         Ryan Sandberg

Ab             9277              8385
runs          1650              1318    
hits           2517               2386
strikeouts 1015               1260
BB             1865               761
on base % .392               .344
games        2648              2164
MVP's             2                     1

You make a good argument for Ryno being a 1st ballot but I wouldn't have voted for him.  You make a bad argument when you say he his better than Joe morgan.  Their HR's & RBI's are very close and Ryno only has a higher ave by 14 points (i think)  Morgan lead three different franchises to the post season.  If you get a chance to talk with some writers or people around MLB (and not the local bar folk in chicago) ask them who they would pick.  I guareente they pick morgan.

*Define "juiced ball".  People say that the balls are wrapped tighter or dipped in a special mud but there has been no special proof.  With all the media out there I am certain if they could physically prove there was a difference in balls they would have found it by now.  And its not like its hard to find balls from the 1980's.  I think you should have mentioned expansion teams, thinned out pitching amongst a greater number of teams, smaller ball parks when citing the offensive explosion found in the modern era.  However, those are the conditions under which kent plays and that is why it is hard to compare players from different eras...because the conditions are so different.  Comparing Morgan and sandberg is more applicable because their eras were a lot more simillar creating a more level playing in which to compare.    

*I am done with the ozzie argument as well....were're just at odds over that one.

*This has been a good battle and I can see your a baseball guy like myself.  By the way, which team do you root for?

[Vitb6]

Since I believe you are argueing a battle you can't win I'll just have to put my best shot out there.  This may be long.  However here are some more interesting bits on Sandberg before my statements:

Sandberg became the first player in the National League to win a Gold Glove in his first full season at a new position in 1983. He was in the all-star game from 1984-1993. He was the N.L. MVP in 1984.  He played in a record 123 errorless games for an infielder other than a first baseman from June 21, 1989 to May 17, 1990. He is the first player ever to have a 40 home run season and a 50 stolen base season. He has a record .990 fielding percentage for a second baseman. He retired on June 13, 1994. He then anounced he would return on October 31, 1995. He got his first hit, a home run off of Pedro Astacio, on April 4, 1996.  He became only the 10th player to hit 250 home runs and get 250 stolen bases.  SECOND BASEMEN WHO RANKS AMONG THE TOP 5 2B IN 7 CATEGORIES AND THE TOP 10 IN 15. HOLDS THE MAJOR LEAGUE RECORD FOR MOST HR HIT WHILE PLAYING 2B--277.  IN 1990, BECAME THE 1ST 2B TO LEAD THE LEAGUE IN HR SINCE 1925. ONLY 2B WITH BACK TO BACK 30+ HR SEASONS. LED 2B IN 8 CATEGORIES DURING 1980S, INCLUDING SLG, OPS, HR/100 OUTS AND RC/G.  LED 2B IN 7 SINGLE SEASON CATEGORIES DURING 1980S AND 6 DURING 1990S. LED NL IN TOTAL BASES DURING 3 10-YEAR SPANS. HAD 6 YEARS WITH 100+ RUNS CREATED

OK Sandberg v.s. Morgan

BTW since you left out a very important fact between Morgan and Sandberg, I'll have to respectfully correct you.  You see Morgan played 22 season and Sandberg 16.  So Morgan does have some longevity however SAndberg retired at the top of his game and not because he was slowing down.  Didn't Sandberg retire the first time due to an injury??  I think he did but I'm not sure because he only played in 57 games that year.  Therefore, all stats need to be per season.

Then #'s look like this:

BA: Sandberg .285, Morgan .271
Runs: Sandberg 82, Morgan 75
Hits:  Sandberg 150, Morgan 114
Doubles:  Sandberg 25, Morgan 20
Triples:  Sandberg 4.75, Morgan 4.36
HR's:  Sandberg 17.6, Morgan 12.1
RBI's:  Sandberg 66.25, Morgan 51.5
SB's:  Morgan 31, Sandberg 21.5
BB's: Morgan 85, Sandberg 47.5
OBP: Morgan .293, Sandberg .344
SLG: Sandberg .452, Morgan .427
TB's:  Sandberg 237, Morgan 180

DEFENSE:

Put-out's:  Morgan 262, Sandberg 238
Assists:  Sandberg 398, 316
ERRORS:  Sandberg 6.8, Morgan 11.1
Fielding %:  Sandberg .990, Morgan .981
Gold Gloves:  Sanberg 9, Morgan 5

Again these are per season and Sandberg whips him in all the 'important' cats (i.e. BA, HR, RBI, RUNS, ERRORS, FP%).  Morgan only wins in SB's, BB's, OBP and put-out's).  BB's and OBP are just about the same since Morgan walked twice as much as Sandberg.  That stat even makes Sandberg #'s more impressive because he actually had to get hits to get on base and not play his size as a crutch.  

BTW, the difference in their BA's are not even close.  You said "ONLY 14 points"....well 14 points in BA over the course of a career is HUGE.  And Sandberg's BA is lower than it would have been if he either didn't retire the first time OR didn't comback since he batted career lows .244 and .264 in those 2 other seasons.

Morgan can't hold Sandberg's jock offensively and defensively it's a joke.  

Morgan played with the likes of Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, Pete Rose, Dave Concepcion, George Foster, Ken Griffey Sr, Dan Driessen etc...  This was a dominant team of the 70's.  Compare Morgan's numbers between '63-71 and '80-84, when he wasn't with the Reds.  Those #;s pale in comparison.  Sandberg batted second in terrible lineups that consisted of Andre Dawson, Jody Davis, Keith Moreland, Ron Cey, Bob Dernier, Gary Matthews, Leon Durham, Vance Law, Dwight Smith, Jerome Walton, Mel Hall, (that is all that I can think of now).  Big difference.

I can't believe you are making an arguement on players' #'s whom are so lopsided it's crazy.  I'm getting the feeling that you are playing devil's advocate with me.  If you are then good job, because you got me.

BTW, like I said I'm a baseball fan but I'll root for the White Sox and the Cards over other teams.  Sorry not much of a Giants fan here.

[Vitb6]

1 more point.  On the MVP topic (2-1).  Remember that Morgan played on better teams.  Hard ot win an MVP when your team sucks, although Dawson did do it.  Better teams= more MVP's, worse teams= less MVP's.  

Proof is in the pudding (below):

2002 MVP= Tejada...runner-up= A-Rod.  What?!?!  How did that happen?  Oakland was good and Texas sucked, end of discussion.


                A-Rod           Tejada

BA            .300               .308
Runs        125                108
RBI           142                131
HR             57                  34
SB's           9                     7
OBP         .392               .354
SLG          .623              .508
TB's          389               336
2002 MVP   0                   1

It is crap but that is how it goes.  Therefore MVP type seasons is a poor predictor of having better seasons or better careers.

[ericdavisfan]

If you want to know why Ryne Sandberg didn't make it in on the 1st ballot is because he "undid" his wonderful career in the minds of fans/voters in the last 2-3 years of his career.  Keep in mind here that I have repeatedly said that I thought Ryno should be in on the 1st ballot, ok?!?

Ryne was going through some messy divorce in the last part of his career.  His numbers were terrible and he retired...with great love from the fans!

Then, he made a mistake that Michael Jordan should have payed GREAT attention to....he came back.  Ryne couldn't even hit like he used to during his "comeback" and was forced into retirement again...without love from ANYONE!

1993  CHI N 117 456 67 141  20 0  9    45 37  62 9 2    .309
1994  CHI N 57   223 36 53    9   5  5    24 23  40 2       .238
1996  CHI N 150 554 85 135  28 4  25  92 54  116 12   .244
1997  CHI N 135 447 54 118  26 0  12  64 28  94          .264
                     G     AB   R    H   2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS BA
 
Pay close attention to the increased K's and decreased batting average.  He probably would have been 1st ballot if he had just stayed retired the 1st time.

[ericdavisfan]

And please don't try to discount what I said based on Ryno's 25 homers in 1996.  You've already discredited that arguement with the "juiced ball" and watered-down pitching theories, so I won't listen to it  

[Vitb6]

ED Fan I have to disagree on you with this statement as well.  Your statement that Sandberg didn't get into the Hall because of the years after he retired is not true.  The vat majoriry of athletes aren't good in the twilight of their careers.  Look at Tim Raines for example.  That old man is still trying to play to this day.  He hasn't had a good year since 1993.  There are hundreds of more examples available, but I will leave it at Raines for now.  I'm sure SUCKS will give more examples and I'm sure he disagrees with you on that point too.  While Sandberg's last two years made his BA decrease I don't think anybody took anything away from Ryno because of those two years.

[Vitb6]

I meant SUCKA...not SUCKS.

[ericdavisfan]

My argument was that Ryno was 1st ballot until hanging on too long.  I don't think anyone would argue that Tim Raines was Hall of Fame material (let alone 1st ballot) before hanging on into the twilight and beyond into darkness

[sucka free]

Vit,

   Your tim raines take was hilarious!!!!!!!!!!  AZnd your right, I do agree that Ryno did not hurt himself by coming back.

EDFan,

   I have to disagree with your point that Ryno hurt his 1st ballot chances by making a comback after retiring, for two reasons.  First, lets lok at it from a stats point of veiw.  In your data provided you included 93' to 97' to show a drop off in stats.  First of all, the 94' season is not a true sampling of a season's preformance because he only played 57 games and then retired.  However the 96 and 97 show full seasons but still DO NOT tarnish his record.  Ryno's career ab/h are as follows 8385/2386 for an ave of .285  If we take away the 96, 97 seasons we are left with 7384/2133 for an average of .289....a difference of four batting points.  Honestly, a drop off of 4 points is not statistically significant to be left out of the hall on your first try.
    Continuing along the stats route lets look at the two seasons in which he came back.  ab/h 1001/253 for an ave of .253  He hit 37 hrs for an ave of 18.5 and hit 156 rbi for an ave of 78 per season.  So ryno ave .253, 18.5, and 78 rbi's in his two twlight comeback seasons.  But what were his yearly averages before he came back?  Before his comeback he played 14 seasons, hit 245 hr and hit 905 RBI which was an average of 17.5 hr and 65 rbi.  Conclusion, his power numbers were about the same.  Basically Ryno actaully helped his HOF cause because he only lost 4 points off his average, kept pace with his power numbers, AND it brought him OVER 1,000 RBI's and GAVE him the 2nd baseman HR record.  Those two improvements out do his extra 200 strikeouts.

The second reason can be found from a historical perspective.  Did Jordan hurt his HOF bid by coming back to play for the wizards? Did it diminish his 6 titles or playoff performances.  Is he seen as less dominate in his prime?  Lets look at George Foreman or how about Mario Lemieux?  Are their past accomplishment decreased because they decided to comeback?  What about Reggie White coming back to play for the panthers or gren bay?  Is he still not considered the greatest lineman?  We can even look at athletes who played too long.  What about Willie Mays as a Met or John Unitas as a Charger or Muhammed Ali getting beat by bums in hjis late 30's.  My point in saying this is that no one who votes for any HOF reflects back to a players last couple of years.  Instead they look at the periods where that player dominated or was at his best and for how long.  IN my opinion Sandberg didn't hurt his cause, but it is an interesting topic.

[ericdavisfan]

Well, that's the best justification that I could give, because I was thinking that he'd have been in 1st ballot!  I've been wondering about how he got snubbed and how Carter got in ever since it happened

[Vitb6]

ED-  Read my previous posts and you'll discover the reason he didn't make the Hall on his first try.  And probably won't on his 2nd either.

[ericdavisfan]

I read your posts.  I didn't agree with you.