PDA

View Full Version : Ridiculous Santo Hall of Fame Propaganda in today's Sun Times


gf2020
03-09-2009, 04:43 AM
Link (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/1466940,CST-SPT-cub09.article)

Essentially, Gordon Wittenmyer manufactures a story about how the steroid era might be responsible for keeping Ron Santo out of the Hall of Fame. Of course, he spends the rest of the article undercutting it by mentioning that there was no such thing back in the 80s and 90s when he didn't get enough votes and that it's highly highly unlikely the a veterans committee composed of Hall of Fame players are being influenced by the numbers put up in the steroid era. Sandberg and Billy Williams basically say the opposite is true, that if anything only current players voted on by writers might be affected.

Article quotes Santo as saying he doesn't want any excuses made for him, but he sure complains a lot and is perfectly content to cooperate with a nonsensical article that doesn't really have any relation to his own status. The Sun times should be ashamed that it feels the need to make Santo and Cubs fans feel gilted and victimized over a man who has always been a questionable prospect for the hall of fame and has had every opportunity to make it in on his own merits.

jamokes
03-09-2009, 05:37 AM
I haven't seen the article, but as a player Ron kinda belongs in today's Hall of Fame. Certainly if he had played in New York he would easily already be in. Of course not playing for a winner doesn't he him.

I personally do not think he will get in because of the whinning he has done when he wasn't voted in.

Boondock Saint
03-09-2009, 06:41 AM
Santo is a master of saying "I don't want to make excuses, but... "

jabrch
03-09-2009, 10:04 AM
I haven't seen the article, but as a player Ron kinda belongs in today's Hall of Fame. Certainly if he had played in New York he would easily already be in. Of course not playing for a winner doesn't he him.

I personally do not think he will get in because of the whinning he has done when he wasn't voted in.


"Kinda belongs"?

To me, just having to qualify it with something as weak as "kinda" means he doesn't belong. I think Jim Rice "kinda" belongs also.

Both should have to buy a ticket.

HebrewHammer
03-09-2009, 10:35 AM
I'll never understand how a team that won NOTHING, not a world series, not a pennant, NOTHING, deserves to have 4 players in the hall of fame. I don't care what his numbers are.

It also doesn't help that he spent most of his life being a complete and utter douche.

SOXSINCE'70
03-09-2009, 10:36 AM
"Kinda belongs"?

I think Jim Rice "kinda" belongs also.


I think Bill Melton and Dick Allen "kinda" belong. :D:

sox1970
03-09-2009, 10:40 AM
I think Bill Melton and Dick Allen "kinda" belong. :D:

That's "kinda" teal.

guillensdisciple
03-09-2009, 10:42 AM
"Kinda belongs"?

To me, just having to qualify it with something as weak as "kinda" means he doesn't belong. I think Jim Rice "kinda" belongs also.

Both should have to buy a ticket.

When the media rode the Cubbies and the east coast the way it did and continues to do, the selection of crap and undeserving players will happen. Crap is a bit of a stretch, as all players in the Hall of Fame deserve it for the most part, but there are players that, when compared to others, just don't have any business there.

Ron Santo is one of those players.

Dick Allen
03-09-2009, 10:57 AM
Gordon Wittenmyer is also determined to pull off the trade for Peavy.

DrCrawdad
03-09-2009, 11:13 AM
Link (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/1466940,CST-SPT-cub09.article)

Essentially, Gordon Wittenmyer manufactures a story about how the steroid era might be responsible for keeping Ron Santo out of the Hall of Fame. Of course, he spends the rest of the article undercutting it by mentioning that there was no such thing back in the 80s and 90s when he didn't get enough votes and that it's highly highly unlikely the a veterans committee composed of Hall of Fame players are being influenced by the numbers put up in the steroid era. Sandberg and Billy Williams basically say the opposite is true, that if anything only current players voted on by writers might be affected.

Article quotes Santo as saying he doesn't want any excuses made for him, but he sure complains a lot and is perfectly content to cooperate with a nonsensical article that doesn't really have any relation to his own status. The Sun times should be ashamed that it feels the need to make Santo and Cubs fans feel gilted and victimized over a man who has always been a questionable prospect for the hall of fame and has had every opportunity to make it in on his own merits.

Is there ever going to be an end to these fluff pieces promoting Santo for the HoF?

http://www.forumoff.com/offblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/please_make_it_stop.jpg

Lip Man 1
03-09-2009, 11:38 AM
Ron Santo consistently whines and moans about not being in the Hall of Fame.

Newsflash for Ron. I was told a few years ago by someone who does have a vote on the committee that the reason he does not vote for Santo is EXACTLY because of all the whining and moaning.

Person said it was "unbecoming."

My guess is that there are other players who feel the same way.

Keep talking Ronnie-baby!!

Santo NEVER, repeat NEVER, gets in the Hall.

Lip

jabrch
03-09-2009, 11:45 AM
Santo NEVER, repeat NEVER, gets in the Hall.

Lip

Lip - my guess is he does get in - but only after he passes away.

kaufsox
03-09-2009, 12:19 PM
Ron Santo consistently whines and moans about not being in the Hall of Fame.

Newsflash for Ron. I was told a few years ago by someone who does have a vote on the committee that the reason he does not vote for Santo is EXACTLY because of all the whining and moaning.

Person said it was "unbecoming."

My guess is that there are other players who feel the same way.

Keep talking Ronnie-baby!!

Santo NEVER, repeat NEVER, gets in the Hall.

Lip

not even as a broadcaster?

DrCrawdad
03-09-2009, 12:26 PM
not even as a broadcaster?

A basic requirement for a broadcaster, especially one on radio, should be an ability to speak. The ability to utter a sentence coherently.

Sorry, Ronnie you lose, again!

Smokey Burg
03-09-2009, 02:00 PM
When I was still a young lad (late 60's early 70's), I could not get enough of pro baseball. My brother, friends, cousins and myself would gather and watch any game that was on TV. I was just as thrilled about a cubs win as a Sox win, and losses on either side of town hurt. Probably one of the most indelible memories that I have of that time was that Santo could not hit in the clutch, especially during the late season. As a matter of fact, late in the 1969 season, if the cubs were down in the late innings and Santo came up, we would turn the TV off and go out and deliver our newspapers. It was a foregone conclusion tha Santo would choke and the cubs would lose. Usually we were right. However, during the next game, if the cubs were up by a couple runs and santo came up in the late innings, no pressure, nothing on the line, he could usually park one.

I guess the long and short of it is that there are some guys in the HOF that have similar numbers to Santo, or numbers that aren't as good. But that doesn' mean he belongs. Besides, IMHO there were two big factors that killed Chicago baseball during the 1960's. Mickey Mantle home runs against the Sox, and Ron Santo infield pop-ups that killed the cubs. Thanks for allowing the ramble.

white sox bill
03-09-2009, 02:05 PM
I think it was here I read something like "He belongs in the Pretty Darn Good Hall of Fame"

He did have some pretty good stats, despite playing for some crappy teams. And I'm a bit easier on him because he visited a boy (I knew a relative) in the hospital who had diabetes. The kid is a Sox fan and Ronnie treated him very good(as expected).

That being said, he's a great human interest story but falls short on the Hall. Maybe posthumously.

white sox bill
03-09-2009, 02:10 PM
When I was still a young lad (late 60's early 70's), I could not get enough of pro baseball. My brother, friends, cousins and myself would gather and watch any game that was on TV. I was just as thrilled about a cubs win as a Sox win, and losses on either side of town hurt. Probably one of the most indelible memories that I have of that time was that Santo could not hit in the clutch, especially during the late season. As a matter of fact, late in the 1969 season, if the cubs were down in the late innings and Santo came up, we would turn the TV off and go out and deliver our newspapers. It was a foregone conclusion tha Santo would choke and the cubs would lose. Usually we were right. However, during the next game, if the cubs were up by a couple runs and santo came up in the late innings, no pressure, nothing on the line, he could usually park one.

I guess the long and short of it is that there are some guys in the HOF that have similar numbers to Santo, or numbers that aren't as good. But that doesn' mean he belongs. Besides, IMHO there were two big factors that killed Chicago baseball during the 1960's. Mickey Mantle home runs against the Sox, and Ron Santo infield pop-ups that killed the cubs. Thanks for allowing the ramble.

You mean "Mr Clutch?" :smile:

As much as I dislike the whole cub thing, for some unknown reason I always kind of liked the 69 team. Sure I was only 9 then, but it seemed that Billy Williams,Ernie,Fergie,Kessinger and Holtzman(among others) were rather likeable, earthly guys. Then again, it may have been my youth imagining that

MarkM2112
03-09-2009, 10:46 PM
Lip - my guess is he does get in - but only after he passes away.

Of course... he MAY stop his whining and moaning at that point...

DrCrawdad
03-09-2009, 10:59 PM
You mean "Mr Clutch?" :smile:

As much as I dislike the whole cub thing, for some unknown reason I always kind of liked the 69 team. Sure I was only 9 then, but it seemed that Billy Williams,Ernie,Fergie,Kessinger and Holtzman(among others) were rather likeable, earthly guys. Then again, it may have been my youth imagining that

My father-in-law is a Cubbie fan. He has always said that Santo was as described, not clutch and piled up home runs when in non-crucial moments in games.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 12:36 AM
My father-in-law is a Cubbie fan. He has always said that Santo was as described, not clutch and piled up home runs when in non-crucial moments in games.
The statistical record disagrees with you.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=santoro01&year=00

PalehosePlanet
03-10-2009, 12:46 AM
The statistical record disagrees with you.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=santoro01&year=00

Come on CG, the Cubs were out of the race by mid June if not earlier in at least 10 of his 14 years with the team. Pretty much ALL of his at bats were pressure free regardless of the official splits.

DrCrawdad
03-10-2009, 12:51 AM
The statistical record disagrees with you.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=santoro01&year=00

What a surprise to see you here rushing to the defense of Santo.

How can the statistical record disagree with me? I honestly don't care if Ron Santo was good in the clutch or not, nor do I believe that I've ever claimed that my belief is that Santo was not good in the clutch.

Do you think Santo should be in the Hall of Fame?

When will you candidly admit that you are a Cubbie fan?

TDog
03-10-2009, 01:08 AM
... Certainly if he had played in New York he would easily already be in. Of course not playing for a winner doesn't he him. ...

Gil Hodges played in New York and Los Angeles, won a couple of world championships for glamour teams and managed one of the most glamorous teams of all -- the 1969 Mets -- to a World Series title. His numbers are fairly similar to Santo's. Hodges was a lot closer to 400 homers, but he played longer than Santo. I never hear any talk about Hodges belonging in the Hall of Fame, though. And in contrast to Santo, Hodges was a beloved man. He's been dead for decades and still isn't in the Hall of Fame.

I don't think it's certain at all that Santo would be in the Hall of Fame is he played in New York. I think that's just a tired excuse people use to explain why he isn't enshrined in Cooperstown.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 01:08 AM
What a surprise to see you here rushing to the defense of Santo.

How can the statistical record disagree with me? I honestly don't care if Ron Santo was good in the clutch or not, nor do I believe that I've ever claimed that my belief is that Santo was not good in the clutch.

Do you think Santo should be in the Hall of Fame?

When will you candidly admit that you are a Cubbie fan?
Okay. The statistical record disagrees with your father-in-law.

Yes, I do.

Never.

PalehosePlanet
03-10-2009, 01:12 AM
Gil Hodges played in New York and Los Angeles, won a couple of world championships for glamour teams and managed one of the most glamorous teams of all -- the 1969 Mets -- to a World Series title. His numbers are fairly similar to Santo's. Hodges was a lot closer to 400 homers, but he played longer than Santo. I never hear any talk about Hodges belonging in the Hall of Fame, though. And in contrast to Santo, Hodges was a beloved man. He's been dead for decades and still isn't in the Hall of Fame.

I don't think it's certain at all that Santo would be in the Hall of Fame is he played in New York. I think that's just a tired excuse people use to explain why he isn't enshrined in Cooperstown.

Or to explain why Phil Rizutto is in.

BTW: I do think that Gil Hodges, for the reasons you stated, should be in the HOF.

DrCrawdad
03-10-2009, 01:12 AM
Okay. The statistical record disagrees with your father-in-law.

Yes, I do.

Never.

You won't admit it here, you're not candid, but your reasoning, arguments and constant defense of all things Cubbie betray you. You are a Cubbie fan.

:dtroll:

Eddo144
03-10-2009, 01:16 AM
Come on CG, the Cubs were out of the race by mid June if not earlier in at least 10 of his 14 years with the team. Pretty much ALL of his at bats were pressure free regardless of the official splits.
So how do you know he wasn't good in the clutch then? :tongue:

Santo in the Hall? Meh. He's one of those classic borderline guys. I don't have much of an opinion either way.

(Not directed at PalehosePlanet)
And calling a regular poster on these boards a Cubs fan because he dares to speak well of a Cub player? Come on. Isn't that a personal attack, anyway?

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 01:17 AM
You won't admit it here, you're not candid, but your reasoning, arguments and constant defense of all things Cubbie betray you. You are a Cubbie fan.

:dtroll:
Okay. That's your opinion. Or, perhaps, I'm not totally biased against the Cubs and can acknowledge what others choose not to.

OR I'M A TOTAL TROLL

DrCrawdad
03-10-2009, 01:30 AM
So how do you know he wasn't good in the clutch then? :tongue:

Santo in the Hall? Meh. He's one of those classic borderline guys. I don't have much of an opinion either way.

(Not directed at PalehosePlanet)
And calling a regular poster on these boards a Cubs fan because he dares to speak well of a Cub player? Come on. Isn't that a personal attack, anyway?

He's a regular poster, true. Entitled to his opinions, true. Reading his opinions - constant defense of just about anything related to the Cubbies cloaked in this, "I'm not totally biased against the Cubs and can acknowledge what others choose not to..." and it's my opinion "CraigGrebeck" is a Cubbie fan - here to play the role of the fair-minded Sox fan and here to defend all things Cubbie. If he wants to defend the Cubbies on this site, fine with me, just be upfront about your loyalties.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 01:37 AM
He's a regular poster, true. Entitled to his opinions, true. Reading his opinions - constant defense of just about anything related to the Cubbies cloaked in this, "I'm not totally biased against the Cubs and can acknowledge what others choose not to..." and it's my opinion "CraigGrebeck" is a Cubbie fan - here to play the role of the fair-minded Sox fan and here to defend all things Cubbie. If he wants to defend the Cubbies on this site, fine with me, just be upfront about your loyalties.
I am.

If you want to go on a Cub fan witch-hunt, by all means.

DrCrawdad
03-10-2009, 02:02 AM
I am.

If you want to go on a Cub fan witch-hunt, by all means.

I'm just calling like I see it and the only person I've called out here is you. "Witch hunt?" Hardly, but well played...

http://www.c-pol.com/Fun/CaptainHyperbole.jpg

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 02:15 AM
I'm just calling like I see it and the only person I've called out here is you. "Witch hunt?" Hardly, but well played...

http://www.c-pol.com/Fun/CaptainHyperbole.jpg
It's one thing to disagree with someone because you hate all things Cub-related, but to resort to a straw-man argument in the vein of your accusation is preposterous. Do I regularly make posts regarding Beckham/Quentin/Poreda/etc. as a front?

And excuse me for accusing you of leading a witch-hunt. Perhaps I phrased it poorly. I guess it'd be better stated as a pointless and fruitless finger-pointing exercise.

DrCrawdad
03-10-2009, 02:22 AM
Do I regularly make posts regarding Beckham/Quentin/Poreda/etc. as a front?


What, is it impossible for Cubbie fans to have an opinion on Beckham/Quentin/Poreda/etc?

It's one thing to disagree with someone because you hate all things Cub-related, but to resort to a straw-man argument in the vein of your accusation is preposterous.

And excuse me for accusing you of leading a witch-hunt. Perhaps I phrased it poorly. I guess it'd be better stated as a pointless and fruitless finger-pointing exercise.

"Strawman?" Where did I engage in that?

And speaking of "straw man" and "finger pointing exercises," how does your comment "you hate all things Cub-related" fit in with your aversion to "strawman" and "finger pointing?"

whitesox901
03-10-2009, 02:46 AM
:popcorn:

white sox bill
03-10-2009, 07:20 AM
Santo's Post Season stats are awesome!

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 09:41 AM
What, is it impossible for Cubbie fans to have an opinion on Beckham/Quentin/Poreda/etc?



"Strawman?" Where did I engage in that?

And speaking of "straw man" and "finger pointing exercises," how does your comment "you hate all things Cub-related" fit in with your aversion to "strawman" and "finger pointing?"
1. I don't know Crawdad, I guess I don't live my life believing that there are people making 3,000+ posts on a White Sox message board, despite fervent Cub allegiance. I guess I believe in rationality.

2. When I post a link to Santo's splits, stating that the statistical record shows he wasn't a bad hitter in the clutch, you tell me I'm a Cub fan. Hmph...strawman.

DrCrawdad
03-10-2009, 10:47 AM
1. I don't know Crawdad, I guess I don't live my life believing that there are people making 3,000+ posts on a White Sox message board, despite fervent Cub allegiance. I guess I believe in rationality.

2. When I post a link to Santo's splits, stating that the statistical record shows he wasn't a bad hitter in the clutch, you tell me I'm a Cub fan. Hmph...strawman.

I explained (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2170788&postcount=26) and you know that it's not merely on the basis of this single post. You've spent a portion of your 3k posts here defending the Cubbies. For example, I've ran into you in threads:

* Defending Rich Hill (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2146055&postcount=41)
* Cubs trade Pie To Orioles (going after Sox fans, the media, etc. all with a Cubbie fan line of argument) (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2143009&postcount=47)

Just as you can toss around your accusations, I'll toss around mine, that you're a Cubbie fan. That's not a strawman, it's my opinion (and apparently the opinion of others too) based on what you've said. Now get back to your job as Cubbie defender at WSI.

kittle42
03-10-2009, 11:09 AM
Just as you can toss around your accusations, I'll toss around mine, that you're a Cubbie fan. That's not a strawman, it's my opinion (and apparently the opinion of others too) based on what you've said. Now get back to your job as Cubbie defender at WSI.

Come on now, both of you. Crawdad, almost every time I see a post of yours, I guess it will somehow be related to the Cubs (in a negative sense, of course). Grebeck could take the line of argument that you are taking with him and say you care more about hating the Cubs than loving the Sox. I do not agree that you do, but I am just saying it could just as easily be turned around on you.

Can we just let it go?

TDog
03-10-2009, 11:25 AM
Or to explain why Phil Rizutto is in.

BTW: I do think that Gil Hodges, for the reasons you stated, should be in the HOF.

It's ridiculous to think that everyone who meets the Phil Rizutto bar should be admitted into the Hall of Fame. Whether or not you may think Gil Hodges belongs in the Hall of Fame, my point is that if you layer onto Ron Santo's career a) playing for glamorous teams in New York and Los Angeles; b) playing for World Series champions in New York and Los Angeles; c) managing a glamour team in New York to a World Series championship; d) hitting about 50 more home runs -- five more World Series home runs; and e) being well liked, you get a career for which there is considerably less Hall of Fame buzz than there is for Ron Santo.

Not playing in New York did not keep Ron Santo out of the Hall of Fame.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 12:22 PM
I explained (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2170788&postcount=26) and you know that it's not merely on the basis of this single post. You've spent a portion of your 3k posts here defending the Cubbies. For example, I've ran into you in threads:

* Defending Rich Hill (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2146055&postcount=41)
* Cubs trade Pie To Orioles (going after Sox fans, the media, etc. all with a Cubbie fan line of argument) (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2143009&postcount=47)

Just as you can toss around your accusations, I'll toss around mine, that you're a Cubbie fan. That's not a strawman, it's my opinion (and apparently the opinion of others too) based on what you've said. Now get back to your job as Cubbie defender at WSI.
Why would a Cub fan defend two ex-Cubs? That doesn't even make sense.

I don't run around defending Piniella, Hendry, etc. -- I merely state my opinions, and sometimes (OMG NO) they run counter to your slanted and obsessive positions.

Edit: and I just clicked your links. Hilarious.

Eddo144
03-10-2009, 01:04 PM
I explained (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2170788&postcount=26) and you know that it's not merely on the basis of this single post. You've spent a portion of your 3k posts here defending the Cubbies. For example, I've ran into you in threads:

* Defending Rich Hill (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2146055&postcount=41)
* Cubs trade Pie To Orioles (going after Sox fans, the media, etc. all with a Cubbie fan line of argument) (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2143009&postcount=47)
I'd say Grebeck's more of a contrarian (or someone who just likes to play Devil's Advocate) than a Cub fan. I'm sure if the number of threads dealing with "Ridiculous Dale Murphy propaganda" from Atlanta papers was at all comparable to the number of threads against Ron Santo, Grebeck would take the alternate viewpoint in those as well (it would also help that Murphy and Santo are both borderline Hall candidates).

Just as you can toss around your accusations, I'll toss around mine, that you're a Cubbie fan. That's not a strawman, it's my opinion (and apparently the opinion of others too) based on what you've said. Now get back to your job as Cubbie defender at WSI.
Except your "opinion" that Grebeck's a Cubs fan can be refuted by the fact that he is actually a Sox fan. I could just as easily accuse you of being a Cubs fan (after all, I've never heard a non-Cubs fans refer to the team as the "Cubbies") who posts ridiculous accusations to make Sox fans look bad, and that could just as easily be refuted by the fact that you are, indeed, a Sox fan.

So lighten up. Just because Grebeck is willing to have a high opinion of some Cubs players doesn't mean he's a Cubs fan; it just means he's willing to get past his fandom when judging players. I hold high opinions of Joe Mauer and Denard Span; does that make me a Twins fan?

DrCrawdad
03-10-2009, 01:27 PM
I'd say Grebeck's more of a contrarian (or someone who just likes to play Devil's Advocate) than a Cub fan. I'm sure if the number of threads dealing with "Ridiculous Dale Murphy propaganda" from Atlanta papers was at all comparable to the number of threads against Ron Santo, Grebeck would take the alternate viewpoint in those as well (it would also help that Murphy and Santo are both borderline Hall candidates).


Except your "opinion" that Grebeck's a Cubs fan can be refuted by the fact that he is actually a Sox fan. I could just as easily accuse you of being a Cubs fan (I've never heard a non-Cubs fans refer to the team as the "Cubbies") who posts ridiculous accusations to make Sox fans look bad, and that could just as easily be refuted by the fact that you are, indeed, a Sox fan.

So lighten up. Just because Grebeck is willing to have a high opinion of some Cubs players doesn't mean he's a Cubs fan; it just means he's willing to get past his fandom when judging players. I hold high opinions of Joe Mauer and Denard Span; does that make me a Twins fan?

That's your opinion and I hold a differing opinion.

I use that term "Cubbies" as a term of derision, not as a term of endearment or in a "lovable" sense.

"...(DrCrawdad) posts ridiculous accusations to make Sox fans look bad..." When have I done that? You can of course post those here or email them to me if you don't want to further clutter this discussion. But I'm open to hearing your opinion on which of my expressed opinions are ridiculous.

"Just because Grebeck is willing to have a high opinion of some Cubs players doesn't mean he's a Cubs fan; it just means he's willing to get past his fandom when judging players. I hold high opinions of Joe Mauer and Denard Span; does that make me a Twins fan?"

That's an interesting line of reasoning. I also hold high opinions of Mauer & several Twins. In fact in the Sox newsgroup I'm routinely attacked by a Cubbie troll for having said opinions of the Twins and because I've stated that I root for the AL Central teams in the post-season when the Sox are out of the picture.

If you're a baseball fan, I think it's perfectly logical for you to have an opinion of other teams players. And I think it's perfectly logical to respect and admire your favorite teams rivals. I am a Sox fan. I do also follow the Cubbies, ie watching their games, etc. when I have time (and I routinely get pummeled here for being "Flubsessed"). If I lived in another city with a major league club, I'd follow that team as well. And in following that team I'd have opinions on that team. In the end though, I'd still solely be a fan of the White Sox. The Sox are the team I am emotionally invested in. If the Sox lose or play terrible, I'm in a lousy mood. If they win, I'm euphoric, and in 2005 I was in heaven, so to speak. I'm never that high or low regarding any other team (even outside of baseball).

My point is that Craig Grebeck spends an awful lot of time here defending all things Cubbie and combined with that his lines of reasoning have the strong stink of a Cubbie fan to me. If that opinion is wrong, so be it.

I will "lighten up" and I'm moving on.

Eddo144
03-10-2009, 01:50 PM
That's your opinion and I hold a differing opinion.
You can hold the opinion that he sympathizes with the Cubs too much, but I'll take his word that he's a Sox fan as fact. If we can't do that on this board, then what's the point?

"...(DrCrawdad) posts ridiculous accusations to make Sox fans look bad..." When have I done that? You can of course post those here or email them to me if you don't want to further clutter this discussion. But I'm open to hearing your opinion on which of my expressed opinions are ridiculous.
I don't actually think you are making ridiculous accusations to make Sox fans look bad, I was just pointing out that me making such a claim is similar to you calling Grebeck a Cubs fan. I fully believe you are a Sox fan.

That's an interesting line of reasoning. I also hold high opinions of Mauer & several Twins. In fact in the Sox newsgroup I'm routinely attacked by a Cubbie troll for having said opinions of the Twins and because I've stated that I root for the AL Central teams in the post-season when the Sox are out of the picture.
It hasn't occured to you that you falsely labeling Grebeck a Cubs fan is no different that those newsgroup posters falsely labeling you a Cubs/Twins fan?

My point is that Craig Grebeck spends an awful lot of time here defending all things Cubbie and combined with that his lines of reasoning have the strong stink of a Cubbie fan to me. If that opinion is wrong, so be it.

I will "lighten up" and I'm moving on.
My point is that Grebeck spends an awful lot of time here, period, and that as a contrarian by nature, he'll wind up defending the Cubs. If another team caught as much unabashed hatred as the Cubs here, I'm sure you'd find him defending that team.

I'm moving on, too. I just think it's rather rude to accuse a frequent poster of being a Cubs fan. Isn't that the worst insult there is?

WhiteSox5187
03-10-2009, 01:53 PM
The statistical record disagrees with you.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=santoro01&year=00
Actually, in August and September of '69 Santo hit .244/.322/.415 and .245/.369/.341 with 7 total HRs. So as the Cubs were falling apart Santo wasn't exactly putting up life saving numbers.

Also in 1970 the Cubs went on a 12 game losing streak in June that really helped knock them out of contention, in June that year Santo went .189/.295/.305, so the assessment that Santo was not exactly clutch and put up a lot of good numbers in garbage time (which is really because the Cubs were such a garbage team for so long when he was there) might be a fairly accurate statement.

SOXPHILE
03-10-2009, 01:53 PM
Enough of this. Let's get back to hating Ron Santo and bashing the un-ending stream of articles propping him up for the HOF.....

WhiteSox5187
03-10-2009, 01:58 PM
Enough of this. Let's get back to hating Ron Santo and bashing the un-ending stream of articles propping him up for the HOF.....
Agreed, plus I actually did RESEARCH to disprove something Grebeck said! C'mon, everytime I do research my posts go ignored! :redneck

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 02:09 PM
Actually, in August and September of '69 Santo hit .244/.322/.415 and .245/.369/.341 with 7 total HRs. So as the Cubs were falling apart Santo wasn't exactly putting up life saving numbers.

Also in 1970 the Cubs went on a 12 game losing streak in June that really helped knock them out of contention, in June that year Santo went .189/.295/.305, so the assessment that Santo was not exactly clutch and put up a lot of good numbers in garbage time (which is really because the Cubs were such a garbage team for so long when he was there) might be a fairly accurate statement.
Okay. You can use 2 months and 12 games worth of data and I'll use his career. I'll go with my sample size.

DrCrawdad
03-10-2009, 02:41 PM
Actually, in August and September of '69 Santo hit .244/.322/.415 and .245/.369/.341 with 7 total HRs. So as the Cubs were falling apart Santo wasn't exactly putting up life saving numbers.

Also in 1970 the Cubs went on a 12 game losing streak in June that really helped knock them out of contention, in June that year Santo went .189/.295/.305, so the assessment that Santo was not exactly clutch and put up a lot of good numbers in garbage time (which is really because the Cubs were such a garbage team for so long when he was there) might be a fairly accurate statement.

So, when it really counted for Santo's team - when they could have grabbed winning the NL East - Santo flopped. He choked when it counted most. There was an opportunity to make a truly nationally celebrated name for himself, and Santo failed. People can wail on the Veterans' Committee and those before Santo's case passed to them, but he hasn't been viewed as a Hall of Famer in all these years - in spite of his and the Cubbies mouthpieces constantly carping on this. Could it possibly be that Santo actually doesn't qualify?

PS And before (someone) accuses me of this view because "I hate all things Cubbie" bear in mind that I am not opposed to Santo getting into the HoF. If he's inducted, first of all I'll be relieved from this constant whining about Santo and the HoF. And I'll also be in a way happy for Santo. He's gone thru a lot with his diabetes and I respect him for that and his efforts to raise money and awareness.

WhiteSox5187
03-10-2009, 04:57 PM
Okay. You can use 2 months and 12 games worth of data and I'll use his career. I'll go with my sample size.
Again, that was one of the few times in his career when it mattered. It's like pointing out Jerry Owens put up good numbers in August and September. It's easy to put up good numbers when you're in last place.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2009, 05:10 PM
Again, that was one of the few times in his career when it mattered. It's like pointing out Jerry Owens put up good numbers in August and September. It's easy to put up good numbers when you're in last place.
Your point would make some semblance of sense if I had solely posted month by month splits. Using BR's definition of "high leverage" situations, Santo was fantastic.

WhiteSox5187
03-10-2009, 05:31 PM
Your point would make some semblance of sense if I had solely posted month by month splits. Using BR's definition of "high leverage" situations, Santo was fantastic.
For God's sake, pray tell what does BP consider to be a "high leverage" situation? A tight game in the middle of September between the Cubs and Montreal to see who gets last place? Is it when there are runners in scoring position regardless of score?

Santo was a very good third baseman, but I don't think he is as good as other third baseman in the HOF, and the only time he was on a team that was contending he didn't help the cause at all. If he put up his career numbers but led the Cubs or another team to a World Series (christ, even a DIVISIONAL title) I think he is a HOFer, but the fact that he never played a team that won anything and never contributed when that team was threatening hurts his case.

Eddo144
03-10-2009, 08:11 PM
For God's sake, pray tell what does BP consider to be a "high leverage" situation? A tight game in the middle of September between the Cubs and Montreal to see who gets last place? Is it when there are runners in scoring position regardless of score?

Santo was a very good third baseman, but I don't think he is as good as other third baseman in the HOF, and the only time he was on a team that was contending he didn't help the cause at all. If he put up his career numbers but led the Cubs or another team to a World Series (christ, even a DIVISIONAL title) I think he is a HOFer, but the fact that he never played a team that won anything and never contributed when that team was threatening hurts his case.
First of all, Grebeck was using BR, baseball-reference.com, not BP.

Second of all, this is why I hate "clutch" arguments. Some people say that clutch PAs only happen in games with an impact on a pennant race , and they have a point, but tell me this: is a two-run homer in the bottom of the ninth, down by one, not clutch if you're 15 games out of first place in September? If it's not, what is it? Meaningless? Why even play the game then?

WhiteSoxOnly
03-10-2009, 08:59 PM
For God's sake, pray tell what does BP consider to be a "high leverage" situation? A tight game in the middle of September between the Cubs and Montreal to see who gets last place? Is it when there are runners in scoring position regardless of score?

Santo was a very good third baseman, but I don't think he is as good as other third baseman in the HOF, and the only time he was on a team that was contending he didn't help the cause at all. If he put up his career numbers but led the Cubs or another team to a World Series (christ, even a DIVISIONAL title) I think he is a HOFer, but the fact that he never played a team that won anything and never contributed when that team was threatening hurts his case.

Maybe high leverage for Santo was when he went skipping down the
3rd base line towards the clubhouse clicking his heels like a circus
clown,but i sure as hell don't remember him doing much of that the
last 2 months of the '69 season.He could play but the fact that he was
an enormous ass didn't help his cause.That and to much cub stink.

Smokey Burg
03-11-2009, 02:16 PM
Of course there are lies, damn lies and then statistics. There were a lot of good ball players on the late 60's cub teams and some of them are deservedly in the HOF. Santo was a good ball player, the overall statistics back up that statement, but I, like several other people believe that the HOF should be reserved for the truly great players. I could go babble on for hours (as well as most posters here could) about what defines a truly great player. One thing that truly great players don't do is become Mr. Below Average while their team starts to founder during a pennant race, which is exactly what Santo did during the last two months of the 69 season. Also, I am not saying that just because a guy has a slump or two during his career he doesn't belong in the HOF.

Many of the Chicago baseball fans that I ask about Santo and that can remember him playing seem to have the same opinion as I. Some cub fans even had nicknames for him such as "Hambone", "Turkey Trot", and "Pizza Boy".

A previous poster suggested that he belongs in the Hall of Pretty Darn Good and I offer my support in that quest.

cub killer
03-12-2009, 01:09 AM
Despite the team he played for and somewhat announces for, he simply did not put up hall of fame numbers. If the HoF lowers its bar, then a slew of unqualified former players will come knocking at the door, crying and whining in the same way R.S. has

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2009, 10:32 AM
Despite the team he played for and somewhat announces for, he simply did not put up hall of fame numbers. If the HoF lowers its bar, then a slew of unqualified former players will come knocking at the door, crying and whining in the same way R.S. has
Define HoF numbers for a third baseman.

DrCrawdad
03-12-2009, 11:20 AM
Define HoF numbers for a third baseman.

Better than Santo's.

:)

GoSox2K3
03-12-2009, 06:27 PM
Regardless of what I think about Santo's HOF credentials, I have to agree that Sun-Times article was pretty ridiculous.

cub killer
03-12-2009, 08:03 PM
Define HoF numbers for a third baseman.

Ugh, I can't number crunch after a day of work. You do the research. List the career regular and postseason BA, BA WRISP, errors, putouts while the other team had RISP, OBP, RBI, BA from 7th inning onward and SB %, of all the current 3rd basemen in the HoF. Then list R.S.'s numbers for each of those categories as well. If R.S.'s numbers match up, then you might have a case for him.


Btw, I agree with that guy who suspects you may be a double agent

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2009, 08:14 PM
Ugh, I can't number crunch after a day of work. You do the research. List the career regular and postseason BA, BA WRISP, errors, putouts while the other team had RISP, OBP, RBI, BA from 7th inning onward and SB %, of all the current 3rd basemen in the HoF. Then list R.S.'s numbers for each of those categories as well. If R.S.'s numbers match up, then you might have a case for him.


Btw, I agree with that guy who suspects you may be a double agent
So in other words, you throw out a claim, and when pressed with a question you choose to a) tell the other to do (totally arbitrary) research and b) accuse me of being a Cub fan. Strong case you've got going.

SoxGirl4Life
03-12-2009, 10:52 PM
Ugh, I can't number crunch after a day of work. You do the research. List the career regular and postseason BA, BA WRISP, errors, putouts while the other team had RISP, OBP, RBI, BA from 7th inning onward and SB %, of all the current 3rd basemen in the HoF. Then list R.S.'s numbers for each of those categories as well. If R.S.'s numbers match up, then you might have a case for him.


Btw, I agree with that guy who suspects you may be a double agent


lol

slavko
03-12-2009, 10:52 PM
Many of the Chicago baseball fans that I ask about Santo and that can remember him playing seem to have the same opinion as I. Some cub fans even had nicknames for him such as "Hambone", "Turkey Trot", and "Pizza Boy".


Those were pretty crappy pizzas he had his name on too. Nothing makes my day more than a good Ronnie bashing thread. Unless it's a bash the radio sports moron thread.

DANNY Murphy for HOF.

kittle42
03-12-2009, 11:43 PM
btw, i agree with that guy who suspects you may be a double agent

gmab.

DrCrawdad
03-13-2009, 10:36 PM
So in other words, you throw out a claim, and when pressed with a question you choose to a) tell the other to do (totally arbitrary) research and b) accuse me of being a Cub fan. Strong case you've got going.

A. could be you
B. is probably true

DrCrawdad
03-13-2009, 10:39 PM
Ugh, I can't number crunch after a day of work. You do the research. List the career regular and postseason BA, BA WRISP, errors, putouts while the other team had RISP, OBP, RBI, BA from 7th inning onward and SB %, of all the current 3rd basemen in the HoF. Then list R.S.'s numbers for each of those categories as well. If R.S.'s numbers match up, then you might have a case for him.


Btw, I agree with that guy who suspects you may be a double agent

http://www.craigkarges.com/elements/Standing_ovation.jpg

Craig Grebeck
03-14-2009, 01:41 AM
A. could be you
B. is probably true
Keep going back to the well. It has worked so well for you thus far.

RadioheadRocks
03-14-2009, 01:52 AM
less filling!!!


tastes great!!!

robertks61
03-14-2009, 08:37 AM
Programming Alert:

Make sure and watch Randy Hundley Cubs fantasy Camp at 6:30 PM on WGN Channel 9 tonight! Interacting with special guests Cub Greats Billy Williams, Ron Santo and Ernie Banks.

DrCrawdad
03-14-2009, 09:54 AM
Keep going back to the well. It has worked so well for you thus far.

I should have put :)on that post, I was ribbing you...kind of...

gregory18n
03-15-2009, 02:31 AM
my whole family was cubbie crazy when i was a kid, it's why i'm a hard-core sox fan. but i have to say, banks williams and santo absolutely belong in the hall.

Nellie_Fox
03-15-2009, 03:04 AM
my whole family was cubbie crazy when i was a kid, it's why i'm a hard-core sox fan. but i have to say, banks williams and santo absolutely belong in the hall.Shift key broken?

gregory18n
03-16-2009, 05:11 PM
not broken. in l.a. we use the cap 4 style points.

soxinem1
03-16-2009, 10:43 PM
Lip - my guess is he does get in - but only after he passes away.

Will his plaque then read 'Get In Or Die Trying?' :smile:

Nellie_Fox
03-17-2009, 01:05 AM
not broken. in l.a. we use the cap 4 style points.That doesn't even make sense.

StillMissOzzie
03-17-2009, 01:34 AM
my whole family was cubbie crazy when i was a kid, it's why i'm a hard-core sox fan. but i have to say, banks williams and santo absolutely belong in the hall.

Don't be sad, cuz two out of three ain't bad

SMO
:tongue:

Ziggy S
03-17-2009, 07:40 AM
Ugh, I can't number crunch after a day of work. You do the research. List the career regular and postseason BA, BA WRISP, errors, putouts while the other team had RISP, OBP, RBI, BA from 7th inning onward and SB %, of all the current 3rd basemen in the HoF. Then list R.S.'s numbers for each of those categories as well. If R.S.'s numbers match up, then you might have a case for him.


Btw, I agree with that guy who suspects you may be a double agent

The fact is that concurrent with research published in Charles Levy’s “Freakonomics” so-called “secret children” almost invariably grow up to be Double Secret Agents. Craig Grebeck should learn to respect those Halflings which may indeed grow up to one day decide his fate when he is merely a six-foot-eight zucchini riding in a lawnmower. Read it and Weep.

Plays Alice in Chains' Angry Chair on guitar