PDA

View Full Version : Hilarious Sun Times Article


DMarte708
01-02-2005, 04:38 AM
Is Dave Bowman new to Chicago? If he isn't, my fault for failing to notice his work. This man has already jumped to the top of my list concerning respectable journalists. He's uttered several statements which will make him a marked man in Chicago:

1. Admit he's a Sox fan
2. Insult cubdom
3. Sacrilegious suggestion Sandberg is not Hall Worthy

http://www.suntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-spt-noryno02.html

I'll bet money this article will cause an uproar among Cub fans. Mike Kiley and Mike Murphy will attempt to lessen Dave's credibility for questioning Cubdoms second base GOD.

batmanZoSo
01-02-2005, 05:17 AM
Is Dave Bowman new to Chicago? If he isn't, my fault for failing to notice his work. This man has already jumped to the top of my list concerning respectable journalists. He's uttered several statements which will make him a marked man in Chicago:

1. Admit he's a Sox fan
2. Insult cubdom
3. Sacrilegious suggestion Sandberg is not Hall Worthy

http://www.suntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-spt-noryno02.html

I'll bet money this article will cause an uproar among Cub fans. Mike Kiley and Mike Murphy will attempt to lessen Dave's credibility for questioning Cubdoms second base GOD.
I'd like to take the Sandberg/hall of fame route with this...

I like to see a Sox fan as a writer to balance it out a little bit, but Sandberg is totally a hall of famer. In one article, this bozo cites Shawon Dunston as having "excellent range and one of the best arms ever" and then says Sanbderg's homers are "worthless." What?

The most damning stat for me? Sandberg led the Cubs to zero World Series. That's why the game is played, why Morgan belongs.


This is the kind of crap that needs to stop with these damn writers. What the hell do World Series titles have to do with how good a player is? I don't care how good you are, no one player has that much effect on whether his team wins it all. Take Babe Ruth off the Yankees and give them Jimmie Foxx. Guess what? They're still going all the way. In kind, put Sandberg on the Reds and the Big Red Machine wins at least the two they won.

This kind of stupid thinking will affect our Sox players in the future, like Frank, who more than likely will retire without a ring as long as he stays with us. But this is one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time, period. Sure the DH thing will be a factor, but no ring will probably be the biggest hurdle. I think Sandberg is an all time great at his position as well. Not a first ballot guy, but he definitely belongs there. All time greats belong, that's all there is to it. World Series doesn't mean anything. In basketball it does, in hockey it does a little bit, but not in baseball.

I mean come on, wasn't Ozzie Smith a first ballot hall of famer? This is a .262/.337 hitter who was an excellent fielder. Oh, but he won a world series and did backflips, so he's in almost unanimously. One of the top three to five defensive shortstops to ever play and I think deserves the hall, but how come Allan Trammell got like half the votes he did? Was he half as good as Ozzie? It's all perception. These writers don't know baseball, they shouldn't be able to vote.

eastchicagosoxfan
01-02-2005, 05:41 AM
Sandberg is a hall of famer. He was consistently the best second sacker in the game for 10 years or so. He fielded the position as wll as anybody ever has,and put up great numbers, often on terrible teams. Just a thought, but could he have been a prototype for the power hitting shortstops that the league now has? I can't stand the Cubs, and it breaks my heart when I see a little kid tell me he's a fan of the Dark Side, but my utter disdain for that team is for the present, the past is the past.

munchman33
01-02-2005, 05:43 AM
I'd like to take the Sandberg/hall of fame route with this...

I like to see a Sox fan as a writer to balance it out a little bit, but Sandberg is totally a hall of famer. In one article, this bozo cites Shawon Dunston as having "excellent range and one of the best arms ever" and then says Sanbderg's homers are "worthless." What?


This is the kind of crap that needs to stop with these damn writers. What the hell do World Series titles have to do with how good a player is? I don't care how good you are, no one player has that much effect on whether his team wins it all. Take Babe Ruth off the Yankees and give them Jimmie Foxx. Guess what? They're still going all the way. In kind, put Sandberg on the Reds and the Big Red Machine wins at least the two they won.

This kind of stupid thinking will affect our Sox players in the future, like Frank, who more than likely will retire without a ring as long as he stays with us. But this is one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time, period. Sure the DH thing will be a factor, but no ring will probably be the biggest hurdle. I think Sandberg is an all time great at his position as well. Not a first ballot guy, but he definitely belongs there. All time greats belong, that's all there is to it. World Series doesn't mean anything. In basketball it does, in hockey it does a little bit, but not in baseball.

I mean come on, wasn't Ozzie Smith a first ballot hall of famer? This is a .262/.337 hitter who was an excellent fielder. Oh, but he won a world series and did backflips, so he's in almost unanimously. One of the top three to five defensive shortstops to ever play and I think deserves the hall, but how come Allan Trammell got like half the votes he did? Was he half as good as Ozzie? It's all perception. These writers don't know baseball, they shouldn't be able to vote.
Sandberg is borderline anyway. His stats are only good for a second basemen, and he had terrible range in an era where defense was more important. Had he gone to the World Series, then his case would be made stronger. That's the point being made here. Not that the World Series is mandatory for players to be hall-worthy. But for a guy like Sandberg, yes it should mandatory. Heck, even with it he probably doesn't belong.

cubhater
01-02-2005, 08:16 AM
This is the kind of crap that needs to stop with these damn writers. What the hell do World Series titles have to do with how good a player is? I don't care how good you are, no one player has that much effect on whether his team wins it all. Take Babe Ruth off the Yankees and give them Jimmie Foxx. Guess what? They're still going all the way. In kind, put Sandberg on the Reds and the Big Red Machine wins at least the two they won.


Bingo. It shouldn't matter how many rings a player has as a barometer to the HOF in their respective sport. Would Payton have made the HOF if the Bears didn't win the Super Bowl? Hell yes he would've! I don't see Fisk wearing any rings and he made it with no problem. Most sportswriters are a joke, especially in this town.

SOXintheBURGH
01-02-2005, 09:01 AM
Hmmm..

I seem to remember Ryne Sandberg's jersey to be clean after every game due to the amount of ground balls he dove for...

idseer
01-02-2005, 09:40 AM
Bingo. It shouldn't matter how many rings a player has as a barometer to the HOF in their respective sport. Would Payton have made the HOF if the Bears didn't win the Super Bowl? Hell yes he would've! I don't see Fisk wearing any rings and he made it with no problem. Most sportswriters are a joke, especially in this town. be that as it may ... it's one of the reasons hurt still isn't a shoo in. a lot of writers believe the way this guy believes.
i do wonder what he'd have to say about thomas and the fact he's ALSO never brought a title to chicago.
it's great he's a sox fan but i don't think his article was very balanced. sandberg is definitely a hof'er.

Flight #24
01-02-2005, 09:47 AM
In other news, Dave Bowman has recently been reassigned to daily updates on traffic court proceedings. "We just think this maximizes his talents" was the quote from the ST editor, after getting off the phone with Andy MacPhail.

fquaye149
01-02-2005, 10:56 AM
be that as it may ... it's one of the reasons hurt still isn't a shoo in. a lot of writers believe the way this guy believes.
i do wonder what he'd have to say about thomas and the fact he's ALSO never brought a title to chicago.
it's great he's a sox fan but i don't think his article was very balanced. sandberg is definitely a hof'er.
not to mention the fact that Thomas' facts are undeniable - Huge numbers, 2 MVPs. Sandbergs stats are average for any position but middle infield, he didn't play all that good of defense AND he never made it to the big one. That's why it's a negative...

You know the old expression all other things being equal?

Giallo
01-02-2005, 11:13 AM
This article is bad in so many ways. First off, it implies that the major criteria for a second baseman getting into the HOF is fielding. The author admits that Sandberg had "good but not great fielding stats," but then selectively highlights fielding stats where Sandberg ranked poorly, marginalizing the fielding stats where he did well. Then he marginalizes Sandberg's prowess as a hitter. He basically says that a second baseman who can hit really well is like a pitcher who can filed really well. OK, so suddenly offensive statistics are not important if you are second baseman? So what about Joe Morgan, a player who by the author's own metric was an inferior fielder to Sandberg and roughly his equal in hitting...well he won a couple World Series, so he belongs in the HOF. OK, so Sandberg didn't win a World Series, but he did lead the Cubs to the playoffs twice (where he performed quite well), won an MVP in 1984 and finished top 5 in 1989 and 1990; won 9 Gold Gloves; was elected to 10 All Star games, blah, blah, blah. None of this was of course mentioned by the author.

I think Sandberg belongs in the HOF. He was clearly dominant at his poisition for a decade. For that period he was not just the top second baseman, but in at least three seasons one of the league's top 5 players. He holds the home run record for second baseman. One could argue that he redefined the prototype for middle infielders into the more offensive minded one you see today. Additionally, he was a very good fielder. Perhaps he is a bit overrated defensively because of the errorless streak, but that doesn't make him bad.

Articles like this piss me off because they are so poorly researched and clearly biased.

PaulDrake
01-02-2005, 01:30 PM
Articles like this piss me off because they are so poorly researched and clearly biased. Alas, that is way things are in the field of journalism today. Not just sports journalism, but the entire gamut. Regarding Sandberg. Maz is in, if Sandberg isn't then that just ain't right.

batmanZoSo
01-02-2005, 02:46 PM
Alas, that is way things are in the field of journalism today. Not just sports journalism, but the entire gamut. Regarding Sandberg. Maz is in, if Sandberg isn't then that just ain't right.
Yeah, but Mazeroski won a World Series and made All Stars a couple of times.

This is what's wrong with the Hall. If Maz doesn't hit that home run and win the World Series, the idea of him being a Hall of Famer is laughable. Hell, it's laughable as is. .260 hitter, .299 on-base, no steals...maybe a good glove I don't know...but he was certainly no Nellie Fox or Robbie Alomar with the glove or I would know. You might as well put Mark Lemke in the Hall. Looks like the same caliber player, and Lemke was one of the best World Series performers I've ever seen.

I get the whole WS helps one's case thing (even though I disagree with it), but Sandberg dominated his position for ten years. He was an excellent base stealer, had outstanding hands and he was a big guy who didn't have great range, but you don't win 9 gold gloves for nothing. They're talking Jeff Kent for the hall and that's gonna be based on NOTHING but home runs if it happens.

I still can't get over that meaningless for a 2B to hit homers comment. That is beyond idiocy in any context. Don't you think that what a guy might lack in range, he more than makes up for it in offense. His typical year was 20 homers, 80 rbis.

TornLabrum
01-02-2005, 02:54 PM
Yeah, but Mazeroski won a World Series and made All Stars a couple of times.

This is what's wrong with the Hall. If Maz doesn't hit that home run and win the World Series, the idea of him being a Hall of Famer is laughable. Hell, it's laughable as is. .260 hitter, .299 on-base, no steals...maybe a good glove I don't know...but he was certainly no Nellie Fox or Robbie Alomar with the glove or I would know. You might as well put Mark Lemke in the Hall. Looks like the same caliber player, and Lemke was one of the best World Series performers I've ever seen.

I get the whole WS helps one's case thing (even though I disagree with it), but Sandberg dominated his position for ten years. He was an excellent base stealer, had outstanding hands and he was a big guy who didn't have great range, but you don't win 9 gold gloves for nothing. They're talking Jeff Kent for the hall and that's gonna be based on NOTHING but home runs if it happens.

I still can't get over that meaningless for a 2B to hit homers comment. That is beyond idiocy in any context. Don't you think that what a guy might lack in range, he more than makes up for it in offense. His typical year was 20 homers, 80 rbis.

You're right. You don't know. Maz was a better fielder than Fox. He was the best second baseman of his era.

idseer
01-02-2005, 03:02 PM
You're right. You don't know. Maz was a better fielder than Fox. He was the best second baseman of his era.
thems fightin words.

i say nellie was.

batmanZoSo
01-02-2005, 03:06 PM
You're right. You don't know. Maz was a better fielder than Fox. He was the best second baseman of his era.
Well then I recant my statements on that. You could say the same about Sandberg. But if guys like Maz and Ozzie Smith can go in almost purely on defense, there's definitely a place for a guy like Sandberg, ring or no ring.

SOXintheBURGH
01-02-2005, 03:09 PM
Sandberg? Defense?

Dub25
01-02-2005, 03:42 PM
Is Dave Bowman new to Chicago? If he isn't, my fault for failing to notice his work. This man has already jumped to the top of my list concerning respectable journalists. He's uttered several statements which will make him a marked man in Chicago:

1. Admit he's a Sox fan
2. Insult cubdom
3. Sacrilegious suggestion Sandberg is not Hall Worthy

http://www.suntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-spt-noryno02.html

I'll bet money this article will cause an uproar among Cub fans. Mike Kiley and Mike Murphy will attempt to lessen Dave's credibility for questioning Cubdoms second base GOD.
Its Dale not dave Bowman and he is the outdoors columinist on Sundays for the Sun-Times. Why he was chosen to write about Sandberg is anyones guess. I'm sure the Cub fans will be calling us white trash fisherman or hunters after reading this article. Oh yeah, we all have mullets to.

Daver
01-02-2005, 03:55 PM
Dale Bowman is a lifelong Sox fan, but he should probably stick to writing about the outdoors, he would have been better served writing a column detailing the way the our governor is trying his damndest to ruin the state Parks Dept.

fquaye149
01-02-2005, 04:21 PM
You're right. You don't know. Maz was a better fielder than Fox. He was the best second baseman of his era.
generally defense alone hasn't been enough to get players in the hall. It just helps build the case. Maz was a stupendous 2B, maybe one of the best defensively ever...but w/o the renown of that walkoff HR, it's possible he wouldn't have made the hall..

Hell, even in the age of highlights and even with all the cartwheels there were pundits saying the most critical thing Ozzie Smith ever did to make the hall was up his average a few points so it was a respectable high .200's....otherwise they thought it was unlikely he would have made it...

TornLabrum
01-02-2005, 05:42 PM
generally defense alone hasn't been enough to get players in the hall. It just helps build the case. Maz was a stupendous 2B, maybe one of the best defensively ever...but w/o the renown of that walkoff HR, it's possible he wouldn't have made the hall..

Hell, even in the age of highlights and even with all the cartwheels there were pundits saying the most critical thing Ozzie Smith ever did to make the hall was up his average a few points so it was a respectable high .200's....otherwise they thought it was unlikely he would have made it...
There are exceptions to the HOF being for offense. Rabbit Maranville certainly is not in for his offense. Aparicio's offense consisted mainly of the stolen base. But there are damned few exceptions.

fquaye149
01-02-2005, 06:47 PM
There are exceptions to the HOF being for offense. Rabbit Maranville certainly is not in for his offense. Aparicio's offense consisted mainly of the stolen base. But there are damned few exceptions.
oh definitely..but very few to the extent of mazeroski who has almost nothing at all to recommend him offensively...besides that world series winner of course!

batmanZoSo
01-02-2005, 06:52 PM
oh definitely..but very few to the extent of mazeroski who has almost nothing at all to recommend him offensively...besides that world series winner of course!
I would give Ozzie Smith the nod there. Mazeroski had a .299 career on-base, but it looks like he did have good pop especially for a middle infielder in the 60s. He had a 19 homer year and a few 80 rbi years.

quade36
01-02-2005, 06:55 PM
Oh Man, I can see the trouble this article will stir.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-02-2005, 07:32 PM
This is the kind of crap that needs to stop with these damn writers. What the hell do World Series titles have to do with how good a player is? I don't care how good you are, no one player has that much effect on whether his team wins it all. Take Babe Ruth off the Yankees and give them Jimmie Foxx. Guess what? They're still going all the way. In kind, put Sandberg on the Reds and the Big Red Machine wins at least the two they won.
He's absolutely right! Look at football, Dan Marino's not in the Hall is he? Nope. You know why? Because he didn't win the big one!

(Only the elite will find the humor in that comment :smile:)

misty60481
01-02-2005, 09:17 PM
Im not saying Sandberg doesnt belong in HOF but if he is how about Joe Gordon look up his lifetime records they compare or are better than Sandbergs and he was in World Series was MVP and later a manager,, so why was he left off???

JKryl
01-02-2005, 10:56 PM
The important thing here is that we have someone on staff who may actually start promoting the South Side. Hopefully, the ST will see the light and leave him where he is. The heck with moving him to traffic court.:violin:


:bundy White Sox baseball, every day an adventure!