PDA

View Full Version : Is Downey an Idiot or What?


Foulke29
01-03-2005, 10:24 AM
Doesn't believe in voting Boggs in --- ?

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-041230halldowney,1,1574361.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

idseer
01-03-2005, 10:39 AM
Doesn't believe in voting Boggs in --- ?

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-041230halldowney,1,1574361.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines
i buy his explanation.

JRIG
01-03-2005, 10:43 AM
Yes. He is an idiot.

Take a look at Boggs' 83-89 peak (http://www.baseballreference.com/b/boggswa01.shtml).

Those are unbelieveable, Hall of Fame numbers. Plus he's got the rest of his career. 4 of those years of +.450 OBP, 6 of those years with 40+ doubles, 5 seasons of +.350 BA, 7 straight years of 200+ hits.

If Boggs isn't a Hall-of-Famer, I don't know who is.

MUsoxfan
01-03-2005, 10:44 AM
I don't buy that Cubbie-loving explanation at all. He wasn't making a case for any other people than Santo and Sandberg. He just seems like a jealous guy. That's nothing more than a petition to get that beatoff Santo in the hall. Boggs > Santo

idseer
01-03-2005, 10:46 AM
I don't buy that Cubbie-loving explanation at all. He wasn't making a case for any other people than Santo and Sandberg. He just seems like a jealous guy. That's nothing more than a petition to get that beatoff Santo in the hall. Boggs > Santo
he cited more than just cubs there. the problem lies with the fact that so many of you have a constant blind rage against anything cub.

silly.

JRIG
01-03-2005, 10:53 AM
he cited more than just cubs there. the problem lies with the fact that so many of you have a constant blind rage against anything cub.

silly.Well, here are the other arguments:

Did he get the hits? Yes. Was he as mighty a third baseman as Mike Schmidt? No. So any third basemen not the greatest of all-time (like Schmidt) shouldn't be in the Hall?

A vacuum cleaner like Brooks Robinson? No. Boggs was, at least, an above average defensive third baseman. For whatever its worth, he did win two Gold Gloves. Defensive accolades didn't come until later because his offensive numbers were so incredible early on.

A hero of many a World Series? A man of unimpeachable character? No.Punishing a player because his TEAM didn't make the World Series? No thank you. Boggs was in 2 World Series and hit .286/.362/.381. It's not like he completely collapsed. And if we're kicking people out for character...well, Downey just said he's been voting every year for Steve Garvey.

Case closed. His arguments don't hold water.

MUsoxfan
01-03-2005, 10:55 AM
he cited more than just cubs there. the problem lies with the fact that so many of you have a constant blind rage against anything cub.

silly.
That's almost true, but I happen to be for Sandberg getting into the HOF. He brought up the undeserving Santo twice in the article. He's not even on the ballot and for good reason

idseer
01-03-2005, 11:12 AM
That's almost true, but I happen to be for Sandberg getting into the HOF. He brought up the undeserving Santo twice in the article. He's not even on the ballot and for good reason
it's not 'almost' true. it IS true.
i disagree with you about santo. he was the premier 3rd baseman of his time. a 9 time all-star, 5 consecutive years gg at 3rd. among the leaders in hr's and rbi's for 8 or 9 years.
i won't say he actually belongs but my feeling about the hof are another story.
but he certainly deserves consideration more than many players.

JRIG
01-03-2005, 11:15 AM
it's not 'almost' true. it IS true.
i disagree with you about santo. he was the premier 3rd baseman of his time. a 9 time all-star, 5 consecutive years gg at 3rd. among the leaders in hr's and rbi's for 8 or 9 years.
i won't say he actually belongs but my feeling about the hof are another story.
but he certainly deserves consideration more than many players.
Santo belongs in the HOF, no doubt. But Boggs is even more deserving.

idseer
01-03-2005, 11:20 AM
Well, here are the other arguments:

So any third basemen not the greatest of all-time (like Schmidt) shouldn't be in the Hall?

Boggs was, at least, an above average defensive third baseman. For whatever its worth, he did win two Gold Gloves. Defensive accolades didn't come until later because his offensive numbers were so incredible early on.

Punishing a player because his TEAM didn't make the World Series? No thank you. Boggs was in 2 World Series and hit .286/.362/.381. It's not like he completely collapsed. And if we're kicking people out for character...well, Downey just said he's been voting every year for Steve Garvey.

Case closed. His arguments don't hold water.
1st off, he's not punishing anyone. he readily admits it's a token gesture and that boggs will go right in doesn't he?
it also has nothing to do with boggs not making the WS. obviously neither has santo or sandberg and he wants them in, so that wasn't his point either.
he knows boggs is a hof'er so his argument about his qualifications don't need to hold water.

try to pretend you don't hate the cubs nor the writer so much and READ HIS WORDS.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-03-2005, 11:23 AM
Obviously it was a slow news day for Downey. He should come up with an idea for improving baseball's old-fashioned playoff system.

:)

JRIG
01-03-2005, 11:24 AM
1st off, he's not punishing anyone. he readily admits it's a token gesture and that boggs will go right in doesn't he?
it also has nothing to do with boggs not making the WS. obviously neither has santo or sandberg and he wants them in, so that wasn't his point either.
he knows boggs is a hof'er so his argument about his qualifications don't need to hold water.

try to pretend you don't hate the cubs nor the writer so much and READ HIS WORDS.
If all this is true, then what exactly is his point? If everyone had his attitude, nobody would make the HOF because they'd fall off the ballot the first year by not getting 5% of the vote.

He knows Boggs is a HOF but still doesn't want to vote for him? That's ridiculous. Not saying other writers don't do the same thing, but it's equally ridiculous.

By the way, the only time in this thread I've mentioned the Cubs is when I agreed with you that Santo is a HOF player. So you can drop the Cub-hating argument.

idseer
01-03-2005, 11:42 AM
If all this is true, then what exactly is his point? If everyone had his attitude, nobody would make the HOF because they'd fall off the ballot the first year by not getting 5% of the vote.

He knows Boggs is a HOF but still doesn't want to vote for him? That's ridiculous. Not saying other writers don't do the same thing, but it's equally ridiculous.

By the way, the only time in this thread I've mentioned the Cubs is when I agreed with you that Santo is a HOF player. So you can drop the Cub-hating argument.
oh! you mean you DON'T hate the cubs? my apologies if this is the case.

his point was to take a stand (perhaps an ignorant one at that) against the letting in of (what he perceives as) marginal players yet excluding those other marginal players (santo, trammell etc) HE feels deserve the same consideration.
i didn't say he had a great point. only that i understood his thinking. it's why he wrote the article. wouldn't do him any good to not vote for boggs and then not explain why.

the "if everyone had his attitude" thing doesn't fly. nobody has the same attitude. it's WHY he's doing what he's doing. if everyone had the same attitude santo & trammell would already be in now wouldn't they?

JRIG
01-03-2005, 11:47 AM
his point was to take a stand (perhaps an ignorant one at that) against the letting in of (what he perceives as) marginal players yet excluding those other marginal players (santo, trammell etc) HE feels deserve the same consideration.
i didn't say he had a great point. only that i understood his thinking. it's why he wrote the article. wouldn't do him any good to not vote for boggs and then not explain why.


I understand this is his point of view. The fact that he places Boggs in the category of "marginal" HOFer just means he is (apparently) unable to grasp his greatness. As you said, it may be (and probably is) ignorant.

I agree that I don't think the article is "cub-loving" motivated.

JoseCanseco6969
01-03-2005, 11:47 AM
Doesn't believe in voting Boggs in --- ?

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-041230halldowney,1,1574361.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines Downey is an idiot and no way in hell Santo should ever be in the hall.
Hey Cubs fans, its ok, we all know he'll always be a hall of famer in your bleeding blue hearts forever regardless!

:santo oh no!!!!! "he dropped the ball" noooooooooooo

idseer
01-03-2005, 11:57 AM
I understand this is his point of view. The fact that he places Boggs in the category of "marginal" HOFer just means he is (apparently) unable to grasp his greatness. As you said, it may be (and probably is) ignorant.

I agree that I don't think the article is "cub-loving" motivated.
whether they're considered marginal or not ... if i were picking a team from scratch and had trammel, wills, boggs, santo, and sandberg as part of my alloted picks, i wouldn't choose boggs over santo. in fact, if i could only choose one, i think i'd go with trammel.

JRIG
01-03-2005, 11:58 AM
whether they're considered marginal or not ... if i were picking a team from scratch and had trammel, wills, boggs, santo, and sandberg as part of my alloted picks, i wouldn't choose boggs over santo. in fact, if i could only choose one, i think i'd go with trammel.
We'll disagree. I'd go with Boggs with no regrets.

idseer
01-03-2005, 12:08 PM
We'll disagree. I'd go with Boggs with no regrets.
boggs main thing is his batting average, right? he did win 2 gg's but i don't believe he was ever really considered much above average with his glove.

trammell scored more runs, had more power, won 4 gg's at a more difficult position, stole 10 times as many bases (236 to 24), grounded into half as many dp's, and was a team leader. trammell imo deserves to be in the hall as one of the better ss's in history.

MUsoxfan
01-03-2005, 12:11 PM
Both (Boggs and Trammell) deserve to get in and both will get in. Maybe not both this year, but both will eventually be in

JRIG
01-03-2005, 12:17 PM
boggs main thing is his batting average, right? he did win 2 gg's but i don't believe he was ever really considered much above average with his glove.

trammell scored more runs, had more power, won 4 gg's at a more difficult position, stole 10 times as many bases (236 to 24), grounded into half as many dp's, and was a team leader. trammell imo deserves to be in the hall as one of the better ss's in history.
Boggs' main thing is his OBP and his batting average. I don't want to argue too hard, because I also think Trammell is underrated and has a very good case for the HOF. But Boggs' peak from '83 to '89 is simply amazing. He was putting up .450 OBP every year with 40 doubles and hitting .350. Interesting is that Trammell's peak is about the same time (83 to 88?). He didn't have that much more power than Boggs other than in 87-88 (look at his doubles). And Trammell's leadership got the Tigers to one World Series and 2 ALCS. Boggs' teams made 2 World Series and 4 ALCS. You know I don't put a ton of stock in leadership, but it seems whatever difference can't be that huge to make up for the offensive advantage Boggs has. And again, I think Boggs was a much better defensive player than he gets credit for.

doublem23
01-03-2005, 12:38 PM
Is Downey an idiot or what? One of those questions that really only has one answer.

Flight #24
01-03-2005, 12:53 PM
whether they're considered marginal or not ... if i were picking a team from scratch and had trammel, wills, boggs, santo, and sandberg as part of my alloted picks, i wouldn't choose boggs over santo. in fact, if i could only choose one, i think i'd go with trammel.Wow.

Santo: 15 seasons / .277 avg / 1138R / 1331RBI / 342HR / 1108BB / 1343SO / .828OPS / 2254hits
Boggs: 18 seasons / .328avg / 1513R / 1014RBI / 118HR / 1412BB / 745SO / .860OPS / 3010hits

True, Santo won 5 GGs to Boggs 2, but even as a better fielder, the offensive disparity is IMO a lot more than any defensive difference. Santo was a consistently decent offensive player who was a very good defender. Boggs was a consistently excellent offensive player who was a decent defender.

idseer
01-03-2005, 01:09 PM
Wow.

Santo: 15 seasons / .277 avg / 1138R / 1331RBI / 342HR / 1108BB / 1343SO / .828OPS / 2254hits
Boggs: 18 seasons / .328avg / 1513R / 1014RBI / 118HR / 1412BB / 745SO / .860OPS / 3010hits

True, Santo won 5 GGs to Boggs 2, but even as a better fielder, the offensive disparity is IMO a lot more than any defensive difference. Santo was a consistently decent offensive player who was a very good defender. Boggs was a consistently excellent offensive player who was a decent defender. well ... the numbers that stick out to me are runs, and rbis. totaled up boggs has 2527 ... santo has 2469 in 3 fewer seasons. it's all about production. and santo produced more per year than did boggs, even subtracting the extra total of santo's hr's. the fielding does make a difference imo.

hey ... they're close. different kinds of players and all but i still see why the writer is pissed about boggs going right in (hof) while santo sits outside.

serena
01-03-2005, 01:24 PM
That's almost true, but I happen to be for Sandberg getting into the HOF. He brought up the undeserving Santo twice in the article. He's not even on the ballot and for good reason
Santo is on the Veterans Committee ballot. The results of that vote will be announced March 2.

"Besides Santo, the final ballot includes Dick Allen, Bobby Bonds, Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito, Wes Ferrell, Curt Flood, Joe Gordon, Gil Hodges, Elston Howard, Jim Kaat, Mickey Lolich, Sparky Lyle, Marty Marion, Roger Maris, Carl Mays, Minnie Minoso, Thurman Munson, Don Newcombe, Tony Oliva, Vada Pinson, Luis Tiant, Joe Torre, Maury Wills, and Smoky Joe Wood."

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20041206&content_id=918829&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp

Flight #24
01-03-2005, 01:31 PM
well ... the numbers that stick out to me are runs, and rbis. totaled up boggs has 2527 ... santo has 2469 in 3 fewer seasons. it's all about production. and santo produced more per year than did boggs, even subtracting the extra total of santo's hr's. the fielding does make a difference imo.

hey ... they're close. different kinds of players and all but i still see why the writer is pissed about boggs going right in (hof) while santo sits outside.
I think the difference is that being an overall solid player - that's not enough. You have to have something exceptional to hang your hat on. Boggs has that in his BA, Hits, & low Ks. Santo does not.

fquaye149
01-03-2005, 01:32 PM
boggs main thing is his batting average, right? he did win 2 gg's but i don't believe he was ever really considered much above average with his glove.

trammell scored more runs, had more power, won 4 gg's at a more difficult position, stole 10 times as many bases (236 to 24), grounded into half as many dp's, and was a team leader. trammell imo deserves to be in the hall as one of the better ss's in history.
umm....fact is, I think Trammel and Sandberg should make the hall (but barely) and I think Santo's NUMBERS don't quite justify him (but barely). But the fact of the matter is even if you ignore Boggs' dominance his numbers are CLEARLY hall of fame numbers. There's no matter of borderline or marginal. He is a shoe-in. Let's take a look.

18 seasons, 3010 hits, 1000 RBI (for a top of the order hitter), 1500 runs scored, .328 career average, .415 career OBP, never struck out more than 68 times in a season despite averaging 510 AB per season. Hit .300 or better in 15 out of his 18 seasons (with TWO out of the three sub-.300 seasons being his last two years). Batted over .350 FIVE times.

Sorry, but these are undeniably hall of fame stats. Not MARGINAL stats and Downey's little stand is just petty, cubs or no cubs. If Ted Williams were up for HOF in this day and age some ******* would find some excuse not to vote for him (his defense was no good!)...in fact, Williams wasn't unanimous in his time - no one has been. And to me that's a travesty. **** you Downey.

idseer
01-03-2005, 01:36 PM
Santo is on the Veterans Committee ballot. The results of that vote will be announced March 2.

"Besides Santo, the final ballot includes Dick Allen, Bobby Bonds, Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito, Wes Ferrell, Curt Flood, Joe Gordon, Gil Hodges, Elston Howard, Jim Kaat, Mickey Lolich, Sparky Lyle, Marty Marion, Roger Maris, Carl Mays, Minnie Minoso, Thurman Munson, Don Newcombe, Tony Oliva, Vada Pinson, Luis Tiant, Joe Torre, Maury Wills, and Smoky Joe Wood."

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20041206&content_id=918829&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp
kaat is perhaps the most deserving of this lot.
i can't believe trammell isn't even on this list.

idseer
01-03-2005, 01:38 PM
umm....fact is, I think Trammel and Sandberg should make the hall (but barely) and I think Santo's NUMBERS don't quite justify him (but barely). But the fact of the matter is even if you ignore Boggs' dominance his numbers are CLEARLY hall of fame numbers. There's no matter of borderline or marginal. He is a shoe-in. Let's take a look.

18 seasons, 3010 hits, 1000 RBI (for a top of the order hitter), 1500 runs scored, .328 career average, .415 career OBP, never struck out more than 68 times in a season despite averaging 510 AB per season. Hit .300 or better in 15 out of his 18 seasons (with TWO out of the three sub-.300 seasons being his last two years). Batted over .350 FIVE times.

Sorry, but these are undeniably hall of fame stats. Not MARGINAL stats and Downey's little stand is just petty, cubs or no cubs. If Ted Williams were up for HOF in this day and age some ******* would find some excuse not to vote for him (his defense was no good!)...in fact, Williams wasn't unanimous in his time - no one has been. And to me that's a travesty. **** you Downey.
this is a good argument.

MUsoxfan
01-03-2005, 01:46 PM
kaat is perhaps the most deserving of this lot.
i can't believe trammell isn't even on this list.
Trammel's on the regular ballot. fquaye posted the VC ballot. I didn't even see the Veteran's committee ballot until fquaye posted it. Trammell has plenty of time to get in

SoxFan76
01-03-2005, 03:03 PM
I'm noticing a pattern with these off-season columns. Well we all have noticed it, but refuse to believe it. These guys aren't as stupid as they make themselves out to be. They write this crap so people on message boards will talk about it. They write this crap so sports panel shows talk about it. Journalism isn't all about writing what's fair and honest. It's about drawing attention. So far all the Chicago columnists have done their job, because we take their columns so seriously on this board. I think we should laugh at them, not argue with them.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-03-2005, 03:24 PM
.... So far all the Chicago columnists have done their job, because we take their columns so seriously on this board. I think we should laugh at them, not argue with them.
Speak for yourself. I'm not taking Downey's column seriously. I'm putting forth serious proposals for fixing baseball's old-fashioned playoff system... and doing so successfully, too.

:)

idseer
01-03-2005, 03:28 PM
Speak for yourself. I'm not taking Downey's column seriously. I'm putting forth serious proposals for fixing baseball's old-fashioned playoff system... and doing so successfully, too.

:)

glad that was in pink. :D:

Foulke29
01-03-2005, 03:28 PM
he cited more than just cubs there. the problem lies with the fact that so many of you have a constant blind rage against anything cub.

silly.There's no blind rage against all things Cub. The rage comes from not voting for and undermining one of the top 3 pure hitters of the 80s. Santo was a joke compared to Boggs, and Sandberg deserves to be in. Dawson wasn't good long enough and didn't reach any of the milestones.

But to say a guy who's in the same league as Gwynn and Molitor (and in his peak better than both), I just think he's being a petty, sour grapes cub fan loser. Period.

And to say that he was not a big contributer in the post season is ridiculous too when he's arguing that certain players should be in that never made it to the World Series - Dawson, Sandberg and Santo...

Foulke29
01-03-2005, 03:34 PM
1st off, he's not punishing anyone. he readily admits it's a token gesture and that boggs will go right in doesn't he?
it also has nothing to do with boggs not making the WS. obviously neither has santo or sandberg and he wants them in, so that wasn't his point either.
he knows boggs is a hof'er so his argument about his qualifications don't need to hold water.

try to pretend you don't hate the cubs nor the writer so much and READ HIS WORDS.
uhm - I did read his words, but more importantly I comprehended them very well!

To commit a token gesture out of sour grapes is complete b---s---! "Wah wah wah - my guy's not in so no one else should be unless he hits 1000 homeruns or get's 5000 hits."

Please!

And before you correct someone for 'not reading.' Get your facts straight. Boggs was in a World Series, and he even has a ring.

And before you accuse me of being a Cub hater - which I proudly am - I think the following Cubs deserve Hall glory - Eckersley (already in), Sutter, Gossage, Sandberg and Rafael Blue Pills.

Foulke29
01-03-2005, 03:42 PM
Boggs' main thing is his OBP and his batting average. I don't want to argue too hard, because I also think Trammell is underrated and has a very good case for the HOF. But Boggs' peak from '83 to '89 is simply amazing. He was putting up .450 OBP every year with 40 doubles and hitting .350. Interesting is that Trammell's peak is about the same time (83 to 88?). He didn't have that much more power than Boggs other than in 87-88 (look at his doubles). And Trammell's leadership got the Tigers to one World Series and 2 ALCS. Boggs' teams made 2 World Series and 4 ALCS. You know I don't put a ton of stock in leadership, but it seems whatever difference can't be that huge to make up for the offensive advantage Boggs has. And again, I think Boggs was a much better defensive player than he gets credit for.
Amen - and while we're at it, why don't we compare how many times Boggs struck out compared to Trammell. Again, both were great ball players, and if the A-Rods, Garciaparra's and Ripkens of modern day 'roids ball hadn't shown up, Trammell would be in already. He put up better numbers than Ozzie Smith and Luis Aparico...

But still, I'll take a peak Wade Boggs over Trammell any day of the week and 2/29 on Leap Years!

Boggs was better - period! Boggs and Gwynn are the best hitters of the 80s. Name me two better hitters - not power hitters, not RBI guys - I'm talking get on base and doesn't strike out in key situations hitters.

Does that make Gwynn marginal too?

Hey, what do I know? I think Blyleven and Kaat should be in.

Foulke29
01-03-2005, 03:46 PM
kaat is perhaps the most deserving of this lot.
i can't believe trammell isn't even on this list.
I believe Trammell is not on the Veteran's commitee because the Writers can still vote him in.