- 12:49 AM
- 11/21/09
Note: We're going to have this discussion about Fred "worst player with 500 homers ever" McGriff soon, too. Would that be Fred "Major League Superstar" McGriff.
posted by Bag Man at 01:39 PM on July 15
Palmeiro is a no-brainer for the HOF. I agree with that statement. The real questions are why are the people who are going to vote for HOF candidates raising these questions? In light of the rumors of steroid use and an across the board increases in offensive numbers, is there a new standard for the HOF? If so, what is it?
posted by Bag Man at 01:16 PM on July 15
In my opion Robert Horry should be in the Hall Of Fame one day.Could Shaq win a title by himself? I dont think so... Yes, because Shaq was one Robert Horry away from the scrap heap of the NBA. Come on now, Horry hit some big shots (like the one last night) and should get all the credit for doing so, but he and his role are very interchangeable with so many other players; that's my opinion.
posted by Bag Man at 03:09 PM on June 20
Jackson and the Lakers are fucked, plain and simple.
posted by Bag Man at 02:08 PM on June 14
The NBA has a soft cap w/ luxury tax that kicks in ~45M. A tax an the salary? Or the total team payroll? You made me laugh though. Chill, I just didn't know. Also what contayjust said. Shaq's great, but nowhere near Jordan's worth.
posted by Bag Man at 04:54 PM on June 09
Even of Miami wanted to show Shaq the money, wouldn't the salary cap prevent it? I thought the NBA had a hard salary cap at around $14-$15M a year.
posted by Bag Man at 02:33 PM on June 09
Opps! That should be "Money."
posted by Bag Man at 04:33 PM on June 08
I'd really like to believe the stuff about my Bulls. The issue this that the Bulls are at a crossroads. They are good and have a ton of potential, but there is no way that the current team as is can do anything more than they did this year let alone win a NBA title. So what is to be done? Leave the team alone and let the young-ins prove or add a marquee player? If you just tweak the team you risk that they become stagnate and even take a step backwards, but if you add a frontline player then the risk is that you upset the chemistry that helped them arguably play above their talents.
posted by Bag Man at 10:25 AM on May 10
Look, for me it boils down to this -- you signed your fucking name, live up to your word. Why don't you hold NFL teams to this?
posted by Bag Man at 10:23 AM on April 18
Sounds like some NFL players who actually have experience in this system that is so "unfair" need to be called "hypocrites" and "phony moralizers" too. I was not refering to other players. If Hugh Douglas does not what to assert his rights under his contract, that's his choice. What's so fair about a system which forces only one side to honor it's agreements? If there is an any sort of "out" for a player, why shouldn't they take it if they can?
posted by Bag Man at 03:19 PM on April 15
Players in the NFL really get fucked because they sign contracts that are not guaranteed and then they are often forced to renegotiate those contracts for less money. Consequently, the NFL owners agreed to allow players to ask for more money later in their contracts. That's the deal they made, end of story. TO is just asking for a right the Eagles agreed to give him. If he can leverage a better deal then more power to him. Frankly, he’s one of the best non-QB players in the NFL and he risked his health and well-being for his team by simply playing in the Super Bowl, not to mention getting the Eagles to the Super Bowl by being a stud in the regular season and being one of the most productive players in Super Bowl. He’s no saint, but he should get at least a chance to sit down and get fair market value or what he thinks is fair market value for his services. This is the bed they made, what's wrong with letting both of them lay in it? As a side note, I find it very ironic that often phony moralizes bemoan pro-athletes for getting paid and ofen paint them as "iberal elites" and "out of touch" with everyday Americans. Then they turn around a molly coddle corrupt CEOs making millions more than pro athletes (often 5 to 10 times more), assert they promote capitalist policies that allow the very pro athletes the bemone to get the salaries they do and then cash-in in sweetheart media deals in radio and publishing. I’d say the little poor boy from Alabama has worked just hard or harder than most of those folks for what he has. Yet he takes most of the B.S. I think racism is partly to blame, so is political opportunism and so is the phony folksyism of the right-wring elite. All of the pundits' swanking about TO is merely political B.S. TO should be is the archetype capitalist and the perfect "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" story. I’m not staying TO needs to be celebrated, but I’m just a little sick of the hypocrisy and of the phony moralizers catcalls. Am interesting slate article about TO/Brett Favre that is somewhat on subject.
posted by Bag Man at 02:49 PM on April 15
Sheffield was justified. Reminds me of the time when a fan fell into the penalty box at a Flyers-Leafs games and attacked Tie Domi. Dome kicked is ass and I see the swing Sheffield took as very similar. If someone comes to your place of work and wants to rumble, then hell take him out. Also, hats off to Sheffield for not escalating the situation.
posted by Bag Man at 10:20 AM on April 15
A few days ago it was suggested on ESPN Radio that Gary Bettman was trying reshape and reduced the size of the NHL by forcing the cancellation of the season. Given that the players assented to a cap and came very close to the owners’ cap number and Bettman stood firm on a very low number anyway, I now believe that it was Bettman's plan all along to shut down the season.
posted by Bag Man at 01:18 PM on February 16
He hadn't been to church in years. He was learning Hebrew so he could read the scriptures directly... he might not have been the most open minded guy, but I will give him credit for trying as hard as he could to make himself better. chicobangs, you're right to attempt to give him credit for trying, but if he truly wanted to change his ways why didn't he just recant what he said? If the shoe were on the other foot people of White's conservative ilk would not do the same. I offer my compassion to White's family, but it's just sad that to people like White compassion is only campaign slogan. Regardless of the man's views, the world and world of sports has lost a great competitor, a true champion and a man who always gave it his all.
posted by Bag Man at 12:19 PM on December 26
From what Kobe's wife said it sounded like she was the one who was making the pass, not that it really justified Malone's response. Then again, Kobe should not throw stones in glass houses; I think that's why he blames Malone and not his wife.
posted by Bag Man at 07:08 PM on December 13
Yikes! Potential one-year wonder? I agree. I had Kolb on my fantisy team last years and saw that trend. I picked him in the last few rounds and got a bit lucky I will admit. However, I'd hesitate taking him any higher than I did last season. It looks like the Brewers got the better of this deal.
posted by Bag Man at 01:47 PM on December 12
The Pistons should have suffered the same punishment: that it doesn't seem to have even been considered says a lot about American sporting culture. It says nothing about American sporting culture. The two situations are totally different and justify different punishments. Considering that the fans who incited and participated in the fight at Auburn Hills were readily ascertainable there was no need to ban all fans. Punishing all Pistons fans for the actions of 2 or 3 bad apples seems to be grossly unfair. When a lot of fans or a majority of fans participate in such actions or when it hard to find what fans did what a total bad makes sense. Thus, in the case of Lazio fans a total ban makes sense, and the case of the Pistons it does not. Your insult and broad generalization of Americans and American sports fans was unnecessary and quite ignorant. American venues have never witnessed the hooliganism of British soccer. I’m glad that hooliganism is under control, but I could at this point say something like the "existence of hooliganism at all says a lot about British or European sporting culture." But I won’t say it. Wait, didn’t I just…never mind, but 15,000 American fans would never and have never shown up to a sports evet with a case of bear each and no tickets simply to invade a small town. Soccer fans don’t have the high ground here. I think that the punishment should fit the crime, and perhaps with the exception of the Giants and Eagles snowball incidents no event has every justified a total ban of fan in the American sporting culture. Please...hooliganism has never existed in the American sporting culture.
posted by Bag Man at 01:48 AM on December 12
Lazio fans have a history of this bullshit, that's well know.
posted by Bag Man at 01:40 AM on December 11
At the 2000 derby in Rome I was involved in a bit of brawl. It was started by a some Lazio fans who would make ape-like noises whenever a black player touched the ball. A few Roma fans took loud exception to it. The Lazio fans told them to chill. The Roma fans calmed down. After the game, which Roma lost, the Roma fans attacked the Lazio fans, my friends (who happened to friends with the Lazio fan) and me (twice). Shooting or throwing stuff on the field is unacceptable. Yelling racist slogans is unacceptable. Perhaps even honoring racist icons at matches, which some Lazio fans did during 2000, is unacceptable. Banning all fans seems a bit extreme; however, if the offending fans can't be singled out it does not seem totally all that crazy. Eagles, NY Giants and Pistons fans are just lucky the NFL or the NBA has not decided to follow similar tactics. I think sometimes Americans mistakenly believe that European nations are tolerant, pluralistic societies. However, that does not seem to be the case. What do you think would happen if the fans threw bananas at the players during a major league baseball game? Would that be tolerated? I don't think that such fans would leave the stadium alive, and it's not because there is a lot of angery, tolerant people in the stands.
posted by Bag Man at 01:38 AM on December 11
It was a punishment after Roma’s home game against Dynamo Kiev had to be abandoned when the referee was struck by a missile. Well at least Roma's punishment was not for "racist abuse." Disclaimer: I'm a big Roma fan.
posted by Bag Man at 08:44 PM on December 10
I just like saying, "we got Nomah!" At least I can do it for one more year.
posted by Bag Man at 06:06 PM on December 10
The real question is just how many people really care.
posted by Bag Man at 11:24 PM on December 02
Maybe it's me but I don't care. You still have to hit the damn ball. Barry is still electrifying to watch and good for the sport. I'm not a huge baseball fan so take it for what it is worth. I do care. It's likely that the roid use contributed to his somewhat bizarre streak of recent injuries and likely tweaked his stats when he was playing. He should be punished. I'd say an indefinite suspension until the full extent of his use can be investigated by MLB and then something like a 1/2 season suspension with him on probation for a year or two after than. I honestly don't believe in the asterisk idea; largely for the reasons stated by DrJohnEvans. Of course doing roids, or other types of drugs for that matter, does not automatically make him a evil person so I think he should have another shot to play if a team would sign him or the Yankees would be willing to take him back. I do think that he needs to serve some significant time and be made to sing like a stool pigeon if possible (although I cannot see him ratting his fellow players out).
posted by Bag Man at 11:20 PM on December 02
he doesn't hold any batting records He did at the time of his frist ballot...Hence my argument that he was robbed last year. The notion that he is among the elite offensive and defensive second basemen is not an outrageous claim even if Jeff Kent recently passed Ryno on the all-time homerun list. he doesn't beat Alomar in GG awards. Ok, I concede this; however Roberto Alomar has not set himself apart from Sandberg that much with 2 more Gold Gloves. I did make a wrong call, and I’m man enough to admit when I am wrong when proven so. but then I listed how Morgan beats Sandberg at most of the single season totals. You list some categories where Morgan beats Sandberg, but the overall big picture favors Sandberg, at least in terms of single season power numbers, and arguably when career context is take into consideration. Sandberg has some better single season totals, but did not best Morgan overall in all categories because Sandberg played seven less seasons for much weaker teams (i.e. Morgan never close to 40 homeruns and reach 100 RBIs only once on much better teams). Taken as whole, Sandberg either bests Morgan or is comparable in key offensive production. Also, taken in context Sandberg did nearly as good or better in several over seven less seasons and on many teams that stunk. Sure, it was easy for Joe Morgan to get slightly more RBIs and a slightly higher average playing for more seasons on the high-powered Big Red Machine. Sandberg did more with much less. Why do fail to give Sandberg such credit? Not playing for a goof team really hurt Sandberg in runs and RIBs. Even so, Sandberg is within 332 runs of Morgan, within 131 hits of Morgan and with 15 points of batting average. If Sandberg had not retied twice and played seven more seasons I’m sure he would have surpassed Morgan in at least hits, RBIs and possibly in runs. Sandberg still does better in some stats despite playing less and for worse teams. Sure, I admit that Sandberg did not amass the same or greater offensive totals in all categories compared to Morgan. However, you are either missing or refusing see the context. The HOF is an individual achievement. Why punish or discount the deeds of one when his team could not help as much as others. If Morgan had been light-years ahead of Sandberg or if Sandberg could not best Morgan in any category your argument would hold more water; however, this just not the case. Sandberg was able to more or similar with less and people need to recognize that. I’d make the same argument about any player who was in the same position as Sandberg; it’s only fair. Seriously, are you reading what I'm writing? I've NEVER said ANYTHING like this. Ever. I've been a proponent of career stats. And single season stats. So where do you get that I say otherwise? You did not state it outright, that's true (you are technically correct on that one), but you strongly implied it when you brought up the Bill James’s "win shares" and OBS. Further, part of my comment was directed at yerfatma, sorry for not making that more clear. yerfatma said: Any longevity-independent numbers that actually mean something? This implies, if not outright assets, that longevity should be considered a detriment or somehow longevity alone makes some stats worthless. Nonetheless, as a general tenor, it’s a bit two sided to state that Morgan is better for having better stats in some categories amassed over seven more uninterrupted seasons, and then turn around and argue that Sandberg is lessor because he stuck around for 16 seasons (much less the his competition overall for the HOF and his competition for the HOF at second base). That was my point. Some guys have 500 homeruns, 3000 hits or 300 wins because they were able to stay health, decently productive and attractive to teams longer that most players. In most cases, sticking around should be seen as a strength and triumph of conditioning/fitness/avoidance of injury rather than a weakness (perhaps an exception could be The Crime Dog and other who players who stayed well passed their prime). Bag Man, you are such a clown. Thanks for the laughs. Rocketman, I guess you must resort to personal insults and unfounded statement because you lack of any decent argument. I could call you out on being a clown for your flippant remark, but I will not because I don’t like to stoop to such low levels of discourse. Please do not post if you don't have anything constructive to say or at least anything else but personal and unfounded insults. I'll give Grum and by yerfatma credit for using some facts and passable arguments along with their occasional snipes. Rocketman, thanks for playing!
posted by Bag Man at 01:48 PM on December 02
Most of the people who are reading these posts agree that Sandberg should be in the HoF. Wait a second, so why all the fuss? Because I was arguing that Rynee Sandberg was an elite second baseman? If you think he should be in the HOF, why send all this time flaming me and flaming Sandberg?
posted by Bag Man at 11:38 PM on December 01
I'm sure the rest of the people reading this thread are tired of me eviscerating your "facts" Not me. But it's gotta be a troll. Y'know how when you make a good prank call but it goes on too long you finally try some really over-the-top shit just to see if you can get away with it/ finally end it? The last few really seem like that Grum and yerfatma, Roger Hornsby had 100+ RBI six times in his career You are wrong! Hornsby did it five times (like clubbing baby seals). I do concede that Horsby did have five seasons with 100+ RBIs and did hit 42 homers in one season as a two-bagger. However Sandberg was much more consistent at hitting more homers otherwise. And you have conceded that Sandberg had better seasons than the Roberto Alomar and Joe Morgan (like clubbing baby seals). So I guess Sandberg did a little better a "one-hit wonder" to use your words. You assert that I use arbitrary stats, yet that's all you do. You can put the word facts in quotes all you want, but won't actually change anything. I basically said my piece based on facts while you continue to get personal with your insults. I have given Jeff Kent, Honsby, Alomar and Morgan their props. Again, I implore to please read my posts before you post. If you did, you would know two things 1) Sandberg lead Jeff Kent in all-time homeruns for a second baseman before last ballot. This is relivant because at the time the post powerfull second baseman of all time was not voted in the HOF. 2) I have acknowledged that Kent passed Sandberg. It is also relivant that at least Kent, Alomar and Morgan played for better teams. Not to mention that Kent can thank a fellow named Bary Bonds for seeing some great pitches. All of this I guess you have conceded. Further, Sandberg quite for 2 years and then came after a hellish devorce. I'm make naking excuses, but stats always need to be taken in context. Sandberg did a lot more with much less. If you want to keep flaming me, insisting that career totals are irrelivant and continue using voodoo stats than go right ahead. I guess there is no convicing you that real stats mean a thing in an age when baseball teams are hiring astrologers to help them. I guess if it were up to you' ll most players should be kicked out of the HOF because those 400+ or 500 home totals, 300 hit totals and 300 wins are totally irrelivant. Career stats, why use those when we make up our own to sell to ESPN and sell books? That will teach'em. Your arguments are also two faced. There are those of you who assert that Bert Blyleven should be in the HOF and was a great pitcher of his day. Why? 3700+ Ks, 287 wins and two WS wins. Very impressive, I think he should be there too. However, compartively Sandberg did better in his own position. So much so that he holds or has held many records. Not to mention his team leadership on some very bad teams. Sandberg was robbed last year and my guess is that he'll get robbed this year. Sandberg deserves to be in the HOF (a point we agree one), but I still believe he is among the elite second baseman of all-time and I still believe that he was the best when he played. Even if your facts and logic are taken at face value those conclusions are still supported.
posted by Bag Man at 11:13 PM on December 01
Perhaps if you proof-read your own we could see the brilliance. Again with the personal insults. What’s up with that? Just more evidence that your other points are weak. I mean, if your arguments were so great you would refrain from such things. You are the only one trolling around. I stick to the facts and you stick to your insults. Please answer my question: I really don’t know where you get off saying that my fact intensive arguments "supposition and declaration." Rather calling my arguments "supposition and declaration" why don't you just respond with an argument or response to mine? I know because you have none. It seems you must invent stuff or make flippant comments (like the one below), rather than use your facts to argument against mine. Who gives a fuck, especially when you abuse stats the way you do? The logical conclusion to this line of thinking is a one-year wonder could get into the HoF. Whither Tony Conigliaro? Harry Aganis? Hum...No...That's not my argument and you should know that or you do and you just insulting me rather engaging my arguments. I guess it's more evidence you're grasping at straws. Sandberg, Alomar and Morgan all had several years of impressive stats. Sandberg just had more, which is evidence he's a better player. Hitting 25+ over six seasons and getting 100 RBIs twice is very good for a second baseman. How do I know this? Because Sandberg is the only who did it. By your own logic Alomar and Morgan are “one-year wonder[s].” Bullshit. Ted Williams isn't in for home runs or hits. He's in because he was a dominating offensive force, which is best measured in SLG AND OBP Without 3,000 hits and 500 homeruns I think it would a little harder for Williams to be in the HOF. Sandberg was also an offensive force and was the cornerstone of the Cubs attack for most of his career. Sandberg, like Williams, was the rock that his team was build around. (I'm not arguing that Sandberg was a good as Williams, he surely was not) Players like Davis, Dawson, Durham, Grace came and went, but it was Sandberg's grit and leadership that was the force behind Cub's drive to Eastern Division tittle's in 1984 and 1989. Sandberg's MVP in 1984 (his second year and first full season in the bigs) and plat down the stretch in 1984 is evidence of that. It was not until Sosa came to the Cubs in 1994 that the offensive mantle was really passed. It's astounding that you miss that about Sandberg's career.
posted by Bag Man at 06:53 PM on December 01
I think Weedy was referring to my stats-heavy posting I do when I attempt to prove a point. Your post above was more supposition and declaration instead of proof. Grum, You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Sandberg bests Alomar and Morgan in career homeruns, single season homeruns, career fielding percentage, single season and number of career gold gloves (just to name a few categories). Sandberg also, until recently, bested Alomar for the single season and two season streak of errorless games. Those are all facts and not "supposition and declaration." I really don’t know where got off saying that. I guess if you actually read my posts you would know that. When comes to career average and career RBI Sandberg’s numbers are comparable. If you think Single season and career HR, RBI and Average totals are not important I don't know what game you watch or what HOF you know. Guys like Hank Aaron, Ted Williams Eddie Murry, Orlando Cepeda, Tony Perez and Joe Morgan got into the HOF and are considered great based on their aggregate stats compared with other players of their position, their time and all-time. The thing is all those players I named amassed numbers considered great for their position over a much longer career...Aaron (23 seasons), Perez (23 seasons), Morgan (23 seasons), Cepeda (17 seasons) Williams (19 seasons) and Murry (21 seasons). Sandberg only play 16 seasons (including a two year retirement involving a physically and mentally draining devoice). If Sandberg can put up better stats or similar stats to that of Morgan in seven less seasons it bears out that Sandberg's non-aggregate stats must be at least as good or better. So lets look at some single season stats. If you look at single season totals Sandberg does way better than Alomar and Morgan even at their career peaks. For example, Neither Alomar or Morgan ever hit 40 HRs (Alomar never hit more than 24 playing for one of the better teams of 90s during a period of inflated offensive stats and Morgan never hit more than 27 homeruns and got 100 ore more RBIs only once playing for the offensive juggernaut that was the Big Red Machine). Sandberg on the other hand hit 40 HRs once, 30 HRs once, and 25 or 25+ four times. No other second baseman has ever done that. Rogers Hornsby does come close to those power numbers, but many of his numbers where generate at power positions such as first base. The facts bare out my arguments once again. When you take in consideration that Morgan and Alomar played on much better teams than Sandberg it makes Sandberg look all than much better. That’s a big intangible chit in Sandberg’s till. Also you need to consider that Alomor’s career has taken a nose drive, while Sandberg reamied productive through his second retirement. That’s just another intangible chit in Sandberg’s till. Being the best of one’s era is important to the HOF. Often it is referred to "dominance" in an era. And yes, Sandberg did dominate at second base in his era of the mid-80s to the mid-90s. Again, it’s another intangible that favors my arguments. I do like Sandberg a lot, but I not relying my love (or my so called hero-worship as people have suggested). Why? I don't rely on "supposition and declaration." Do you even read my posts? I rely cold hard stats, facts and records Sandberg held and holds now. I have relied on these facts over and over again in post after post. If you don't think HRs, RBIs or average, is important than your logic would used to purge most of the offensive players from the HOF. I base my opinion and conclusions on those facts and not any sort of East Coast bias. I'm not saying that Morgan, Alomor, Horsnby, etc. are garbage. I just that think that gives all Sandberg did he should have voted in on a the first ballot and should conserved an elite all-time second baseman.
posted by Bag Man at 05:12 PM on December 01
I know who Bill James is (your personal insults show your lack of a decent argument) and I respect most of his work. He's the reason the A's remain so completive despite having so little money and just might have pushed the Red Sox over the top. However, that's beside the point. Anyone can manipulate stats to make them say what they want. By your logic, people who amassed large stat totals who played for a while should not be in the HOF. So are you all ready to toss out players like Hank Aaron? I don't think you are, so why the hate on Ryne Sandberg? Sandbeg was the best second basemen of generation and holds some impressive records for fielding and batting. Some are even all-time records, hence my arguement for him being one of the best or the best. You love Alomar and Morgan, yet Sandberg bests then in several offensive and defense categories. Why you people cannot see that is way beyond me. For ever other player that is in the HOF and for every player YOU PEOPLE think should be in the HOF (such as Bet Blyleven [win totals and strike outs] and Wade Boggs [hits and avg.]) aggregate numbers, both offensive and defensive, and accolades are used to justify player’s entry into the HOF. You seem to be refuting your own HOF picks with your arguments. Anyway, because Sandberg played Second base his offensive and defense stats are relevant. We must look his Homeruns, slugging percentage, RBIs, fielding percentage and his records. He has better comparative numbers to plays of his time and all time than Blyleven. And, compared to Boggs: Sandberg holds all time record for offense and defense, while Boggs does not. I am not saying that Sandberg is better than Boggs (Boggs was a better hitter for sure and his 3,000+ hits is evidence of that), I'm just saying that if Boggs can enter with impressive stats in only a few categories why cannot Sandberg get in the HOF with all-time records? Why cannot Sandberg be considered the best when he and he alone holds so many astonishments at his position? So why does Blyleven, Boggs, Joe Morgan get a pass? What gives? Why the different standards? This is a question no one has answer. So I will assume you have no answered so, I take that point by concession. Is there no convincing me otherwise? Well, just as Aaron’s 755 homeruns (the most of all time) has convinced me he should me in HOF, Sandberg’s many records in the field and at the plate have convinced that he should be in the HOF. Since none of you pointed out a better second basemen during Sandberg's time, the true test of the HOF, I will take that as a compete concession. For that reason a lot Sandberg should be in the HOF, and with his other stats he should have been a first ballot HOFer. See? Don't fuck with the Bag Man he whacks back until you'll see the error of your way.
posted by Bag Man at 02:06 PM on December 01
He was good at both. He was sooooo good at both that he holds all-time records for his deeds in my categories. I mean, what do you want? Must the guy set records on Mars? I think your standards are a bit high if you don’t think Sandberg is among the best. Fielding % means nothing. So not committing errors means nothing? What fact[s]? Any longevity-independent numbers that actually mean something? This is bad argument for two reasons. 1) You are factually wrong: Sandberg played for awhile, but not as long as say, HOFer Joe Morgan and still put better or similar stats. In fact, Sandberg had some very impressive single season offensive totals. Totals few second baseman have ever matched until Jeff Kent did so in the area of inflated offense. 2) Your assumption is also wrong: No one should be penalized for longevity. You seem to give Joe Morgan a pass on longevity, so why put the hate on Ryno who played fewer seasons and did better or similar? Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins and Rogers Hornsby...Jackie Robinson, Craig Biggio and Nap Lajoie Sandberg has more HRs and a better fielding percentage than anyone you named or anyone who played at that position for their whole career (not to mention all the records and gold gloves he has). I don't think Biggio ever won a gold glove at second base, but he did he does not have eight. Besides, some of the players you mentioned, such as Biggio, did not play second base at their whole career and such stat comparisons are not a fair. Bill James has Ryne as the seventh-best of all time. How he calculate that? If he was using stats or whether they where the best of their time he is wrong or bias. I still defy anyone to name a better second basemen when sandberg played. I know this, no cannot name a second baseman who hit more HRs or a two-bagger who played better in the field when Sandberg played. I also cannot name a guy who put better single season stats when Sandberg played. So I guess pilling up more stats and being more productive and doing that in a shorter period than the guy Bill James names as the best second baseman ever makes Sandberg chop liver. Did you even read what you wrote? P.S. It's pretty low to insult my grammar mistakes...I guess that you think that since facts don't support your argument you must make fun of me to get the best of this debate.
posted by Bag Man at 11:25 PM on November 30
The same can be said for Morgan vs Sandberg in terms of offence. It's not even close (when you factor in the eras they played in). So to declare Ryno the best offensive AND defensive two-bagger in baseball is to completely undermine your own argument with hyperbole You are comparing apples to oranges. Sandberg needs to be judged by all second basemen. When he was first on the ballot Sandberg held the record for most homeruns by any second basemen, ever. In this era of more offense he's still #2 (recently passed by Jeff Kent). Not to mention production in other areas, such his more than 1,000 RBIs. While he has less RBIs than Joe Morgan, it's still an impressive total for a second baseman. He has a 40er year, 4 silver sluggers and an MVP. No second basemen of his time (or most other times, excpet now) can match those accomplishments. In fact, few second basemen can mach his career totals. The numbers alone support my argument. Then add his defense. His numbers on defense also speak for themselves too. Sandberg owns the best fielding percentage of any second baseman ever (.990). He owns several other defensive records, and until recently he has the record for the most consecutive errorless games over two seasons (he's still #2). Then there are his eight Gold Gloves. However, Sandberg pass the true HOFer test. He was the best second baseman of his generation. When he was playing nobody was better. Joe Morgan was in the twilight of his career in the mid-80s , and Roberto Alomar was still in yearly years in the early to mid-90s. When Sandberg was playing neither one of those great second basemen was that great. His all-star selections show that. He was a bridge between Morgan and Alomar and hit big before the area of inflated offense in the late-90s. I defy anyone to name another second baseman that as great has Sandberg when he play. The fact and numbers bear out my argument.
posted by Bag Man at 09:44 PM on November 30
Retire and wait five years. Don't worry, Alomar's a shoe in. Mazeroski's already in the Hall. Sandberg's Stats, both at the plate and the in field are better or as good as both of those players. Besides with Alomar recent struggles I'm sure he's a HOFer. Just look at Sanberg's numbers, they are among the best or the best, and then look at his leadership and grit; it's a no brainer. He should be in the HOF for the reasons I stated. And why hate on Fisk? I was not hating on Fisk, just making a point about an East Coast bias or at least an percieved East Coast bias. Or at very least, a bias towards player who won more than the Cubs, went to the WS or won the WS.
posted by Bag Man at 08:04 PM on November 30
What people at ESPN.com think. Vote here. Close but no cigar: Sandberg What does the greatest defensive and arguably the greatest offensive second baseman need to do get into the Hall? Was having the highest fielding percentage all time at his position not enough? Was all those Gold Gloves not enough? Was being an MVP not enough? Was hitting 40ers when second baseman did not do that not enough? Was holding the record for the most career homeruns for a second baseman at the time of his first ballot not enough? Is being second on the most career homeruns for second basemen not enough? Are 1,061 RBI at second base not enough? Was leading the Cubs to the NL East title in 1984 and 1989 not enough? I mean this guy is the best at his position in the field and at the plate (as good as or arguably better than HOFer Joe Morgan) and he can't get elected. What gives? He should have been in on his first ballot. It’s East Coast bias, just ask Ron Santo if sports writers have a sympathy for great players that happened to play west of the Allegany Mountains on sub-par teams. If very good, but not great, outfielders, such as Tony Perez, who just happened to play with the Red Sox during a good time to play for the Red Sox, can get in shouldn’t one of greatest at his position, if not the greatest, get in. It seems that just Because Sandberg was not around for Fisk’s homerun or never wore pinstripes, it means he should left out or has pay his dues with other lesser players.
posted by Bag Man at 05:35 PM on November 30
And we all know how the NBA Champ did against that weak ass Eastern Conference team...
posted by Bag Man at 01:34 AM on November 30
Maybe they can get some Italian soccer for once. If they did, I'd for forgive them for getting rid of Aussie Rules football and rugby. I don't know about you all, but several local pubs play Aussie Rules, The Rugby World Cup, Six Nations, the Sevens Tournament and all the South African and New Zealand rugby you can shake a stick at. Maybe I'm just spoiled.
posted by Bag Man at 01:29 AM on November 30
It was a crime that Rino did not get voted in last year. If I had a vote I'd vote for him for sure. As for the others, I'd vote for sure for Boggs and Smith.
posted by Bag Man at 01:21 AM on November 30
Washington Gridlocks !! That's PERFECT I also like Washington BustaCaps Just go old school (in another way) and call them the Washington Bullets. I'm sure the NRA would be all too pleased.
posted by Bag Man at 01:46 PM on October 08
Win one for the Gipper "Let me be the first to suggest that the name of the relocated team should be the Washington Reagans." -- David Broder Let me be the first one to suggest that the name of the relocated team should be the Washington Contras. All troll aside, I think the team should go back to the old school Washington Senators.
posted by Bag Man at 04:56 PM on October 07
All I know is that Kerry does actually play sports, some of them even "extreme." That's impressive to me. What does the other fella play? I heard the other fella fell off his bike a few times and was throw off a horse when he was governor of some southern state. I guess if doing coke and drinking was a sport the other fella would win. I won’t want to face that other fella in beer pong, but I think I might be able to take Kerry. The again, New Englanders know how to drink. Maybe Kerry even has the edge there. When it comes right down to it, it really doesn't matter who plays what or who knows what about sports. For example, Ford, who played some college football was a bad president, and Jack Kemp, who was a QB in the NFL, was right-wing nut who lost to a Fatso from Arkansas and a stiff board from Tennessee. I what a president who will be a great leader; I could give a rat's ass about if he knows anything about sports or plays sports well or even plays at all.
posted by Bag Man at 07:54 PM on September 20
Umpires are human, which is why I wonder tennis (and other sports) don't use more automation. Aren't the people who create the automation flawed? Thus, if you have an imperfect system, won't the output also be flawed? For example, instant replay in football has not erased flaws in that sport's refereeing. In fact, it's only caused more controversy...and need I bring up the controversy surrounding the BCS? Besides, the human experience is central to sports and if that is phased out something will be lost from the game itself. I can't you imagine MacEnroe yelling at a CPU.
posted by Bag Man at 07:35 PM on September 11
It's a sad, sad, sad sight. He was the greatest to ever wear the Sonic jersey. Now he's going out like a sucka. Your point is well taken, but don't every forget the X-Man. I would also add that the Glove is an excellent trash talker, perhaps one of the best ever. However, it seemed, even before he signed with the Lakers, his skills diminished and he became bitter and resentful. This loss of his skills and bitterness seems to have culminated during his time with the Lakers. I think the Glove was a sucka long before this trade.
posted by Bag Man at 02:06 PM on August 18
I'm glad The Glove is pissed. I think it serves him right.
posted by Bag Man at 05:21 PM on August 17
What charlatan said.
posted by Bag Man at 02:15 PM on August 12
Martinez ranks 12th in career OBA vs. the league average (7500+ PA, since 1900)...He's 12th on the AL career RCAA list So what?
posted by Bag Man at 05:22 PM on August 10
What Pivo said, Martinez's numbers are so-so at best when it comes to the Hall of Fame. No 3,000 hits, no 500 HRs, and no 1,500 RBIs. The mere fact that he's got the best DH stats is not sufficent in my mind because those stats are not that great anyway and there is no DH in the NL. He was a greated player, but not a HOF player.
posted by Bag Man at 05:21 PM on August 10
Bagman, I respect your views. In other news Leonard Pitt's latest column just came out and I thought he had some good points. And blacks looking at that ink blot gloated at Simpson's acquittal like it was the Voting Rights Act, like it had some bearing on their lives, said something about their circumstances, proved anything beyond the fact that a rich man can afford a different brand of justice than you and I. Better than I said it. So rich people can afforded better lawyers and other things others cannot? So what? Injustice? perhaps. Stating your argument more eloquently does not change its substance, which I know to be untrue or at best placing thing in a false light. It should be noted that I never argued (and will never argue) that O.J. winning was blow for racial equality or akind to civil rights victories. However, that doesn't chnage the fact that I think the recent over coverage is motivated by ladent (somethings outright) racism. The state posses so much power I don't think money "buys" freedom, it gives a little more chance at an even playing flied. Why do I think this? Even the richest man in the world couldn't out spend a state or the Federal government (think of the huge budgets the state and federal government have) or have access to the state of the crime labs and experts that the government as access to. That's my point. If God forbid, I am charged with a crime, I will use every penny I had to beat the rap. My guess is anyone would do the same. The way you and others have stated it, it's as if O.J. cut a check to the state of California and the jailhouse gate swung open. That's simple not true even for richest person.
posted by Bag Man at 02:57 PM on June 16
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by Bag Man at 02:44 PM on June 16
the motherfucker stabbed his wife and her boyfriend in ghastly fashion, is still roaming around free, upset because we all know he did it and won't buy his shit, and the coverage is invalid? If anything, he's invalid. really dude, get real. Hey dude, put down the surf board and get the sand out of ears. Other than the Rosenberg’s and the Masons, there just hasn’t been a high profile case that people have rehashed 10 years later. Just face it, the conservative media sells by hate mongering and this just another example. If O.J. where white then this case would have gone away a long time ago. Does Bernie Getz ring a bell? No one cares about him anymore. I suppose many Americans, knowing he was guilty, even liked the fact he killed some black people. So it's being covered everywhere, but its REALLY being pushed by conservatives. Whatever. It's being covered a lot more by the conservative media and fits there M.O. perfectly. I'm not going to debate the validity of the link, and I'm certainly not going to get in an agenda driven conservative/liberal debate with you. Since when is trying to be fair and fight against racism an "agenda"? I hope it's not an agenda because fairness to all people regardless of race is one my most basic values and a value that America has at least paid lip service to. If you think fairness and racial equality is an "agenda" worthy of scorn you have some very serious problems beyond your belief the well off should not be able to defend themselves. Shame on you for bashing O.J. for using his right to defend himself. I’m sure if you’re ever in trouble with the law, you’d all of your recourses to beat the rap, whether you are innocent of guilty.
posted by Bag Man at 03:22 PM on June 15
I have no agenda (unlike you). So standing up for fairness is an "aganda"? Please, this is a fall back arguement when you have lost on the merits. I'm not going to debate the validity of the link I wasn't debating the validity of the link; I'm debating the validity of the news media's coverage.
posted by Bag Man at 11:21 AM on June 14
For me personally, it was the first time growing up where I realized that money could buy you anything, even freedom. First, O.J. didn't "buy" anything. His money allowed him to level the playing field a little bit against the state, which as almost limitless recourses with which to prosecute him or anyone. And black people are not whipped into a frenzy when it comes to court cases and race? This is not a quality relegated to one race. All racist motivations are bad, but in the O.J. case (which your post refers to) it's white Americans that are displaying views distorted by race. Hence my comment. I could also point to articles in the Washington Post, LA times, British papers, the NY Times, etc. etc, but I won't waste my time. To say this has only been covered by conservative media is ridiculous. Good shot the "liberal media,” but your comment leaves out a whole lot of context (Carl Rove would so impressed). The people that are the most obsessed with case right how is the conservative media. That's where this 10-year-old story is getting the most the play in terms of air time and prominence on the conservative media. They just can't but help to run stories like "look at the evil back person who got away with murder" or "here’s another example of the ultra liberal court system is being used to harbor evil backs" or "look how the ACLU is using the court system to oppress poor white Christians." It's pure hate mongering and bashing, and like I said a lot of people are more than happy to eat it up. Then they vote Bush to get rid of pesky civil liberties that allows a man like O.J. to walk. I wonder where Bush and Abrams will be when the state thumps on them. They should watch what they wish for, because they just might get it. Because it is of interest to me. Really, don't like the link? Ignore it, and post what YOU find interesting. It really isn't that hard. Your post is systematic of this ridiculous obsession. If you don't like my post or comments you can follow your own advice. Why did you seem value your right to express an opinion over mine? Please, it's nothing personal, as I stated I am not imputing racism to anyone here; I'm just sick of people bashing a guy ten years after he was exonerated and its not hard to guess why the conservative media is manipulating it much more than anyone else.
posted by Bag Man at 06:26 PM on June 13
grum@work, I want to make clear that I am imputing racism on the unnamed masses or the people here on SOFI. However, why in the world are people so obsessed with O.J. ten years after fact? And, why would the conservative media make such a big deal about it? Because there is a segment of white Americans who are still likely to be whipped into a frenzy about this case because of the race of the exonerated defendant and the victims. Quite simply Fox News and MSNBC are playing to the worst fears of people and steering up ratings by hate mongering. I guess I should not be surprised considering it's Fox News and the Abrams Report. Why not the same tizzy for the Rodney King defendants and the Memedez (sp.?) Brothers? Simple: race and hate mongering is good for ratings and the conservative media knows it. From gay bashing to O.J. case, the conservative media knows how to make a buck off hate and many white Americans are more than happy to pay. I have no reason to believe that people her are racist, but I really wonder why this is an issue worthy of posting.
posted by Bag Man at 11:53 AM on June 13
Anyone here think he was innocent? The real question should be why should we care? The man was found not guilty by a jury of her peers, end of story. After watching a special on Fox News I'm sure that America's obsession with O.J. comes from O.J.'s race. 10 years after the fact (yes, that's ten years folks) why is Fox News and Abrams Report (i.e. the conservative media) playing it up so much? Because a certain element of white-beard America saw a very pretty white woman get killed. Then, they were pissed that the black man who was accused of the crime walk and they wanted blood. Even if you’re the most hardcore O.J. basher, you gotta admit that rehashing it is a waste of time and a travesty. This is coming from an ex-0.J. trial junkie: People, get over it!
posted by Bag Man at 11:52 PM on June 12
It seems to me that there are plenty of good white guys in the NBA. It just so happens that most of them aren't from the US (Nowitzki, Nash, Peja etc.). Maybe what Bird meant to say is that there needs to be more white Americans in the NBA to appeal to white Americans. If that's true (which I don't think it is), that would a sad statement about white America. I believe Bird did make the distinction between white Americans and White Europeans. As for the comments, I did not find them offensive. Bird was not assiging value to white or black players. In other words, he did not state that somehow either white players or black players are inherently better because of their race. He was stating a fact, there are a lot more black players in the NBA than white American players. The value judgment was that somehow the lack of white player may hurt the league by turning off white fans or failng to provide young white players with role models (this is pretty foolish because a baller is a baller regardless of race). Perhaps Bird is recalling the 1970s when the NBA lost a number of white fans because the league became predominately black. I'm sure that that won't happen again (less racism, the popularity of black NBA players, overall popularity of the game), but historically Bird’s fears are not unfounded. I think he is wrong, but I don’t believe that he was being racist. If Bird had suggested that white players are inferior to black players or that the lack of white players has hurt the overall quality of play in the NBA that would be racist, but Bird did not say that.
posted by Bag Man at 04:19 PM on June 10
Two points: If you need war to put football in perspective you have a problem. I'm sick of Fox News exploiting Tillman (an other fallen troops) for their Republican, jingoistic agenda.
posted by Bag Man at 03:54 PM on April 26
Bag Man, if what you said would actually come to pass we would see it in footy and that's not the case. Free agency in baseball, and other American sports, allows for greater and freer player movement than the transfer fee system of European football. That's likely why it has not come to pass as much in footy. Regardless, I just feel that your regime is simply unfair.
posted by Bag Man at 10:09 AM on April 21
Bag Man, counting playoffs towards career records would not change the single season records and we already count career postseason stats in most sports I am aware of. Further, these days at least, most good players on bad teams could easily change that by taking a lower salary if that is the barrier keeping them from a better team. Sorry but I cannot argree with you. Then what's your beef? All you want is the official tally to include playoff stats? Can't you just use a calculator to get total stats? There is a bright line between playoff and regular season and the stats tally merely reflects that. I feel your regime is grossly unfair. Under the your proposed solution would bias teams that are already good even more. I don't want the Yankee to rule a 1000 year dynasty while all other teams are left behind. Such a solution would make things worse, not better. I'm sorry that I cannot justify a unfair world-view that artificially perpetuates continued dominance of a few teams to the detriment of the game.
posted by Bag Man at 07:48 PM on April 20
If the ratings are up it's not because of me. ;-]
posted by Bag Man at 06:31 PM on April 20
What about injuries? Certain players get far fewer at-bats during the season (and sometimes over a career) because they're injured. How can you compare them to their peers who have remained healthy and played in more games? Injuries are part of game and they seem to affect players on good teams and bad teams regardless of the how good the team is.
posted by Bag Man at 03:44 PM on April 20
Palmiero busted?
I'd still vote for him for the HOF for 3 reasons: 1. There is no way to know when and how long he used the steroids. 2. Even if he used steroids his whole career, there is no way to know how well he would have done without them (i.e. how inflated his stats really are). 3. Even if he used steroids his whole career, he may have used them where they not illegal and/or he used them when they were not banned in MLB.