ConstableRabbit

Ah...possibly...but this is what threw me off - Yeah, I forgot that he had already retired in '94. Confusing. Anyway, what do you think the reaction would've been? I think he would have been elected sooner had he not come out of retirement. I remember hearing many in baseball have that same sentiment. But, on a purely selfish level, I'm glad he came back and played for 2 more years - it was 2 more years I was able to watch him...I thought he was great then so I can only imagine how great he was in his prime. During the induction, someone said that Sandberg got in simply based on his prime years because from 33 and on, his numbers weren't that great. So, had he stayed retired the first time, I believe he would have gotten in sooner. Though I believe he should have been inducted on his first ballot as did those announcing the induction on television. I also think Sandberg was kinda stuck between eras...though I'm not totally sure because I didn't watch baseball in the 80s. It seems to me, he was a doubles hitter who could do the little things and had speed but he turned into a HR hitter...just as the league eventually did. So, I guess I'm saying his playing time overlapped two different times - one in which bunting and running was important and one in which HR were important. I think he was a better overall hitter in the 80s than in the late 90s so maybe had he stopped playing in the early 90s that would have boded better for him to get into the Hall not only sooner, but also quicker in terms of tries on the ballot. But, all just my opinion - and a biased one at that! The question I was proposing wasn't whether or not he would have gotten in in 2001 if his career had started earlier, I was just throwing that out for the purpose of discussion. What I was asking was, had Sandberg gotten into the hall of fame in 2001 instead of 2005 for some reason, and come out criticising the homerun hitters with a near direct reference to Sosa, when he was at the top of his game and very popular, what do you think the reaction would have been in comparison to now, where the slugger is always under suspicion and Sosa has fallen out of grace? The question is: would we still be saying it was a great speech?

Ah...possibly...but this is what threw me off - Yeah, I forgot that he had already retired in '94. Confusing. Anyway, what do you think the reaction would've been?

Easy for you to say, when tickets first went on sale I got box seats for Stl and Atlanta. I'm really dreading having to go. :(

Good post. Plenty of today's players could stand to hear Ryno's speech, but then, so could many of his contemporaries. He's talking about the "Phillie Way," the principles drilled into him as a youngster in the Philadelphia system. Great Post. I would like to say something on my own, however. I know that it has become fashionable to bash Sosa (whether after the corked bat incident, the clubhouse leaving, suspected steroid use, or what have you) and I don't want to get into whether it was right/wrong, or any of that, because that's a whole new topic. However, whether you want to believe it or not, Sosa and his homeruns were the thing in this city for many years. His on field antics, as well as kissing routine at the dugout camera made him one of the most popular players in baseball, if not sports. I don't really think I'm too far off with that statement. Now think about this: Had Sandberg started his career a few years earlier and retired earlier, in say, 2001, and made the same statements bashing sluggers and so-called one-dimensional players, (including Sosa in all but name), would we still be praising his speech, or would we call him jealous of the outstanding accomplishments and attention Sosa, McGwire and others had recieved?

I don't like the idea of extending the season. It's already 162 games long, plus the playoffs which run into October. Baseball players have the shortest offseason of any major sport as it is. I think you would either have to shorten the regular season or start it earlier, and I don't see either happening. And while I'd love to see more teams playing, (such as the Phillies, who always seem to be in the running but just can't get there) I think it's kind of unrealistic as now. Another reason why I would prefer to keep an 8 team playoffs is because I like how baseball remains a pretty elite system. It has the fewest teams in the playoffs (unlike basketball and hockey where it seems like everyone gets in) and I would say that it's the major sport with the most difficult hall of fame. Why are we proposing going through the hassle of changing the system? Does it have huge faults that I'm not thinking of?

That's actually not a bad idea, because there are always fans who look to the manager whenever a team isn't doing well despite what he's done. We actually have some reasons here.

This isn't just a knee-jerk reaction. We have valid reasons for wanting Dusty fired, and it's not just because we're losing. He's making bad managerial decisions and he needs to go.

He very may well be a lucky player as has been alluded to, but I've always felt that you don't bench a player unless he's done something wrong, and you try to play the best guys. I just don't see what Murton has done to deserve being benched, other than being born in the 1980s.

frostwyrm your sig is absolutely hillarious :lol:

I don't really know much about him. He always seemed ok as an analyst, and he's certainly had success, but can anyone fill my in as to what his managing philosphy is (was)?

Wow. That's unbelievable. Some fans don't know where to draw the line. This upset me for a couple of reasons as I was reading it this morning: First of all, as I think we have all agreed on, that was a ridiculous thing to say and has no place in sports, or for that matter, anywhere. But perhaps more importantly, it portrays those of us who would prefer another manager to Dusty (and I know, that's an understatement) as ignorant. It makes it seem like everyone who wants Dusty out does not have a valid reason, because here's a 'fan' who was a moron about it. The fact is, we do have a lot of valid points which need to be heard that the column seemed to skip over, such as the fact that Dusty had 2 awful OBP hitters batting 1-2 for much of the season, which had little to do with injury. It was just very frustrating.

This game is so exciting, I'm going tile shopping! Later.

BRILLIANT BRAIN!! indubitably Hey, this manure is staring at me. ENCHANTED MANURE!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

BRILLIANT BRAIN!! indubitably

hahaha I love how we all say the exact same things

Did we just take a walk? egad

I think he had a leg problem earlier this year

His fundamentals wont be worth squat next year when he will be making 9mil. Aww, you guys are always hating on him. Sure, he gets shelled sometimes, which completely inflates his ERA, but it's important to have him on the team. I know everyone on here thinks wins aren't important, but some guys know how to win and others don't. Clearly he's not the Maddux of yesteryear, but he definately knows the game and is important to have in the clubhouse. I like him. I know where you are coming from, I just think that 9mil could be used on a younger pitcher or bat. That's a fair assessment. I don't disagree that 9 is too much, (and to be honest, I wouldn't mind having him as a pitching coach, as was mentioned) I just like having him around to teach some of the pitchers on the team how to field, cover 1st, work the strike zone, etc. However, he can't hold a runner, yikes.

Didn't take him long to get used to the "Dusty Baker System." Coming soon to a Tom Emanski video ad near you. Hey, don't knock those. They led to back to back to back AAU championship teams. :lol:

His fundamentals wont be worth squat next year when he will be making 9mil. Aww, you guys are always hating on him. Sure, he gets shelled sometimes, which completely inflates his ERA, but it's important to have him on the team. I know everyone on here thinks wins aren't important, but some guys know how to win and others don't. Clearly he's not the Maddux of yesteryear, but he definately knows the game and is important to have in the clubhouse. I like him.

THAT'S why I like having Maddux and his superior baseball knowledge on my team. Great fundamentals.

I don't think the gold gloves really make up for the MVP in the eyes of the voters, no. An MVP to the voters signifies that the player was the best player in his league for at least one season. While that may not always be true, it gives the voters a reason to say if he were the best for a time and then has good overall numbers that is why he's a HOF. Certainly not all MVP's will be HOF, but it greatly increases the chance. This is clearly true, but does anyone know how many (or what percentage) of hall of famers were MVPs and/or gold glovers?

Definately Neifi's granny. I was yelling obscenities at TLR after it left the yard. :lol:

Speaking of interesting Dusty quotes... [points to sig] :lol:

What a bunch of class acts. Who would've thought this was the same team telling Karros to f#$% off from the dugout a couple of years ago.