Thanks for the convincing counter-argument. I don't really have the time right now to give too convincing of an argument, but I'll say a couple things. Ron Santo was a very good ballplayer, an admittedly better one than I had always thought after I just checked his numbers again. But to say that he was better than Sosa is just ridiculous. First off, can we please throw this WARP crap out the window? We're simply talking about a ballplayer, not who was better at his respective position relative to his peers, but the "greatest Cub." Sammy's career OPS: 882, which is 122 points higher than the league average. Santo's career OPS: 826, which is 93 points better than the league average. Also, Sammy's career OPS+ is better than Santo's. Another thing which begs discussion is what makes a player "great." Is it simply being a monster at the plate? Or are more variables involved? Does being a baseball icon make you greater than a non-icon? I think so, and Sammy clearly was an icon during his glory years. He was one of the top 2-3 hitters in all of baseball from 1998 to 2001. I'll tell you right now that I don't know how big of a "star" Santo was, but based on his stats, I'm going to wager that he wasn't ever one of the game's elite players. Good, certainly. But one of the best? I doubt it. I'm sorry, and its just my opinion, but I think its absurd to say that Ron Santo was a greater Cub than Sammy Sosa. Santo was never caught corking. Ron wins. I think Sosa should be an option, but I wouldn't personally put him in my top 5. Top 10, definitely, but not in the top 5. And not above Santo, and you can discount all the emotion from that. Santo is a greater player AND icon for this team, for all time.