Pants Rowland

QUOTE(Middle Buffalo @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 01:45 PM) I agree. Internationally speaking, though, I believe that the recent failure of our professionals (NBA, MLB) against other countries has as much to do with our players lack of commitment to train for the events, arrogance, and poorly constructed teams. Essentially, in baseball, we sent the 2005 Yankees to battle when we would be better served to send the '96 Yankees. Players have to be willing to sacrifice their personal glory for the good of the team. No doubt. The U.S. sports federations have a bad habit of looking at the top players statistically and failing to fill in the gaps created by their broad shoulders. The lack of role players has resulted in consistent disappointment on the international stage. I may be speculating, but this same reasoning may offer a tiny clue as to why Santo is not in the HOF and also why his vote tallies from fifteen years of eligibility were so low compared to his near success in the veterans committee. Media eye witnesses covering baseball daily are able to objectively summarize a player's entire career and vote for the HOF. They look at the numbers but they also remember the intangibles such as clutch hits, advancing runners, taking an error while trying to save a run, playing with injuries, etc. If a player is not the complete package, odds are fifteen years are not going to be enough to get him in the HOF via a media vote. Then the veterans are asked to reconsider just in case the press slighted him somehow. Some of these veterans were contemporaries of said player and can judge accordingly. However, many others did not follow his career and are forced to either abstain or rely on paper numbers. With Santo, this has dragged on for so long that the intangibles of his game have effectively been thrown out. This forces the voters to compare numbers to other players in the HOF. Santo's supporters have taken it a step further and said the VC should compare his stats to other 3B in the HOF rather than all HOF members. The true Santo fanatics say he should only be compared to the 3B from his era, especially in the NL alone. If you spin the facts enough and look at them from just the right angle, you conclude that Santo's ommission is nothing less than a tragedy. Using the same approach, I am sure someone could argue Dave Kingman into the HOF along with Harold Baines, Jim Rice, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy and a whole slew of other borderline players with impressive paper stats. Time heals all wounds. In the case of Santo and his supporters, time seems to be putting enough distance between the voters and possible gaps in his game. I am too young to opine on his qualifications, but older fans I know that watched his career do not split +75% pro to -25% con for his induction. To hear his career described by someone who was there, he sounds like another good player with some impressive statistics. Believe it or not, there are a lot of players in that category who have to pay for a ticket to get into Cooperstown.

QUOTE(Middle Buffalo @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) There's no way anyone can conclusively say what would have happened over the course of a full season of competition if the Negro league players had been allowed in MLB. Surely, there were Negro leaguers who would have excelled, but there are just as many who would have failed to live up to their billing. Just use Triple A can't miss prospects as an example of how wrong scouts can be when the players move up to the next level. All Star games are just that. All Star games. The Negro league All Stars likely would have done well in MLB, but every player in the Negro leagues was NOT Paige or Gibson. They had their fair share of roster filler, and I'm sure that some of the numbers that the All Star Negro league players accrued came at the expense of these lesser players. That said, I think Negro league players do have a place in the HOF, but I don't think it's right to say that any player would have dominated the MLB players because we just won't ever really know. My initial comments were very much tongue in cheek, but it is fairly safe to assume that the overall quality of play and level of talent in MLB would have increased substantially had Cap Anson and Kennesaw Mountain Landis not resisted integration. My understanding was that the Negro Leagues were as talented (and untalented) as MLB. Just as not all Negro Leaguers were Paige or Gibson, not all MLB players were Walter Johnson or Babe Ruth, either. The AL was maligned for a long time by the haughty National League, which had already been in existance for 25 years when the AL declared itself a major league. Some old time fans still refer to the NL as the "Senior Circuit" and dismiss the AL as a sideshow of sorts. Those fans are obviously few and far between nowadays, but the arrogance was there for some time. A similar arrogance contributed to the myth that the Negro Leagues were of lesser talent and were a lower quality brand of baseball. Further, a lot of marginal players in the all-white AL & NL would also have fallen by the wayside rather than having productive careers had integration taken place long before Robinson broker the color barrier. Think of the quality of talent that would be lost if we removed all black, latino, and asian players from the major leagues. Do you think it would be better or worse? The WBC last year illustrated that small countries such as Korea, Japan, P.R., D.R., Venezuela, and Cuba are as competitive and talented as the U.S., if not moreso. They obviously had marginal players on their rosters that would not make it big in the majors and are definitely not HOF material. However, the same applies for the U.S. roster, which did not even fare as well as several of these teams and that is with both white and black players. How would the U.S. team have performed even worse if you removed all of the black players? They may have had trouble with the Netherlands. You are correct that we will never know who from both sides of the color barrier would emerge as the truly elite talent. However, if some Negro Leaguers were comparable to can't miss prospects that couldn't cut it in the majors, then it is more than likely the same could be said of the white players in MLB prior to integration. With that in mind, the Negro League stars should be given just as much HOF consideration as the elite MLB players from the period prior to integration. I have not analyzed the acceptance process of Negro League Players in the HOF, but historians seem to indicate that the opposite has been the case.

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 09:41 AM) I just think its such a joke that Negro league players almost get free passes in while never facing day in day out major league players while great veteran players have to endure this process. Its Grandstanding at its best. What is an even bigger joke is all the players in the major leagues that got a free pass despite never facing the superstars of the Negro leagues. Imagine how sick some of those HOF players would have looked if they had to face Satchel Paige in his prime rather than when he was pitching in his 50s and still pretty darn effective. Josh Gibson would have made Babe Ruth a footnote in the record books, too. My understanding is the Negro Leagues dominated MLB in an All-Star game or two and the talent and overall level of entertainment was so great that those games consistently outdrew a lot of major league franchises. The Negro Leagues were major leagues with major league players. Don't forget to use green next time lest you look like a major league ignoramous.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 06:37 AM) -Why do people buy Britney Spears albums? -Why did people watch the OC? -How hard would it be for that old to turn off of his left blinker, exit the left lane, and speed up from 35? -Why would anyone pay to read Jay Mariotti? The world is full of stupid people. I wouldn't let it bother you. Good points. I equate it to my reason for never seeing the film Titanic. I knew it couldn't be that great of a film if 99 out of 100 Americans absolutely loved it.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) Becasue the Cubs blew so bad I do not think they even lose their 1st round pick or even their second. Really? How does that work out? The Nats weren't far behind in the suck department. I would think they should be compensated for the loss.

QUOTE(IowaSoxFan @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 03:31 PM) The HOF is such a joke, if you didnt play in New York or win multiple World Series it is getting tougher to get in all the time. You have writers who wont put people in because they didnt like a player or he didnt win enough, and players wont put other players in because they judge players against themselves and always decide they are better so they wont vote for new guys to get in. The HOF voting system is broken and needs to be fixed. Does anyone have a breakdown on the number of players from each team in the HOF? I think the Cubs have significant representation. Obviously, so do the NYY, but they also have 27 titles and thirtysome pennants. There is a good chance that they are going to have major representation. Typically, great players worthy of the HOF are frequently playing on the bigger stages of the game. However, there are also plenty of players that had minimal big stage success but still made the Hall. Yount, Ripken, Gwynn and Schmidt were all in the series but for the most part their individual success is what got them in the Hall. There are a lot of people you need to blame for Santo's lack of election thus far but my guess is he was not deemed worthy by the writers because he was just not worthy. I commend the veterans committee for keeping the Hall an elite institution as much as possible. What is unfortunate is the constant barrage and lobbying by Santo and his supporters has pushed his vote total up every year. Odds are he will get in two years from now more due to sympathy and pressure versus actual merit.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 09:50 AM) Compared to the type of prospects they could have received for Soriano, those draft picks are mediocre. It's too bad we don't have any toolsy outfielders, as we could have gotten Soriano easily from Bowden. I forgot my green ink. Sorry. I agree that the Nats were foolish to sit on Soriano and now have to rely on their scouting department to turn those drafts picks into gold.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 01:35 PM) Another 2 years of hearing Santo whine and beg........ Maybe if he helped his team make the playoffs ONCE with 2 other HOFers on the roster. Am I mistaken, or is it three other HOFers? Jenkins, Williams and Banks?

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) ....ahhhh, get a room.... You know you love it, too.

QUOTE(StatManDu @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 11:14 AM) Borderline is the key word here. The reason why the players/members were given the Veterans vote was because too many "borderline" candidates were getting in. Bill Mazeroski was the vet that broke the camel's back, I believe. Santo is a borderline candidate as is Kaat. As stated above, I think Kaat's 283 wins and 16? Gold Gloves should carry some weight with voters. Minoso should get the kind of consideration mentioned in another post concerning his late start because of discrimination, etc. I grew up watching Santo. He was a very good player but it never dawned on anyone while he was playing that he was a Hall of Famer. I can never recall anyone referring to Santo as a future Hall of Famer during his playing days. The comparison to Ventura is a good one. It's the old argument: If Santo gets in, then you have to let Dick Allen in (great post above), what about Vada Pinson or Tony Olivo. The list could go on. In a way, this argument doesn't apply to Kaat because there are few pitchers with 283 wins and 16? Gold Gloves that arent' in the Hall. HOF talk is my favorite hot stove topic, btw Mine, too. Thanks to you and The Critic for the insight. I like the fact that it is difficult to get into the HOF. It should be difficult otherwise it is a ceremonial and sentimental farce. Occasionally the system slights a deserving player but for the most part it rewards greatness on several fronts. I have debated the HOF credentials of many players whose entire careers I watched since I started following baseball in the early 80s. Over those 25 years, there are probably no more than 10-15 players that merit the discussion in my book. Annual voting by the media validates that type of scrutiny. When you apply that type of criteria, my guess is Santo's career does not match the spin doctors' story to get him in. On a related note, I assume Nellie Fox got in prior to the recent veterans system was put in place. Do you think he deserved the second look and eventual induction by the VC?

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 10:17 AM) I was 6 years old and WAY into baseball in 1969, so I saw a fair amount of "Primo Santo". He was a very good ballplayer, but probably only the 4th best player on that team. Banks, Williams, and Jenkins were all definitely better. Thanks. We obviously are all fairly anonymous on this site but too often I hear people in their mid-30s to younger who only have the paper statistics to argue Santo's behalf. I get tired of people beating up on the veterans committee for not being more lenient. It seems that if a player could not make it within the eligibility period, then he should have a fairly small grace period to be reviewed by his peers. I know the press falls in love with some players on the big stage sometimes and neglects the stars who never made it the the world series. However, Santo seems to have had plenty of media attention during his playing days. If the press and his peers have not elected him by now, there is probably good reason. My dad saw him play and said he was a good third baseman, similar to a Robin Ventura in the field. He also said he hit a lot of his HR when the pressure was off and he remembers Ronnie going down on strikes with the game on the line a lot. My dad is not a biased Sox fan and watched both teams for years. He scoffs at people comparing Santo's fielding to Brooks Robinson because of the similarity in the paper numbers. The fact that Santo continues to lobby on his own behalf also is troubling to me. If you need to argue your own case so passionately like Santo does, then maybe there is a reason you have not made it on your credentials.

Can we make a SoxTalk rule that all offseason threads must be started by StatManDu? Clearly the most entertaining and thought-provoking threads in some time here on SoxTalk. Your facts and scouting reports are helping us all prepare for the regular season and feeding the passions of baseball/whitesox junkies. Much better than speculative polls over who will start opening day and debating trades over and over again. Thanks.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 09:36 AM) And that's why Jim Bowden is an idiot and the Nats got nothing for Soriano. They got the Cubs' draft picks. At 96 losses for the Cubs and another 91 for the Nationals, that should equate to a competitive team 5 or so years from now.

I am not trying to be condescending, but how many of you actually saw Santo play in his prime or even at the end of his career?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) Kenny Williams will not sign a pitcher to a 6+ year, $125 million + deal. Kenny Williams is simply not that stupid. And I am thankful for that quite often. What he said...except if it were Johan Santana. But back to the original question, no to Carlos Z. I am leery of bringing him and his mental condition to face AL lineups every turn.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 05:59 PM) It is pretty easy to clear room for Clark if you were to really think about it. Take like 2.9 seconds and the answer should come to mind. Pods?

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 01:43 PM) #1 I am talking about next winter, nobody knows how it is going to turn out. White Sox have not been a major player in top shelf free agents for awhile and with the money they will have after 2006 season they will be able to be a major player, I am just saying history says otherwise. I hope I am wrong but JR crying about salaries this winter, next winter free agents will not be any cheaper! Aside from the facts about the historical spending patterns of current White Sox ownership, baseball history is fairly clear in illustrating that throwing big money at free agents frequently does not result into a championship. There are wealthy teams that have signed players to big contracts and been successful but baseball success still depends heavily on sound personell decisions throughout the organization. I think the Minnesota Twins, Atlanta Braves, and KC Royals of the 1980s are prime examples of this fact. Further, the NY Yankees of the mid-80s to early 90s are a great example of a wealthy team that was mismanaged (or overmanaged from the top) and floundered.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 12, 2007 -> 02:29 PM) This is about the only player in the White Sox organization that has actually played OF that would probably play a worse LF than Pods. I'm just assuming right now, which is probably a mistake, but he's 37 (38 in September) and he blew out his achilles once upon a time. The only reason he's played 71.1 innings in the OF over the past 3 years is to get his bat in the lineup, because that's how valuable managers feel he is against LHP. I don't blame said managers, but you really shouldn't even expect more than 5 games out of him in the OF, otherwise he could get hurt in no time. Regardless of that, this is an outstanding signing. The Sox may actually have a pretty damn good offense this year, and they might be able to actually hit both lefties and righties. So, does this make the Sox bench the best in (AL/MLB) going into the year again this year? Cuz I kinda think it does. The only real huge weakness on the bench is that there isn't a super speed guy who can steal a base (Ozuna has the speed, but lacks the stealing), but that plays such a small role that it's not worth digging for it. I think Thome's late season struggles (especially against LHP) and need for rest during the season to stay healthy makes it obvious that Perez can play first against lefties and let Konerko get something of a breather by DH'ing. Paulie played a lot of innings in the field last year due to a lack of a backup with Mack covering CF too often. This also gives you a monster LHP bat off the bench late in the game when the opposing manager has to decide whether to bring in the righty to shut down a rally. I think this is going to turn out to be one of the better offseason moves Williams makes this year.

QUOTE(bad at best @ Feb 3, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) i love knowing that there is a game almost every night. its the relentless calming rhythm of summer....like waves crashing on the shore. You said it. Those few nights off a year and the Thursday getaway day game always leave a void that has me pacing. I know I spend too much time following the games and neglecting my family but I can't give it up.

Old Comiskey, Disco Night 1979 (no, not the infamous Disco demolition against Detroit). I think it was against the Mariners and the Sox lost. I was too young to pay attention to details of the game. I remember seeing a man walk across the infield during the pregame festivities. Someone asked my dad who that was and he said in his strong Greek accent "that drunken ass Harry Carey." I also remember the firewoks going off for a Sox HR. One of my earliest childhood memories. I went to Baseball Almanac to see if I could locate the exact game. It appears it was a 7-2 Tuesday night loss, when the Sox did in fact get a solo home run in the second inning. Funny thing to note is that Mario Mendoza started at SS for the M's and went 2 for 3 with a double and 2 RBI.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 02:18 PM) No sex with babies. Man Law? No. Just the Law. Sicko.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 12:27 PM) This is one of the more bizarre comments that I've seen. You must be joking, lying, willfully ignoring the facts, and or basing your comment on one game that you saw. Mackowiak was a better hitter than the majority of our regulars. He hit .295 with a .365 OBP. Those numbers are better than Iguchi, Crede, Pierzynski, Pods, Anderson, and Uribe. Maybe I am being harsh but I recall a very streaky hitter whose defense was tough to watch. My example was from a game I attended in which Mack was brought in to pinch hit, did not deliver, and then cost the Sox the game in the late innings. My seats are very close to the area the play happened and he was brutal on multiple levels. Granted, he should not have been out there to begin with, but it was one of several examples last year when a combination of Pods in Left and Mack in Center put extra pressure on the man on the bump. Maybe Mack's defensive shortcomings were exacerbated by being out of position and being next to Pods most of the time. Whatever the reason, I am not blaming him, just stating how I feel. Stats can be misleading sometimes. Mack may have decent looking numbers on paper, but there are a lot of fans who watched a whole slew of games last year and can not recall much contribution from Mack outside of his performance against Street. Tell me what your stats say about Joe Crede's 2005 regular season? On paper he had some disappointing numbers but we all remember his clutch offensive contributions that year, not to mention the fact that his defense more than made up for his offensive shortcomings. I know Mack is a reserve, but his defense and streaky hitting stick out far more in my mind. Further, better numbers than 2006 versions of Pods, Anderson, and Uribe is comparable to being the World's Tallest Midget.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 07:27 PM) Hey what do you know. Mackowiak's bat won us a game against Huston Street and the A's. I would hope to have a little more production out of my backup than one heroic pinch hit moment. I think we all fell in love with Mack when he beat Hawkins and the Cubs in a double header two years ago. That and the fact that he is a local guy with a passion for the Sox gave him a free pass last year. Overall, he was pretty disappointing both offensively and defensively.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 06:11 PM) Hey, I'm calling that one the way I see it. By my eyes when Rob Mackowiak was playing CF, in an overwhelming majority of those games he directly cost the White Sox 1 run, and indirectly usually led to at least a couple more scoring. In other words, in any game, the White Sox still had say a 50% shot at a quality start last season, but in a much higher percentage of games where he started in CF, Rob Mackowiak's defense in CF did horrific damage. Game 3 Cubs at Sox - Mack misplays ball off Barret's bat leading to RBI triple followed shortly thereafter by Jacque Jones 2 run homer. Cubs avoid sweep. There are more but I was there for that and was well-positioned to see how Mack's poor read/jump/dive/tumble directly cost the Sox the game but the bullpen got hit with the Earned runs and loss. He easily cost the Sox 2 to 4 games last year. Everyone keeps blaming the starters for the 2006 disappointment but the outfield defense took a toll on the pitch counts throughout the year.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) He sucks because he cannot stay healthy, and when he is healthy (which is no common thing mind you), he still isn't very good. He's posted 2 seasons with OPS's above .700 since 2000 (although yes, injury plagued seasons) and really isn't that good a player. So yea, he sucks. Based on what you are saying, StatManDu should probably change his name since he is not looking at your statistics. From what I have seen of his first 47 posts, he is much more of a trivia/history/nostalgia guy than his name suggests. Here are a few suggestions: 1. Histrionics 2. Nostalgiamus 3. FactManDu The last is my personal favorite and probably the most apprpriate since the guy is a wealth of baseball knowledge, in particular anything that has to do with the White Sox. It also is a simple change that the moderators may allow without knocking him down to no-post rookie status. Also, all us older fans seem to like him and the tears he helps bring to our eyes every now and then. My only concern is the change would cause him to become arrogant and think that he has all the answers. He seems like a good guy, however, so it should not be an issue.