What is your take on the Hall Of Fame??

[predatorkj]

I selected the third option.

It isn't just one or the other. If it were only a popularity contest; Ron Santo, Don Mattingly, ect would already be in. If it were all about stats; Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Big Mac would already be in.

Players that reach a certain milestone; 3000 hits, 500 HR (probably soon to be 600 HR), 300 wins, ect should be in the HOF. If they lasted long enough in the league to reach those milestones, they must have been liked enough. Players like Biggio do a lot for the community and different charities.

The three names you mentioned are not in the HOF because of transgressions against the game or its rules or policies.Or just plain straight out for cheating

Joe Jackson didn't bet on baseball. Pete Rose bet (admitted to and assume to) after he stopped playing. Mark McGwire never failed a drug test. So how can you say these players cheated?

On another note, Rose and Jackson were both eligible for the HOF before the Commissioner or MLB could say a player wasn't eligible.

They are believed to have cheated.You act like I get a vote.I don't.But the voters do think that Mac has cheated and you know the scoop with Joe Jackson and Rose.They are not eligible.I would not say they didn't get in before they had been banned from MLB because they were not popular.They didn't get in for one reason or another but I seriously doubt that it was not due to popularity.I haven't ever really heard too many people who didn't know or like Rose.I have never really heard anyone bashing them on any program ever.It may happen but its certainly not done a lot.So the popularity thing is once again left at the door.

As for Mac...whether he failed a test or not...the voters obviously feel that he doesn't deserve to get in because they feel his stats are padded by his steroid use.I will use the same argument that I used in the Mac HOF thread...if you even believe he used for just two years...just two...he would have lost a lot of homers due to that and may not have even reached over 500 homers.His other stats are certainly not HOF worthy.He was a hell of a player but based on the other stats...I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face he was HOF worthy.The only thing that even makes his name worth mentioning is his homers and as long as those are in contention, which they are no matter if you like or agree with it or not, he will always be looked at as not HOF worthy.I am sorry...I don't know what else to tell you.

ill be the first to agree that without the HR totals he was not HOF worthy. .263 career average etc and all that. But he is worthy based on the HR totals as from previous guys who got in soley on that. But, lets just say he juiced for 2 years, who is to say that he could not hit 50 a year without juice. He hit 49 as a rookie, so your saying that for him in his prime he could not hit at least 50 a HR a season? His swing is soley for hitting HR's. Thats all he was trying to do. For giggles take away 25 a year for 98 and 99. ,Thats 50 HR off of his 583, He still has well over 530 HR's. So your saying that in his prime, he was only a 30 HR' Hitter? i can't buy that. But once again his arguement is based soley on speculation and i understand that. I will not sit here though and not argue that he could easily hit 50 HR a season with roids, because i feel as well with other people that he could have. Would he have 70 a year maybe not, but 50 HR a season in his prime i feel was very very capable for guy who thats all he was trying to do. But yes, besides all his HR's was he a HOF'r? No, he prolly wasn't. I am not naieve. But 500 was the previous in, so i have to argue that he should be in based on that.

I understand what you are saying and I can agree maybe he would have cleared 50 for those supposed two years of juicing.

The problem is...me...and you...we don't have votes.And it seems pretty obvious that a lot of the voters do not think he was on the juice for just two years.Its seems they think he started a lot earlier than that.With all of the crap thats come to light its almost believed that he started back in the late 80's.Did he?I am not sure and neither are you.Nobody is.All we have is what Canseco said.You can take it as absolute fact or with a grain of salt but its funny how Mac has never said anything about it.I know if that was me he was talking about and he said something untrue...I'd sue his pants off in a heartbeat.Especially if I felt it undermined my career and labeled me as a cheater my whole career.

All that aside...the voters obviously feel Mac juiced for a good while.They most likely in turn feel that that shaves off a lot of his homer totals.Leading to the thought that he probably wouldn't have made it to 500.So...all of that given with his other stats just doesn't make him a HOF.

I am not disagreeing with you but I am just trying to get inside the voters minds.Thats what you really have to look at here because they are the ones with all the power.I also know of a few who have come out and even said they would never vote for him based on what has come to light and what they believe.There have been several that felt they were taken advantage of and misled into watching and caring about the greatest homerun chase in history.That leaves a bitter taste in their mouths.

 

[predatorkj]

Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

Yeah but your still not understanding...they voted him in with that streak on their mind but not the popularity he gained.The popularity means nothing.The streak means everything.The fame and popularity are mere by products and like I said...I have a hard time believing sports writers are voting based on fame or popularity.They vote on how he played everything else be damned.

 

[predatorkj]

[quote="autocut":2za11q5i]Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

How can you say that? Ripken had over 400 HR's and 3000 Hits. Biggio had 3000 Hits was he a 3000 caliber hitter? Hell no, did he have 400 Homeruns??? Any shortstop nomatter what era that has over 400HR and 3k hits is a lock.

Like I said, he would've been a HOFer anyway.

But, his production did not warrant 98.5% of the vote. His 3000 hits came out of playing 162 games a year, year after year. How many career .275 hitters have 3000 hits? In the end, he is still just a .275 hitter. His slugging percentage is still just .440. His on base percentage is still just .340. His "amazing" totals were the culmination of playing so many at-bats. In my opinion, for someone to get 98.5% of the vote, they should be on the level of Ruth or Aaron or Maddux in terms of their on-the-field ability. This goes back to my point that Ripken's HOF voting was bolstered by his popularity and his popularity was tied to the hoopla associated with the Ironman Streak.

As you can tell, I don't like rewarding players for hanging on past their prime or for getting 650 at-bats a year. I'm not going to be a big fan of Ripken or Nolan Ryan or Pete Rose.[/quote:2za11q5i]


Yeah but I hate the stat compiler thing.If they were good enough to hang on for that many years how can you fault them for doing so. If your around long enough and earn the stats then whats wrong about that?Ryan was good and so was Ripken.They didn't hurt their teams any more than anyone else would have by being there.

As for Ripkens at bats affecting his stats...of course they did but I wouldn't hold that against him.His being able to stay healthy for that long actually trumps anything you could say about stats being compiled.

 

[predatorkj]

[quote="fengzhang":2y2h6kw7][quote="autocut":2y2h6kw7]Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

How can you say that? Ripken had over 400 HR's and 3000 Hits. Biggio had 3000 Hits was he a 3000 caliber hitter? Hell no, did he have 400 Homeruns??? Any shortstop nomatter what era that has over 400HR and 3k hits is a lock.

Like I said, he would've been a HOFer anyway.

But, his production did not warrant 98.5% of the vote. His 3000 hits came out of playing 162 games a year, year after year. How many career .275 hitters have 3000 hits? In the end, he is still just a .275 hitter. His slugging percentage is still just .440. His on base percentage is still just .340. His "amazing" totals were the culmination of playing so many at-bats. In my opinion, for someone to get 98.5% of the vote, they should be on the level of Ruth or Aaron or Maddux in terms of their on-the-field ability. This goes back to my point that Ripken's HOF voting was bolstered by his popularity and his popularity was tied to the hoopla associated with the Ironman Streak.

As you can tell, I don't like rewarding players for hanging on past their prime or for getting 650 at-bats a year. I'm not going to be a big fan of Ripken or Nolan Ryan or Pete Rose.[/quote:2y2h6kw7]

So, I guess you don't like Randy Johnson either [/quote:2y2h6kw7]


If he can't be an asset to the team...no.

Thats the same thing with Craig Biggio.Anyone who watched could tell he should have just retired.He was nowhere near his best or even good and he actually hurt the team more than he did to help them in his last year.Of course thats just my opinion.

 

[Therion]

[quote="predatorkj":2yu9f0qq][quote="fengzhang":2yu9f0qq][quote="autocut":2yu9f0qq]Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

How can you say that? Ripken had over 400 HR's and 3000 Hits. Biggio had 3000 Hits was he a 3000 caliber hitter? Hell no, did he have 400 Homeruns??? Any shortstop nomatter what era that has over 400HR and 3k hits is a lock.

Like I said, he would've been a HOFer anyway.

But, his production did not warrant 98.5% of the vote. His 3000 hits came out of playing 162 games a year, year after year. How many career .275 hitters have 3000 hits? In the end, he is still just a .275 hitter. His slugging percentage is still just .440. His on base percentage is still just .340. His "amazing" totals were the culmination of playing so many at-bats. In my opinion, for someone to get 98.5% of the vote, they should be on the level of Ruth or Aaron or Maddux in terms of their on-the-field ability. This goes back to my point that Ripken's HOF voting was bolstered by his popularity and his popularity was tied to the hoopla associated with the Ironman Streak.

As you can tell, I don't like rewarding players for hanging on past their prime or for getting 650 at-bats a year. I'm not going to be a big fan of Ripken or Nolan Ryan or Pete Rose.[/quote:2yu9f0qq]

So, I guess you don't like Randy Johnson either [/quote:2yu9f0qq]


If he can't be an asset to the team...no.

Thats the same thing with Craig Biggio.Anyone who watched could tell he should have just retired.He was nowhere near his best or even good and he actually hurt the team more than he did to help them in his last year.Of course thats just my opinion.[/quote:2yu9f0qq]

I agree completely. Watching Biggio's last game was amazing because I knew he wouldn't be hurting the team any more. Sad, but true.

 

[predatorkj]

[quote="fengzhang":36zvof1h][quote="predatorkj":36zvof1h][quote="fengzhang":36zvof1h][quote="autocut":36zvof1h]Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. If the sports writer likes you, you have a good chance getting in. Prime example, I think Ripken Jr. shoudl have been in there, but you mean to tell me ROY (1982), 2 gold gloves ('83, 91), 2 MVPs ('91, '92), .276 career BA, 36 SBs, 3184 hits in 21 years gets you first ballot with 98.5% of the votes? Ripken didn't even reach 500 HRs (431).

Eddie Murray only got 85.3%.

Stats broken down:

At Bats: Ripken (11551), Murray (11336) - Ripken had 215 more at bats
Batting Average: Ripken (.276), Murray (.287) - Murray had a better BA by .011 points.
Home Runs: Ripken (431), Murray (504) - Murray had 73 more home runs
MVPs : Ripken (2), Murray (0) - Ripken had 2 more MVPs
Gold Gloves: Ripken (2), Murray (3) - Murray had 1 more gold glove
RBIs: Ripken (1695), Murray (1917) - Murray had 222 more RBIs
SBs: Ripken (36), Murray (110) - Murray had 74 more SBs
Runs: Ripken (1647), Murray (1627) - Ripken had 20 more runs

Murray had 1 batting title (.330) in 1990.

Eddie Murray edge Ripken in most stats even though he had less at bats. He only received 85.3% votes vs. Ripken's 98.5% (13.2% difference). Can't tell me its not a popularity contest. Ripken played SS and 3B. Murray was 1B (both infielders), so it's not comparing apples and oranges.

I think they need to make a new rule. ALL must vote. If they submit blank ballots, they should be barred for voting for the next 2 years.

To be fair, 1B is traditionally a power/offensive position so to compare a SS to a first baseman is to compare apples to oranges.

However, I agree with your conclusion that popularity factors into it. If Ripken didn't have "The Streak" and missed an occasional game, I think he'd be a lot less popular today and would have received fewer votes.

I agree witht he first part of your post but not the last.

Ripken got in due to his stats and that record.It still has to do with stats and not popularity.Any popularity gained from any on the field performance is an after thought and should be treated, and for the most part is treated, as such.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ripken is a HOFer even if he didn't have the record. However, much of his stats were the result of getting 670 at-bats a year. Is he really a 3000-hit caliber player? I don't think so. Not with a .270 career average. He essentially averaged 21 HR's and 80 RBI's in 550 at-bats. I think that's good enough to make the Hall of Fame as a shortstop in that era. However, good enough for 98.5% of the vote? Hell no. The reason he got such a high percentage of the vote was due to the streak. If he had played in 2199 out of 2200 games instead of 2200 straight games, he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. So, the streak eventually became a gimmick on which to sell Ripken to the public. And let's face it: he had some luck and played in some games he probably shouldn't have during that streak in order to keep it alive. Without the streak, Cal Ripken would essentially be Ryne Sandberg in terms of stats.

How can you say that? Ripken had over 400 HR's and 3000 Hits. Biggio had 3000 Hits was he a 3000 caliber hitter? Hell no, did he have 400 Homeruns??? Any shortstop nomatter what era that has over 400HR and 3k hits is a lock.

Like I said, he would've been a HOFer anyway.

But, his production did not warrant 98.5% of the vote. His 3000 hits came out of playing 162 games a year, year after year. How many career .275 hitters have 3000 hits? In the end, he is still just a .275 hitter. His slugging percentage is still just .440. His on base percentage is still just .340. His "amazing" totals were the culmination of playing so many at-bats. In my opinion, for someone to get 98.5% of the vote, they should be on the level of Ruth or Aaron or Maddux in terms of their on-the-field ability. This goes back to my point that Ripken's HOF voting was bolstered by his popularity and his popularity was tied to the hoopla associated with the Ironman Streak.

As you can tell, I don't like rewarding players for hanging on past their prime or for getting 650 at-bats a year. I'm not going to be a big fan of Ripken or Nolan Ryan or Pete Rose.[/quote:36zvof1h]

So, I guess you don't like Randy Johnson either [/quote:36zvof1h]


If he can't be an asset to the team...no.

Thats the same thing with Craig Biggio.Anyone who watched could tell he should have just retired.He was nowhere near his best or even good and he actually hurt the team more than he did to help them in his last year.Of course thats just my opinion.[/quote:36zvof1h]

I agree completely. Watching Biggio's last game was amazing because I knew he wouldn't be hurting the team any more. Sad, but true.[/quote:36zvof1h]


Thanks for being level headed about it.I talked to so many people who thought the world of him and never even noticed his lack of production.It was sad to see.I hope I never see another player go through that to get a record again.It was pretty agonizing for me as a Biggio fan.