Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pgardn
OK I am on this now. Ryne Sanberg and Morgan. Say they were both good hitters, even. (Even though Sanberg hit with much more power). There is no way, no flippin way, that Morgan was as much of an advantage in the field as Sandberg. I watched both these guys play extensively. Sandberg covered huge amounts of ground as gracefully as you will ever see.
HE HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE BEST FIELDING 2ND BASEMEN OF ALLTIME...
As for Santo. The list I presented, how in the world can someone say the guys on that list could not field as well when a couple never even had a motion picture camera on them.
And comparing Brooks Robinson to Santo for batting??? HOw in God's name did Ozzie Smith make the hall of fame? Thats the same reason Brooks is where he is. No comparison in the field. Which is thoroughly overlooked, and dont stat it with fewest errors.
ITS HOW MANY HITS YOU TAKE AWAY. Sandberg and Robinson took enormous numbers of hits away, as of course did Ozzie.
This is fun. The old guys.
|
How can anyone say that Santo was better than someone who never had a motion picture camera on them? Get serious. Do you think a few dagurreotype shots by Matthew Brady taken post-civil war showing some of the nifty fielding moves of Home Run Baker at the hot corner would prove he was a better fielder than Santo? Get serious. This argument is lame. The modern players are bigger, faster, stronger and more athletic than their predecessors with better sports equipment, better training facilities, better instructors, etc. Again, NONE of the HOF'ers on your list other than Brooks Robinson was a better fielder than Ron Santo.