11/21/24
November 29, 2004
Baseball Hall of Fame nominations: Who should be in? And are there any first ballot locks?
Don't forget the entire Red Sox team.
posted by squealy at 05:24 PM on November 29, 2004
Gossage and Blyleven are long over due. I could be convinced about Boggs and Sandburg...
posted by daddisamm at 05:43 PM on November 29, 2004
LOL. Shut up squealy. Jim Rice. For the love of god, Jim Rice.
posted by jerseygirl at 05:50 PM on November 29, 2004
Boggs, Rice (hey, it's the Red Sox' year, why not?), Sandberg and Mattingly.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:06 PM on November 29, 2004
Jim Rice was my favorite player as a kid (Dwight Evans a close second); Jim Rice is not a Hall of Famer. He's awfully close, but didn't have the longevity I think a HoFer should. Maybe he'll get in on personality.
posted by yerfatma at 06:53 PM on November 29, 2004
I know no one, other than daddisamm, wants to hear it but Bert Blyleven. I could see Jim Rice actually...but Boggs for sure right? I'm not saying Blyleven only on his statistics, you seriously had to sit in the seats behind the plate and check out his curveball, circa 1985 or 1986 or so lets say... So what if Boggs is the only one of those guys who I mentioned who will make it, I can still pull for Blyleven. The guy got out of his car and signed my baseball when I was a kid. So now I've totally persuaded everyone right?
posted by chris2sy at 07:56 PM on November 29, 2004
Boggs, McGee, Gossage, Sandburg.
posted by rocketman at 09:53 PM on November 29, 2004
sandberg, gossage, boggs. would like to see mattingly in but i doubt it will happen.
posted by goddam at 10:14 PM on November 29, 2004
I would think that the Mattingly backers would have a little stronger argument now that a similar player, at least statistically, made it in on the first ballot: Kirby Puckett. compare the bottom lines for the two and check it out, there are differences but they are close statistically. Mattingly does not get in and Puckett is a first ballot HOFer? That doesn't seem quite right. Sure it helps that Puckett won two WS titles with the Twins but are the statistical advantages that Puckett might have that much greater? The Hall of Fame monitor is supposedly a calculation of how likely it is that a player will make it to the HOF, over 130 is a "cinch" so Puckett is at 155 and Mattingly is at 133, so why not Mattingly...if you believe in that sort of thing. (of course, Jim Rice is also above that at 146...and yeah, I have grown disillusioned with Puckett over the last few years in case that wasn't apparent, because if even half of that stuff is true, and some of it certainly is, its bad enough).
posted by chris2sy at 01:09 AM on November 30, 2004
It was a crime that Rino did not get voted in last year. If I had a vote I'd vote for him for sure. As for the others, I'd vote for sure for Boggs and Smith.
posted by Bag Man at 01:21 AM on November 30, 2004
Pucket got in on the sympathy of his eye ailment which cut his career short. Obviously, he may not have made it if the vote was after some of the "bad" stuff came to live. He does still seserves to be there as does Mattingly. His career was cut short by injury like Pucket. Another person who was robbed by injury was Tony Oliva of the Twins. Sandburg and Gossage need to be in the hall. Boggs will get voted in although I dont think he was a completed player. One of the biggest omitions of the Hall is Blyleven. He is near the top of the career strike out list. He has a ton of shutouts and complete games. He also ptiched for two world champions. His only drawback is that he didnt 300. Bert was a workhorse who ate up innings. He had, what many call, one of the best curve balls in history. One that was camparable to Koufax or Walter Johnson. Pitchers with less acomplishments have made the Hall! Hopefully he will get in someday. Hopefully, someday the Veterans committee will correct some of the mistakes made by the voters.
posted by daddisamm at 01:29 AM on November 30, 2004
Boggs will get voted in although I dont think he was a completed player. How so? He hit like a sumbitch and won a well-deserved Gold Glove after he got out of Boston. He might be a total meltdown off the field, but what was he missing inside the lines?
posted by yerfatma at 06:39 AM on November 30, 2004
Boggs, the Hawk, Steve Garvey, and Alan Trammell. Close but no cigar: Sandberg, Dave Concepcion, Dave Parker, and Jim Rice Tommy John should get in just for being more known now for a surgery done on him. Don Mattingly, had he been on a championship team, would have made it this time around. Having Strawberry on the ballot is insulting. He was a drug addict and wife beater. Although, I must say, my only Strawberry experience was a good one. While in Montreal, playing for the Dodgers, I saw him being mobbed by a bunch of fans, and he gave everyone an autograph.
posted by jasonspaceman at 06:39 AM on November 30, 2004
With Ripken, Gwynn, Baines and Clark eligible next year, if some guys don't get in this year, they might never get a chance. Guaranteed: Wade Boggs Better than 50/50: Ryne Sandberg Don Mattingly Maybe: Willie McGhee Andre Dawson Jack Morris Alan Trammell Doubtful: Jim Rice Lee Smith Rich Gossage Bruce Sutter Dale Murphy Darryl Strawberry Tommy John Last Time on the Ballot: Jim Abbott Tom Candiotti Dave Concepcion Chili Davis Steve Garvey Mark Langston Jack McDowell Jeff Montgomery Otis Nixon Dave Parker Tony Phillips Terry Steinbach
posted by grum@work at 08:15 AM on November 30, 2004
Bogs could hit, I'll give him that. Gold gloves are sometimes just a popularity contest. I like how you just omit Blyleven, Grum@work, on your list. Others have not comented at all on him. He is more deserving then most on the Ballot. Tommy John go before Bert, give me a break. I thought some of you really knew baseball??
posted by daddisamm at 08:32 AM on November 30, 2004
Gold gloves are sometimes just a popularity contest. And sometimes the reverse is true. Boggs got an early reputation as a bad defender and never shook it in Boston despite becoming (or always being) a good defensive 3B. I know Boston won it all this year and everyone will expect us to give up the put-upon martyr thing, but I doubt it will happen. Unless you Minnesota fans wrest our crown of thorns from us. People are probably not mentioning Blyleven because he wasn't their favorite player. The only people I've commented on here are ex-Red Sox because I watched them play. A lot. So here you go: I watched Bert pitch a fair amount as a kid. I thought he was great and my personal opinion is that he's a borderline HoF candidate. I'm not sure if his stats support that. He had 5 very good/ great years ('73, '74, '77, '84 and '89) but wound up a fairly average pitcher (ERA+ of 118).
posted by yerfatma at 08:44 AM on November 30, 2004
My List: Bert Blyleven, Wade Boggs, Rich Gossage, Willie McGee. Would love to see, but it'll never happen: Dale Murphy. He's about as close as you can get without being a HOFer. I think Sandburg may make it this year, but he's not a lock.
posted by trox at 08:57 AM on November 30, 2004
Wade Boggs. Chance for Dawson and Sandberg. But Boggs may be the only guy this year.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:03 AM on November 30, 2004
I'd vote for Boggs and Blyleven for sure; I'd probably also vote for Mattingly and Sandberg. I have a soft spot in my heart for McGee but I know he's a solid Hall of VeryGooder.
posted by mbd1 at 09:08 AM on November 30, 2004
There a lot of snobs in the BWAA who only look at raw numbers unfortunately...I think if you included respect from his peers, Mattingly would make it easily....the writers also tend to forget that Donnie Baseball OWNED the Gold Glove award for first basemen in the 80's..and y eah...Blyleven should be in there too.. (hell KAAT should be also) and Sutter..and Boggs...
posted by NYSSoftballBlue at 09:17 AM on November 30, 2004
avarages hmmm---he is in the Top 5 in Stikeouts. He has a done of complete games and shutouts. Almost all of the pitchers he is compared to are in the Hall. Ask anybody who knows, His Curveball was one of the best ever.... If he would have played for the Yanks or the Red Sox, he'd be in by now. I agree about Kaat--He is getting to the point where he could be added as a broadcaster as well... I have no problem with Mattingly I wish he could have played longer--Now there was a complete player
posted by daddisamm at 09:30 AM on November 30, 2004
I like how you just omit Blyleven, Grum@work, on your list. That was an error of omission. I was in the process of cut/pasting him from the "Doubtful" to the "Maybe" list, and got distracted. I'd definitely say he has a chance, but I don't know if the momentum that is building for him will ever break the 75% barrier. I thought some of you really knew baseball?? Now, don't get snippy!
posted by grum@work at 10:08 AM on November 30, 2004
Whose is getting snippy??? I was just making a comment!
posted by daddisamm at 10:51 AM on November 30, 2004
Boggs is the only sure thing, and he'll make it easily. The rest... I think someone in this thread made the point that with the candidates coming up in recent years, the "didn't get in immediately and hoping for a surprise" crowd is watching their chances evaporate. Me, I never understood why Blyleven didn't make it. Sure, his ERA wasn't great and he had a lot of only a few games over .500 years- truth is, Nolan Ryan had teh suck ERA and a ~.500-type career. The sad thing is, if Blyleven had padded his stats a touch more (granted, his last couple of years were more hanging on trying to do exactly that) he'd have hit 300 wins, and possible 4000 strikeouts. And we aren't having this conversation. The fact is, the reason those plateaus are so valued is because one has to be around for a long long time, and play well for most of that, to reach them. If you look at players with 250 wins or more, it's an exception to the rule with guys like Kaat and Blyleven to not be in the Hall of Fame. Sure some players like Clemens reach 300 on a freight train, while others sneak in by running on fumes for the last couple of years... but that's just evidence that not all HOFers are created equal (and all the more reason for the Bill Simmons pyramid HOF (tm)- c'mon, we can make it happen!) The baseball HOF is a tough racket, because it's long been [rightly] considered the most meaningful- other sports' players don't measure themselves as much against the yardstick "future hall of famers" etc as they do in baseball. Yet the truth is, it doesn't have equal standards; fuck-wits like Phil Rizzuto take up wall space, or motherfuckin' Tinker, Evers, and Chance got in for no good reason, thanks to a stoopid rhyme and a drunken Veterans Committee. But a guy like Blyleven can't get in? The HOF counters (black ink, grey ink tests, etc) show that other than not being a league leader year in and year out, he is a solid Hall of Fame candidate who has the stats and the longevity and the accomplishments that should have got him in. I agree with daddisamm here- it's a damn shame. {stewart scott}Guy wins 287 games, guy has 3700+ strikeouts, and he can't get no love?{/stewart scott}
posted by hincandenza at 11:15 AM on November 30, 2004
Whose is getting snippy??? LROD, is that you?
posted by dusted at 11:27 AM on November 30, 2004
hal, you can say the rizzuto is one of the least deserving members of the hof. but don't be calling him a fuck-wit. it's not like he voted himself in.
posted by goddam at 12:59 PM on November 30, 2004
If there was a Hall of Fame for fucked-up noses, Willie McGee would be a first ballot shoe-in. Free association: I was about eleven when I saw the Chuck Norris opus Invasion U.S.A.. The scene where some random blond woman is snorting coke through a metal straw when she's slapped on the back scarred me for life. I thought of that scene every subsequent time I saw Willie McGee. Bonus free association for Northern New England residents only: "If there were a Hawl aw Fayme for moovahs, Ray the Moovah would go in on the fiwst ballit." Absolutely 0 street cred will be awarded to the first person who can identify the speaker.
posted by yerfatma at 02:59 PM on November 30, 2004
I was always surprised that Bleyleven wasn't in the Hall. His numbers are surely Hall worthy, yet I think he suffers from a lack of great seasons, awards and was overshadowed by other pitchers of his era. Hey if being consistently good was hall-bound criteria then Jack Morris would be going too.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:10 PM on November 30, 2004
Dammit, yerfatma. I literally physically winced by just reading about that scene. Gah.
posted by Ufez Jones at 03:55 PM on November 30, 2004
It's good to know, no matter what they say about us, there are some touchstones for our generation, Ufez.
posted by yerfatma at 05:21 PM on November 30, 2004
What people at ESPN.com think. Vote here. Close but no cigar: Sandberg What does the greatest defensive and arguably the greatest offensive second baseman need to do get into the Hall? Was having the highest fielding percentage all time at his position not enough? Was all those Gold Gloves not enough? Was being an MVP not enough? Was hitting 40ers when second baseman did not do that not enough? Was holding the record for the most career homeruns for a second baseman at the time of his first ballot not enough? Is being second on the most career homeruns for second basemen not enough? Are 1,061 RBI at second base not enough? Was leading the Cubs to the NL East title in 1984 and 1989 not enough? I mean this guy is the best at his position in the field and at the plate (as good as or arguably better than HOFer Joe Morgan) and he can't get elected. What gives? He should have been in on his first ballot. It’s East Coast bias, just ask Ron Santo if sports writers have a sympathy for great players that happened to play west of the Allegany Mountains on sub-par teams. If very good, but not great, outfielders, such as Tony Perez, who just happened to play with the Red Sox during a good time to play for the Red Sox, can get in shouldn’t one of greatest at his position, if not the greatest, get in. It seems that just Because Sandberg was not around for Fisk’s homerun or never wore pinstripes, it means he should left out or has pay his dues with other lesser players.
posted by Bag Man at 05:35 PM on November 30, 2004
What does the greatest defensive and arguably the greatest offensive second baseman need to do get into the Hall? Retire and wait five years. Don't worry, Alomar's a shoe in.
posted by pivo at 06:53 PM on November 30, 2004
What does the greatest defensive and arguably the greatest offensive second baseman need to do get into the Hall? Huh? Mazeroski's already in the Hall. Don't get me wrong, I think Sandberg's a great candidate and deserves to be there, but you do yourself no favors with the hard sell. There isn't an argument that he's equal or better to Joe Morgan. And why hate on Fisk? It's not like the guy did anything out of the ordinary for MLB catchers, right?
posted by yerfatma at 07:27 PM on November 30, 2004
Retire and wait five years. Don't worry, Alomar's a shoe in. Mazeroski's already in the Hall. Sandberg's Stats, both at the plate and the in field are better or as good as both of those players. Besides with Alomar recent struggles I'm sure he's a HOFer. Just look at Sanberg's numbers, they are among the best or the best, and then look at his leadership and grit; it's a no brainer. He should be in the HOF for the reasons I stated. And why hate on Fisk? I was not hating on Fisk, just making a point about an East Coast bias or at least an percieved East Coast bias. Or at very least, a bias towards player who won more than the Cubs, went to the WS or won the WS.
posted by Bag Man at 08:04 PM on November 30, 2004
Sandberg's Stats, both at the plate and the in field are better or as good as both of those players. It's not even close. Mazeroski is in the HoF strictly on his defensive prowess. He had no bat at all. Nobody that examines the stats or saw them play would say Sandberg was better. Every metric that I've seen has shown Mazeroski as head and shoulders above other 2B of HoF quality. The same can be said for Morgan vs Sandberg in terms of offence. It's not even close (when you factor in the eras they played in). So to declare Ryno the best offensive AND defensive two-bagger in baseball is to completely undermine your own argument with hyperbole.
posted by grum@work at 08:13 PM on November 30, 2004
The same can be said for Morgan vs Sandberg in terms of offence. It's not even close (when you factor in the eras they played in). So to declare Ryno the best offensive AND defensive two-bagger in baseball is to completely undermine your own argument with hyperbole You are comparing apples to oranges. Sandberg needs to be judged by all second basemen. When he was first on the ballot Sandberg held the record for most homeruns by any second basemen, ever. In this era of more offense he's still #2 (recently passed by Jeff Kent). Not to mention production in other areas, such his more than 1,000 RBIs. While he has less RBIs than Joe Morgan, it's still an impressive total for a second baseman. He has a 40er year, 4 silver sluggers and an MVP. No second basemen of his time (or most other times, excpet now) can match those accomplishments. In fact, few second basemen can mach his career totals. The numbers alone support my argument. Then add his defense. His numbers on defense also speak for themselves too. Sandberg owns the best fielding percentage of any second baseman ever (.990). He owns several other defensive records, and until recently he has the record for the most consecutive errorless games over two seasons (he's still #2). Then there are his eight Gold Gloves. However, Sandberg pass the true HOFer test. He was the best second baseman of his generation. When he was playing nobody was better. Joe Morgan was in the twilight of his career in the mid-80s , and Roberto Alomar was still in yearly years in the early to mid-90s. When Sandberg was playing neither one of those great second basemen was that great. His all-star selections show that. He was a bridge between Morgan and Alomar and hit big before the area of inflated offense in the late-90s. I defy anyone to name another second baseman that as great has Sandberg when he play. The fact and numbers bear out my argument.
posted by Bag Man at 09:44 PM on November 30, 2004
You are comparing apples to oranges. No he's not. You said Sandberg's the best ever. What we're saying (if I can speak for grum) is that Sandberg is neither the best offensive or defensive 2B. He was good at both. Good enough to be a HoFer even. But not the best ever. The fact and numbers bear out my argument. What fact[s]? Any longevity-independent numbers that actually mean something? Fielding % means nothing.
posted by yerfatma at 10:08 PM on November 30, 2004
Sorry not to provide more useful info, but it's late and NYPD Blue is half-decent. Bill James has Ryne as the seventh-best of all time. That's certainly good enough for Cooperstown. But I defy you to make a case for Sandberg over the top 3: Morgan, Eddie Collins and Rogers Hornsby. The next three are Jackie Robinson, Craig Biggio and Nap Lajoie (big up Rhode Island!).
posted by yerfatma at 10:13 PM on November 30, 2004
He was good at both. He was sooooo good at both that he holds all-time records for his deeds in my categories. I mean, what do you want? Must the guy set records on Mars? I think your standards are a bit high if you don’t think Sandberg is among the best. Fielding % means nothing. So not committing errors means nothing? What fact[s]? Any longevity-independent numbers that actually mean something? This is bad argument for two reasons. 1) You are factually wrong: Sandberg played for awhile, but not as long as say, HOFer Joe Morgan and still put better or similar stats. In fact, Sandberg had some very impressive single season offensive totals. Totals few second baseman have ever matched until Jeff Kent did so in the area of inflated offense. 2) Your assumption is also wrong: No one should be penalized for longevity. You seem to give Joe Morgan a pass on longevity, so why put the hate on Ryno who played fewer seasons and did better or similar? Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins and Rogers Hornsby...Jackie Robinson, Craig Biggio and Nap Lajoie Sandberg has more HRs and a better fielding percentage than anyone you named or anyone who played at that position for their whole career (not to mention all the records and gold gloves he has). I don't think Biggio ever won a gold glove at second base, but he did he does not have eight. Besides, some of the players you mentioned, such as Biggio, did not play second base at their whole career and such stat comparisons are not a fair. Bill James has Ryne as the seventh-best of all time. How he calculate that? If he was using stats or whether they where the best of their time he is wrong or bias. I still defy anyone to name a better second basemen when sandberg played. I know this, no cannot name a second baseman who hit more HRs or a two-bagger who played better in the field when Sandberg played. I also cannot name a guy who put better single season stats when Sandberg played. So I guess pilling up more stats and being more productive and doing that in a shorter period than the guy Bill James names as the best second baseman ever makes Sandberg chop liver. Did you even read what you wrote? P.S. It's pretty low to insult my grammar mistakes...I guess that you think that since facts don't support your argument you must make fun of me to get the best of this debate.
posted by Bag Man at 11:25 PM on November 30, 2004
Well there's no convincing you otherwise, Bag Man. But if you aren't sure who Bill James is than my eyebrow becomes firmly raised at your arguements. Yes, that is right sir, I raise my eyebrow to you. Have at you!
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:09 AM on December 01, 2004
How he calculate that? If he was using stats or whether they where the best of their time he is wrong or bias. Well, he used something called Win Shares. It takes into account the following factors: fielding (independent of the rest of the player's team) batting (independent of the rest of the player's team) running (independent of the rest of the player's team) As well, it takes into account difference in eras (such as the low-scoring 1960s and the high-octane 1980s) and ballparks (like the friendly confines of Wrigley Field versus the oversized outfields of the old stadiums). Want an overview of Win Shares? How about the calculations used? After each season is calculated for all the players in major league baseball, Bill James determined rank by position with the following rules:
- Player's Career Win Share Total
- Three Best Consecutive Win Share Seasons
- Five Best Consecutive Win Share Seasons
- Career Win Shares Per Season
- Time Line Adjustment (quality of play has gotten better since the beginning of baseball)
- Subjective Element (small adjustments)
- Undocumented Parts of Career
- Inequalities in the Caliber of Competition
- World Series Performance
- Clutch Performance
- Special Contributions to the Game (ie: Jackie Robinson, Hal Chase)
- Defensive Value Outside Estimates in the System
posted by grum@work at 01:34 AM on December 01, 2004
goddam: hal, you can say the rizzuto is one of the least deserving members of the hof. but don't be calling him a fuck-wit. it's not like he voted himself in. Point taken. Granted, he did make those Money Store commercials... but I guess I just personalized the very poor decisions of the veterans committee, and took it out on poor Phil. ;)
posted by hincandenza at 02:16 AM on December 01, 2004
See? Don't fuck with grum. He'll whack ya.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:17 AM on December 01, 2004
I know who Bill James is (your personal insults show your lack of a decent argument) and I respect most of his work. He's the reason the A's remain so completive despite having so little money and just might have pushed the Red Sox over the top. However, that's beside the point. Anyone can manipulate stats to make them say what they want. By your logic, people who amassed large stat totals who played for a while should not be in the HOF. So are you all ready to toss out players like Hank Aaron? I don't think you are, so why the hate on Ryne Sandberg? Sandbeg was the best second basemen of generation and holds some impressive records for fielding and batting. Some are even all-time records, hence my arguement for him being one of the best or the best. You love Alomar and Morgan, yet Sandberg bests then in several offensive and defense categories. Why you people cannot see that is way beyond me. For ever other player that is in the HOF and for every player YOU PEOPLE think should be in the HOF (such as Bet Blyleven [win totals and strike outs] and Wade Boggs [hits and avg.]) aggregate numbers, both offensive and defensive, and accolades are used to justify player’s entry into the HOF. You seem to be refuting your own HOF picks with your arguments. Anyway, because Sandberg played Second base his offensive and defense stats are relevant. We must look his Homeruns, slugging percentage, RBIs, fielding percentage and his records. He has better comparative numbers to plays of his time and all time than Blyleven. And, compared to Boggs: Sandberg holds all time record for offense and defense, while Boggs does not. I am not saying that Sandberg is better than Boggs (Boggs was a better hitter for sure and his 3,000+ hits is evidence of that), I'm just saying that if Boggs can enter with impressive stats in only a few categories why cannot Sandberg get in the HOF with all-time records? Why cannot Sandberg be considered the best when he and he alone holds so many astonishments at his position? So why does Blyleven, Boggs, Joe Morgan get a pass? What gives? Why the different standards? This is a question no one has answer. So I will assume you have no answered so, I take that point by concession. Is there no convincing me otherwise? Well, just as Aaron’s 755 homeruns (the most of all time) has convinced me he should me in HOF, Sandberg’s many records in the field and at the plate have convinced that he should be in the HOF. Since none of you pointed out a better second basemen during Sandberg's time, the true test of the HOF, I will take that as a compete concession. For that reason a lot Sandberg should be in the HOF, and with his other stats he should have been a first ballot HOFer. See? Don't fuck with the Bag Man he whacks back until you'll see the error of your way.
posted by Bag Man at 02:06 PM on December 01, 2004
See? Don't fuck with the Bag Man he whacks back until you'll see the error of your way. If you're catching any personal insults (and I didn't see where you got any less respect than you gave), referring to yourself in the third person while acting as though you said something meaningful is not going to help. Here's the thing: I may write a bunch more, I may not; but the underlying issue is that you grew up with Ryne Sandberg as your hero and we didn't. I empathize with your feelings, but that only goes so far. Anyone can manipulate stats to make them say what they want. No they cannot. Next time you're floundering in an argument like this, go with Shakespeare's line, "The Devil can quote scripture to suit his own purpose" or whatever it is. If you believe in statistics as meaningful tools, they must, inherently, be safe from such manipulation. There are a bunch of lousy measuring sticks out there people call "stats" (BA, RBI, wins, etc.). That doesn't mean we should throw out stats entirely. Your arguments abuse stats by making them meaningful and unmeaningful when it suits your purpose. You love Alomar and Morgan, yet Sandberg bests then in several offensive and defense categories. What meaningful, non-aggregate categories are those? For ever other player that is in the HOF and for every player YOU PEOPLE think should be in the HOF . . . aggregate numbers, both offensive and defensive, and accolades are used to justify player’s entry into the HOF. Do you honestly think my respect for Wade Boggs is based on # of hits? The guy was an on-base machine. Plus he had those oddball, empirical stories that make him great to non-stats fans (e.g., a season with 6 popups/ no foul outs). because Sandberg played Second base his offensive and defense stats are relevant. We must look his Homeruns, slugging percentage, RBIs, fielding percentage and his records. He has better comparative numbers to plays of his time and all time than Blyleven. Your logic astounds. There's no position (save DH and maybe 1B) where both offense and defense aren't important for HoF consideration. One might argue it even applies at DH, given none have gotten in yet because they do not contribute defensively. Are we supposed to be stunned that Sandberg outslugged his contemporaries at second base? It's not a traditional slugger's position in today's game; it certainly wasn't then. That's not to denegrate Sandberg's slugging (which is the mistake you're making, taking offense at our suggestion your boyhood hero is not the Living Christ) in any way. Is there no convincing me otherwise? Well, just as Aaron’s 755 homeruns (the most of all time) has convinced me he should me in HOF Hank Aaron might have been a first ballot player for the home run record. He's in the Hall because of his overall abilities. Since none of you pointed out a better second basemen during Sandberg's time, the true test of the HOF, I will take that as a compete concession. How do you get to declare "the true test"? I call it "All players without wimpy names like Ryne". So good luck getting him past my test. P.S., Joe Morgan doesn't need a fucking free pass from anyone. He's like one of the top 5 players of all time. Ryne Sandberg was not. If this is all a troll, congrats. It certainly sounds like one at this point. I hope your classwork is not being neglected.
posted by yerfatma at 03:36 PM on December 01, 2004
I know who Bill James is (your personal insults show your lack of a decent argument) and I respect most of his work. Well, when someone mentioned Bill James and his rankings, you said "How he calculate that? If he was using stats or whether they where the best of their time he is wrong or bias.", so I took the time to lay out his methodology behind his rankings. It was not an "insult" in any way, shape or form. I figured explaining it in a bit of detail might help someone who might not be familiar with his work. I thought I was doing something good. In this case, I guess I was wrong. Sandbeg was the best second basemen of generation and holds some impressive records for fielding and batting. Sandberg holds the following offensive and defensive records for 2nd basemen: Career fielding % (2B): .989 Single season fielding % (2B): .995 That's it. Not career AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, Hits, Doubles, Triples, HR, RBI, Runs, SB. Not single season AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, Hits, Doubles, Triples, HR, RBI, Runs, SB. You love Alomar and Morgan, yet Sandberg bests then in several offensive and defense categories. Why you people cannot see that is way beyond me. You love Sandberg, yet Alomar and Morgan best him in several offensive and defensive categories. Why you cannot see that is way beyond me. You seem to be refuting your own HOF picks with your arguments. What the hell are you talking about? Where do I suggest that anyone currently in the HoF (or someone I suggested should be in the HoF) should not be there (or going there)? why cannot Sandberg get in the HOF with all-time records Did you not finish reading my previous post? Did you even TRY to read it? As I stated before I agree that Sandberg should be in the HoF. This is not the discussion we are having (or, at least, I don't think we are having). The discussion was about your statement that Sandberg was the greatest 2nd baseman of all-time. Quite simply, I don't think so, and I provided some statistics and critical analysis by experts that support my position. Why cannot Sandberg be considered the best when he and he alone holds so many astonishments at his position? So why does Blyleven, Boggs, Joe Morgan get a pass? What gives? Why the different standards? This is a question no one has answer. So I will assume you have no answered so, I take that point by concession. Well, he doesn't hold the records that you think he does (see above). That's why I (and many others, including wiser men than myself) don't consider him "the best". And really, how much of my previous post did you read when you assume that I haven't "answered your question". You can take as many "points by concession", but since other people are reading this I doubt that it's worth that much in the court of public record. Sandberg’s many records in the field and at the plate have convinced that he should be in the HOF. For the umpteenth time, I agree. Hopefully if I state this enough times in THIS post, you'll finally catch on and stop accusing me of something that isn't true (Sandberg's admittance to the HoF). Since none of you pointed out a better second basemen during Sandberg's time, the true test of the HOF, I will take that as a compete concession. Okay, one more time. I already agree that he should be in the HoF. In fact, I'll agree that he was the best 2nd baseman in MLB from 1984-85 and 1989-1992, and therefore could be considered the best of his "generation". See? Don't fuck with the Bag Man he whacks back until you'll see the error of your way. I think Weedy was referring to my stats-heavy posting I do when I attempt to prove a point. Your post above was more supposition and declaration instead of proof. And I definitely see the error of my way: I didn't make that bolded comment at the end of my previous post into a bigger font size. I will correct that now. I agree with you that Ryne Sandberg should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
posted by grum@work at 03:53 PM on December 01, 2004
Huh. yerfatma got his response in while I was crafting mine. That'll teach me.
posted by grum@work at 03:54 PM on December 01, 2004
I was worried you wouldn't have enough pixels lying around, so I figured I'd thrown some up on everyone's screen.
posted by yerfatma at 04:55 PM on December 01, 2004
throw/ thrown. It's not the only grammatical ugliness in the thread. Just the most recent.
posted by yerfatma at 04:55 PM on December 01, 2004
I think Weedy was referring to my stats-heavy posting I do when I attempt to prove a point. Your post above was more supposition and declaration instead of proof. Grum, You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Sandberg bests Alomar and Morgan in career homeruns, single season homeruns, career fielding percentage, single season and number of career gold gloves (just to name a few categories). Sandberg also, until recently, bested Alomar for the single season and two season streak of errorless games. Those are all facts and not "supposition and declaration." I really don’t know where got off saying that. I guess if you actually read my posts you would know that. When comes to career average and career RBI Sandberg’s numbers are comparable. If you think Single season and career HR, RBI and Average totals are not important I don't know what game you watch or what HOF you know. Guys like Hank Aaron, Ted Williams Eddie Murry, Orlando Cepeda, Tony Perez and Joe Morgan got into the HOF and are considered great based on their aggregate stats compared with other players of their position, their time and all-time. The thing is all those players I named amassed numbers considered great for their position over a much longer career...Aaron (23 seasons), Perez (23 seasons), Morgan (23 seasons), Cepeda (17 seasons) Williams (19 seasons) and Murry (21 seasons). Sandberg only play 16 seasons (including a two year retirement involving a physically and mentally draining devoice). If Sandberg can put up better stats or similar stats to that of Morgan in seven less seasons it bears out that Sandberg's non-aggregate stats must be at least as good or better. So lets look at some single season stats. If you look at single season totals Sandberg does way better than Alomar and Morgan even at their career peaks. For example, Neither Alomar or Morgan ever hit 40 HRs (Alomar never hit more than 24 playing for one of the better teams of 90s during a period of inflated offensive stats and Morgan never hit more than 27 homeruns and got 100 ore more RBIs only once playing for the offensive juggernaut that was the Big Red Machine). Sandberg on the other hand hit 40 HRs once, 30 HRs once, and 25 or 25+ four times. No other second baseman has ever done that. Rogers Hornsby does come close to those power numbers, but many of his numbers where generate at power positions such as first base. The facts bare out my arguments once again. When you take in consideration that Morgan and Alomar played on much better teams than Sandberg it makes Sandberg look all than much better. That’s a big intangible chit in Sandberg’s till. Also you need to consider that Alomor’s career has taken a nose drive, while Sandberg reamied productive through his second retirement. That’s just another intangible chit in Sandberg’s till. Being the best of one’s era is important to the HOF. Often it is referred to "dominance" in an era. And yes, Sandberg did dominate at second base in his era of the mid-80s to the mid-90s. Again, it’s another intangible that favors my arguments. I do like Sandberg a lot, but I not relying my love (or my so called hero-worship as people have suggested). Why? I don't rely on "supposition and declaration." Do you even read my posts? I rely cold hard stats, facts and records Sandberg held and holds now. I have relied on these facts over and over again in post after post. If you don't think HRs, RBIs or average, is important than your logic would used to purge most of the offensive players from the HOF. I base my opinion and conclusions on those facts and not any sort of East Coast bias. I'm not saying that Morgan, Alomor, Horsnby, etc. are garbage. I just that think that gives all Sandberg did he should have voted in on a the first ballot and should conserved an elite all-time second baseman.
posted by Bag Man at 05:12 PM on December 01, 2004
URATROLL. I really don’t know where ??? got off saying that. I guess if you actually read my posts you would know that. Perhaps if you proof-read your own we could see the brilliance. considered great based on their aggregate stats compared with other players of their position, their time and all-time. Bullshit. Ted Williams isn't in for home runs or hits. He's in because he was a dominating offensive force, which is best measured in SLG AND OBP. He missed years due to two wars (the comparison to Sandberg's travails listed above is an interesting reflection on eras), so he didn't get in on aggregates alone. Besides which, aggregates aren't important, according to you: If you look at single season totals Sandberg does way better than Alomar and Morgan even at their career peaks. Who gives a fuck, especially when you abuse stats the way you do? The logical conclusion to this line of thinking is a one-year wonder could get into the HoF. Whither Tony Conigliaro? Harry Aganis? That's all the time I can waste right now. Dinner calls.
posted by yerfatma at 05:56 PM on December 01, 2004
Perhaps if you proof-read your own we could see the brilliance. Again with the personal insults. What’s up with that? Just more evidence that your other points are weak. I mean, if your arguments were so great you would refrain from such things. You are the only one trolling around. I stick to the facts and you stick to your insults. Please answer my question: I really don’t know where you get off saying that my fact intensive arguments "supposition and declaration." Rather calling my arguments "supposition and declaration" why don't you just respond with an argument or response to mine? I know because you have none. It seems you must invent stuff or make flippant comments (like the one below), rather than use your facts to argument against mine. Who gives a fuck, especially when you abuse stats the way you do? The logical conclusion to this line of thinking is a one-year wonder could get into the HoF. Whither Tony Conigliaro? Harry Aganis? Hum...No...That's not my argument and you should know that or you do and you just insulting me rather engaging my arguments. I guess it's more evidence you're grasping at straws. Sandberg, Alomar and Morgan all had several years of impressive stats. Sandberg just had more, which is evidence he's a better player. Hitting 25+ over six seasons and getting 100 RBIs twice is very good for a second baseman. How do I know this? Because Sandberg is the only who did it. By your own logic Alomar and Morgan are “one-year wonder[s].” Bullshit. Ted Williams isn't in for home runs or hits. He's in because he was a dominating offensive force, which is best measured in SLG AND OBP Without 3,000 hits and 500 homeruns I think it would a little harder for Williams to be in the HOF. Sandberg was also an offensive force and was the cornerstone of the Cubs attack for most of his career. Sandberg, like Williams, was the rock that his team was build around. (I'm not arguing that Sandberg was a good as Williams, he surely was not) Players like Davis, Dawson, Durham, Grace came and went, but it was Sandberg's grit and leadership that was the force behind Cub's drive to Eastern Division tittle's in 1984 and 1989. Sandberg's MVP in 1984 (his second year and first full season in the bigs) and plat down the stretch in 1984 is evidence of that. It was not until Sosa came to the Cubs in 1994 that the offensive mantle was really passed. It's astounding that you miss that about Sandberg's career.
posted by Bag Man at 06:53 PM on December 01, 2004
If you look at single season totals Sandberg does way better than Alomar and Morgan even at their career peaks. You are kidding, right? Sigh. We'll compare a number of single season categories between Morgan and Sandberg. Best Single season AVG: Morgan wins (.327-.314) Best Single season OBP: Morgan wins (.466-.379) Best Single season SLG: Morgan wins (.576-.559) Best Single season OPS: Morgan wins (1.020-.913) Best Single season OPS+: Morgan wins (187-145) Best Single season SB: Morgan wins (67-54) Best Single season RBI: Morgan wins (111-100) Best Single season Runs: Morgan wins (167-114) Best Single season Hits: Sandberg wins (200-167) Best Single season Doubles: Sandberg wins (36-35) Best Single season Triples: Sandberg wins (19-12) Best Single season HR: Sandberg wins (40-27) Best Single season Walks: Morgan wins (132-87) Worst Single season Strikeouts: Morgan wins (77-116) That's pretty much every reasonable measurable single season batting stat available. Final tally: Morgan: 10 Sandberg: 4 Sandberg bests Alomar and Morgan in ... number of career gold gloves (just to name a few categories) Um. You are wrong. Alomar has 10 Gold Glove awards (1991-1996, 1998-2001), and Sandberg has 9 (1983-1991). You know, if you just read the posts I make instead of shooting your mouth off (notice how I'm not so polite now...there is a difference), you would have realized this. If you think Single season and career HR, RBI and Average totals are not important I don't know what game you watch or what HOF you know. I do think they are important. I pointed out that Sandberg holds NONE of those records. ZERO. NADA. NOT ONE. Off the top of my head: Career HR (2B): Kent beats Sandberg (302-282) Single season HR (2B): Hornsby beats Sandberg (42-40) Career RBI (2B): Hornsby beats Sandberg (1584-1061) Single season RBI (2B): Hornsby beats Sandberg (152-100) Career AVG (2B): Hornsby beats Sandberg (.352-.285) Single season AVG (2B): Hornsby beats Sandberg (.424-.314) (Jeez...that's Hornsby guy seems AWFULLY good..) So which of those records do you think Sandberg holds? I mean, I went through every single one you listed in your comment. Surely you aren't holding back any secret records that the world doesn't know about... Also you need to consider that Alomor’s career has taken a nose drive, while Sandberg reamied productive through his second retirement. That’s just another intangible chit in Sandberg’s till. Bwahahahah! You must be trolling at this point because you can't seriously believe that Sandberg was "productive" through his second retirement. 1996 - .244 .316 .444 1997 - .264 .308 .403 (Hey, look! Statistics! Tell me those are wrong! Or even better, tell me those are "productive"!) I guess that would be considered productive if you are Neifi Perez... Do you even read my posts? I rely cold hard stats, facts and records Sandberg held and holds now. I have relied on these facts over and over again in post after post. Okay, it's plain to me that you aren't reading my posts or you are a very effective troll. I've pointed out time and again that the only records Sandberg holds are for career fielding percentage (2B) and single season fielding percentage (2B). That's it. Not a single other record. He holds ZERO batting records for a 2B. Now I challenge you to point out some batting "records" that he holds for his position. Please, enlighten me about what true statistical records Ryne Sandberg holds OTHER than his two fielding ones. List them out in a nice organized manner. Even better: when you find a batting record that Sandberg holds, how about you go look up the statistics for Morgan, Hornsby, Kent, Alomar, Robinson, Collins, Lajoie, Biggio, Fox and Carew. You'll be surprised how many excellent 2B have played in the majors, and how those records you think that Sandberg holds may actually be held by someone else... I'll even give you a link to start your search. If you follow up this post with another rant about how you think everyone is stupid because Sandberg should be in the HoF, then I guess I'll just let it drop. Most of the people who are reading these posts agree that Sandberg should be in the HoF. If that is the windmill that you are still tilting at, then you can stop. No one disagrees. But if you want to keep throwing up underhand tosses to me about how Sandberg was the "greatest 2B of all time", then I'll have no problem smacking your weak sh*t out of the park, time and time again....like Sandberg did to a lot of pitchers. I'm sure the rest of the people reading this thread are tired of me eviscerating your "facts", but as you may have found out, I kind of enjoy it.
posted by grum@work at 06:56 PM on December 01, 2004
Hitting 25+ over six seasons and getting 100 RBIs twice is very good for a second baseman. How do I know this? Because Sandberg is the only who did it. Again, I have to call you on this lie. Roger Hornsby had 100+ RBI six times in his career, and Kent has had 7. And if you are going to choose arbitrary limits, why not 20+HR seasons. Sandberg: 6 Hornsby: 7 Kent: 10 Seriously...just stop. It's like clubbing baby seals it's so easy to knock your crap down.
posted by grum@work at 07:02 PM on December 01, 2004
I'm sure the rest of the people reading this thread are tired of me eviscerating your "facts" Not me. But it's gotta be a troll. Y'know how when you make a good prank call but it goes on too long you finally try some really over-the-top shit just to see if you can get away with it/ finally end it? The last few really seem like that.
posted by yerfatma at 07:33 PM on December 01, 2004
All of these arguments and stats concerning second baseman and HOF status neglect one important thing...who played second base on The Simpsons in the episode entitled Homer at the Bat... that's right, Steve Sax is the greatest of all times... unless you were sitting in the seats behind first base, then he was the most dangerous of all times...
posted by chris2sy at 08:29 PM on December 01, 2004
You got a big mouth on you, Saxy.
posted by yerfatma at 08:48 PM on December 01, 2004
I'm sure the rest of the people reading this thread are tired of me eviscerating your "facts" Not me. But it's gotta be a troll. Y'know how when you make a good prank call but it goes on too long you finally try some really over-the-top shit just to see if you can get away with it/ finally end it? The last few really seem like that Grum and yerfatma, Roger Hornsby had 100+ RBI six times in his career You are wrong! Hornsby did it five times (like clubbing baby seals). I do concede that Horsby did have five seasons with 100+ RBIs and did hit 42 homers in one season as a two-bagger. However Sandberg was much more consistent at hitting more homers otherwise. And you have conceded that Sandberg had better seasons than the Roberto Alomar and Joe Morgan (like clubbing baby seals). So I guess Sandberg did a little better a "one-hit wonder" to use your words. You assert that I use arbitrary stats, yet that's all you do. You can put the word facts in quotes all you want, but won't actually change anything. I basically said my piece based on facts while you continue to get personal with your insults. I have given Jeff Kent, Honsby, Alomar and Morgan their props. Again, I implore to please read my posts before you post. If you did, you would know two things 1) Sandberg lead Jeff Kent in all-time homeruns for a second baseman before last ballot. This is relivant because at the time the post powerfull second baseman of all time was not voted in the HOF. 2) I have acknowledged that Kent passed Sandberg. It is also relivant that at least Kent, Alomar and Morgan played for better teams. Not to mention that Kent can thank a fellow named Bary Bonds for seeing some great pitches. All of this I guess you have conceded. Further, Sandberg quite for 2 years and then came after a hellish devorce. I'm make naking excuses, but stats always need to be taken in context. Sandberg did a lot more with much less. If you want to keep flaming me, insisting that career totals are irrelivant and continue using voodoo stats than go right ahead. I guess there is no convicing you that real stats mean a thing in an age when baseball teams are hiring astrologers to help them. I guess if it were up to you' ll most players should be kicked out of the HOF because those 400+ or 500 home totals, 300 hit totals and 300 wins are totally irrelivant. Career stats, why use those when we make up our own to sell to ESPN and sell books? That will teach'em. Your arguments are also two faced. There are those of you who assert that Bert Blyleven should be in the HOF and was a great pitcher of his day. Why? 3700+ Ks, 287 wins and two WS wins. Very impressive, I think he should be there too. However, compartively Sandberg did better in his own position. So much so that he holds or has held many records. Not to mention his team leadership on some very bad teams. Sandberg was robbed last year and my guess is that he'll get robbed this year. Sandberg deserves to be in the HOF (a point we agree one), but I still believe he is among the elite second baseman of all-time and I still believe that he was the best when he played. Even if your facts and logic are taken at face value those conclusions are still supported.
posted by Bag Man at 11:13 PM on December 01, 2004
Most of the people who are reading these posts agree that Sandberg should be in the HoF. Wait a second, so why all the fuss? Because I was arguing that Rynee Sandberg was an elite second baseman? If you think he should be in the HOF, why send all this time flaming me and flaming Sandberg?
posted by Bag Man at 11:38 PM on December 01, 2004
You are wrong! Hornsby did it five times (like clubbing baby seals). I'll admit I was wrong about that one. I went by memory and didn't double check it (it was runs, not RBI, that he had six 100+ seasons). I'm honest enough to admit when I've made a mistake. I guess if it were up to you' ll most players should be kicked out of the HOF because those 400+ or 500 home totals, 300 hit totals and 300 wins are totally irrelivant. Career stats, why use those when we make up our own to sell to ESPN and sell books? That will teach'em. Seriously, are you reading what I'm writing? I've NEVER said ANYTHING like this. Ever. I've been a proponent of career stats. And single season stats. So where do you get that I say otherwise? How often are you going to try and put words into my mouth to make your arguments (or attack mine)? It's maybe the third time you've done it in this thread. Please stop. If you think he should be in the HOF, why send all this time flaming me and flaming Sandberg? The only reason I contested your arguments about Sandberg is that they were statistically flawed. I don't mind a good argument about HoF credentials, but if you insist on making statements like:
- Sandbeg was the best second basemen of generation and holds some impressive records for fielding and batting - he doesn't hold any batting records
- If you think Single season and career HR, RBI and Average totals are not important I don't know what game you watch or what HOF you know - I do think they are important (even though you tried to put words in my mouth), and I showed how he doesn't hold any of the single season or career records that you listed.
- Sandberg bests Alomar and Morgan in ... number of career gold gloves (just to name a few categories) - he doesn't beat Alomar in GG awards.
- If you look at single season totals Sandberg does way better than Alomar and Morgan even at their career peaks. - but then I listed how Morgan beats Sandberg at most of the single season totals.
posted by grum@work at 02:50 AM on December 02, 2004
Bag Man, you are such a clown. Thanks for the laughs.
posted by rocketman at 07:25 AM on December 02, 2004
he doesn't hold any batting records He did at the time of his frist ballot...Hence my argument that he was robbed last year. The notion that he is among the elite offensive and defensive second basemen is not an outrageous claim even if Jeff Kent recently passed Ryno on the all-time homerun list. he doesn't beat Alomar in GG awards. Ok, I concede this; however Roberto Alomar has not set himself apart from Sandberg that much with 2 more Gold Gloves. I did make a wrong call, and I’m man enough to admit when I am wrong when proven so. but then I listed how Morgan beats Sandberg at most of the single season totals. You list some categories where Morgan beats Sandberg, but the overall big picture favors Sandberg, at least in terms of single season power numbers, and arguably when career context is take into consideration. Sandberg has some better single season totals, but did not best Morgan overall in all categories because Sandberg played seven less seasons for much weaker teams (i.e. Morgan never close to 40 homeruns and reach 100 RBIs only once on much better teams). Taken as whole, Sandberg either bests Morgan or is comparable in key offensive production. Also, taken in context Sandberg did nearly as good or better in several over seven less seasons and on many teams that stunk. Sure, it was easy for Joe Morgan to get slightly more RBIs and a slightly higher average playing for more seasons on the high-powered Big Red Machine. Sandberg did more with much less. Why do fail to give Sandberg such credit? Not playing for a goof team really hurt Sandberg in runs and RIBs. Even so, Sandberg is within 332 runs of Morgan, within 131 hits of Morgan and with 15 points of batting average. If Sandberg had not retied twice and played seven more seasons I’m sure he would have surpassed Morgan in at least hits, RBIs and possibly in runs. Sandberg still does better in some stats despite playing less and for worse teams. Sure, I admit that Sandberg did not amass the same or greater offensive totals in all categories compared to Morgan. However, you are either missing or refusing see the context. The HOF is an individual achievement. Why punish or discount the deeds of one when his team could not help as much as others. If Morgan had been light-years ahead of Sandberg or if Sandberg could not best Morgan in any category your argument would hold more water; however, this just not the case. Sandberg was able to more or similar with less and people need to recognize that. I’d make the same argument about any player who was in the same position as Sandberg; it’s only fair. Seriously, are you reading what I'm writing? I've NEVER said ANYTHING like this. Ever. I've been a proponent of career stats. And single season stats. So where do you get that I say otherwise? You did not state it outright, that's true (you are technically correct on that one), but you strongly implied it when you brought up the Bill James’s "win shares" and OBS. Further, part of my comment was directed at yerfatma, sorry for not making that more clear. yerfatma said: Any longevity-independent numbers that actually mean something? This implies, if not outright assets, that longevity should be considered a detriment or somehow longevity alone makes some stats worthless. Nonetheless, as a general tenor, it’s a bit two sided to state that Morgan is better for having better stats in some categories amassed over seven more uninterrupted seasons, and then turn around and argue that Sandberg is lessor because he stuck around for 16 seasons (much less the his competition overall for the HOF and his competition for the HOF at second base). That was my point. Some guys have 500 homeruns, 3000 hits or 300 wins because they were able to stay health, decently productive and attractive to teams longer that most players. In most cases, sticking around should be seen as a strength and triumph of conditioning/fitness/avoidance of injury rather than a weakness (perhaps an exception could be The Crime Dog and other who players who stayed well passed their prime). Bag Man, you are such a clown. Thanks for the laughs. Rocketman, I guess you must resort to personal insults and unfounded statement because you lack of any decent argument. I could call you out on being a clown for your flippant remark, but I will not because I don’t like to stoop to such low levels of discourse. Please do not post if you don't have anything constructive to say or at least anything else but personal and unfounded insults. I'll give Grum and by yerfatma credit for using some facts and passable arguments along with their occasional snipes. Rocketman, thanks for playing!
posted by Bag Man at 01:48 PM on December 02, 2004
Boggs, McGee, Sandburg, Gossage