I have participated in this dialog for years, as have most every Chicago baseball fan. I came to the conclusion the if one is the best at his position in his league in his era, he deserves entry to the hallowed Hall. Along with the actual number cited in the artwork, I conclude Santo in fact belongs and should have been inducted long ago, I have visited the Cooperstown, as every baseball fan should if possible, and it is the best of the sports halls of fame... however it's luster has diminished a bit to me after considering the mean-spirited pettiness of the voters towards Ron Santo.

Santo always belonged. He was by far the best 3rd baseman in the National League during the 1960s, when the National League was by far the superior circuit. And he was nearly as good defensively and a much, much better hitter than Brooks Robinson, a first-ballot Hall of Famer from the same era.

It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Numbers. The reason Robinson was there and Santo not is
obvious.

Go ahead and disagree. This from Bill James: "Santo was not only a better hitter than Goerge Kell, he was also a better hitter than Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, Fred Lindstrom, and Brooks Robinson. He was a good hitter in a relatively long career, as he ranks eighth all-time in games played at third base. Defense? He won five Gold Gloves."

Again, he should've been inducted during his first few years of eligibility, before he became the increasingly bitter and, as you point out, often classless campaigner we came to know too well in his later years.

Removing the statue was a no-brainer. They should've blown it up, along with the football program.

He was a terrible color commentator, for those of us who were really interested in good commentary. If you listened to hear him cheer or tell dumb stories or ask Pat who was at bat, then he was great. Let's not sugar coat it, he was horrible. But as Dan says all that matters is his playing career. I tend to think we should let the writers elect the HOF and keep the former players out of it. I think the veterans committee has been a failure so far. Most HOFers don't want to elect anyone.

@ John: Ok, so you didn't like him. That doesn't make him a bad color guy. He's there to keep us entertained....color man. Pat did/does a tremendous job and they had a great rapport together. Some people don't like what he did, but for a great many fans he made listening to an already slow moving sport much more enjoyable.

That being said, I agree with you completely on the writers. The VC is awful.

I didn't like or dislike him. He provided no baseball insight whatsoever. Listen to Steve Stone sometime and see how much you learn about the game. But again, everyone wants something different from their broadcast, I get that.

And before you ask, no, I'm not a Sox fan.

John, I usually mute any game I'm watching (including NFL). None of the talking heads have much of anything to add to the game.

Listening to those radio broadcasts in middle and late 60s as a teenager, and then into the 70s, I think I became kind of spoiled. I loved the "baseball" Vince and Lou broadcasted along with the real commentary and insight they delivered. In more recent years, instead of turning down the sound on the TV and turning on the radio, I wanted a radio that would receive TV broadcasts. I certainly respect Ron Santo for what he went through and his hard fought battle and work for others with JDRF.

I think Brenly is outstanding.

But how much can one say during nine long innings game after game after game?
Really though, it's just personal preference.

Agree on Brenly. Also Steve Stone, IMO the best of the best. And for those who are old enough to remember, Lou Boudreau was tremendous.

As bad as Santo was, he didn't hold a candle to Joe Carter, the all-time champion of bad color commentators.

I agree, Stone is an outstanding analyst. So is Brenly. But having listened to all three a bit, I don't knock Ron down for how he was. I do think he provided baseball thoughts, especially when asked questions about situational hitting and fielding. He did need to be bated into it a lot, but that's why he and Pat worked so well together. Pat knew when to keep him on track and when to let him wax poetic on anything from his legs (or lack-there-of) to his hair piece.

I feel there is a reason besides just the party atmosphere of wrigley, as to why they draw more high school and college age fans to the cubs. I think they created a fun atmosphere that baseball doesn't seem to have enough of. It is all opinion, and I was going to say I don't want to be argumentative...except that's exactly what I'm doing I suppose. This is definitely an issue i can say to each his own.

(And judging by ticket sales, is anyone a sox fan?)

Is Stone with the Sox now? I will not watch the south siders! But Stone is one of the few good ones. I'm going to have to think about Joe Carter being the worst. He certainly in the top ten.

Crawler, what do you think about the Penn St. Penalties?

Maybe I should actually listen to a game. Since I haven't, I don't know much about Brenly.

The report is that $60 million is about what the team brings in in a year. I think I'd prefer the death penalty too. Get rid of the football culture for at least a year. Now the football team could be looked at as sort of martyrs. I still wish Paterno were alive to face these consequences, but we know that's not possible. His wife playing apologist is pretty annoying. Of course, this could lead to questions about programs where players have been accused of sexual assault (such as Notre Dame), but have had the incident swept under the rug. Is that really much different when you think about it?

Sully and Nightcrawler...How many people at the University had knowledge of Sandusky's crimes? Reportedly there were 10, of which 3 were associated with the football program (Paterno, McQueary and Curley).

So because of the actions of these few people, you want punish hundreds of people whose jobs rely on the football program but had no knowledge, dozens of players who had no knowledge and millions of fans who had no knowledge.

It's just me, but I'd rather hold the individuals responsible for their actions and not punish others who had no involvement and no knowledge.

Only when you bend over.

Thanks for the memories of Sox broadcasting misery. If you think Early Wynn was bad - and he was - how about Bob Elson and Jack Drees? Anyone with insomnia would find a quick remedy with either one.

I only vaguely remember Boudreau doing the Hawks' intermissions, but Lloyd Pettit's play-by-play remains the standard by which all hockey announcers are measured.

I may be niave but I believe given what has happened, should any questionable act occur in forseeable future, those in positions of authority will act quickly and properly so as not to incur the same fate.

You state "My problem with it is that it confirms that what really matters is the money"...I completely disagree, to me its about punishing the wrong doers. How is Jerry Sandusky punished by taking away the livelihood of hundreds of innocent people? Same could be said for the 10 people at PSU who had knowledge...crucify them, not the institution. The institution is going to suffer plenty from the misdeeds of a few, no need to pile on....just one man's opinion.

Totally agree. Harry was at his peak with the Sox, and Piersall was, as they say, certifiable. Remember when the ballpark caught on fire, and Harry suggested they put it out with Falstaff? "What a waste of liquid gold!"

Damn, those were the days. I used the two of them in a series of radio commercials for Wieboldt's. The spots were terrible, but recording them was tremendous. Back then, Harry had absolutely no use for the Cubs - he was still a Cardinal guy through and through. And boy, did they ever hate LaRussa.