SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all B-R content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing B-R blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Baseball-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Andy and the gang, check out their new site High Heat Stats.
ShareThisPOLL: Ron Santo and the Hall of Fame
Ron Santo played third base for 15 seasons. He was a 9-time All-Star, 5-time Gold Glove winner, never played for any team outside of Chicago (Cubs 1960-1973, White Sox 1974), and recently celebrated 50 years as a member of the Cubs organization.
Santo did not make the HOF during the normal ballot process. He reached a high of 43.1% in 1998, his last year of eligibility. He also has not been elected by the Veterans Committee in 4 times on the ballot.
Let's take a look at Santo's credentials and have a poll.
For Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame:
- Career OPS+ of 125, which is 9th-best among third basemen (minimum 1200 career games)
- Other top-10 rankings among third basemen include homers (9th) and RBI (9th)
- His career WAR of 66.4 is 75th among position players and 7th among third basemen.
- Among position players from 1964 to 1967, Santo had the 2nd-best WAR in MLB:
Rk Player WAR/pos 1 Willie Mays 34.2 2 Ron Santo 34.0 3 Hank Aaron 29.4 4 Dick Allen 28.7 5 Roberto Clemente 28.4 6 Frank Robinson 26.4 7 Brooks Robinson 24.5 8 Carl Yastrzemski 24.1 9 Jim Fregosi 22.8 10 Tony Oliva 22.5 Santo missed beating Mays by a pinch and was well ahead of many other superstars.
- Over that same period (1964-1967) Santo was 3rd in OBP, 6th in SLG, and 5th in OPS, as well as 6th in homers and 4th in RBI.
- He got MVP votes in 7 different seasons and accumulated 147 in black ink.
Against Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame
- The biggest mark against Santo is that he didn't make it to the HOF (at least not yet) despite appearing on one ballot or the other 19 different times. He was also among the players given a reprieve in 1985, brought back to the ballot after falling off in 1980 while receiving less than 5% of the vote.
- The next-biggest mark against Santo is that he was very good but not among the best of all-time. As the arguments in his favor above show, he was a top-10 third baseman but towards the bottom of that group and even during his excellent peak period he wasn't the best player in baseball. He led the league in OBP twice, walks 4 times, and triples once, but that's it.
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 at 7:30 am and is filed under Hall of Fame, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:51 pm
One thing that really stood out when I was looking at positinoal balance in the hall is that there are only 11 third basemen that have been elected.
3B are even more underrepresented than catchers.
If somebody is in the debatable range (and anything under 70 WAR is in the debatable range, IMO), this is important.
I just did PI runs sorted by WAR for players with 1000 games at 3B or 60% of games as a 3B. Santo is 6th since 1901. And he did it over a medium length career with a serious peak (7 years with an average over 7WAR/yr). His numbers probably didn't look that great to voters looking at raw stats and comparing to 30s or 80s players, because his peak years were in the mid-late 60s when offense was way way down. But he was pretty spectacular compared to his peers during that 63-69 span.
VC: punch his ticket.
Given the dearth of 3Bs in the hall I'd take a hard look at Scott Rolen when his number comes up. My instincts say "borderline out", but positional balance suggests that he should be a clear "in". And that the VC should be rethinking a few other guys in the 60 WAR range that have been left out.
August 24th, 2010 at 7:53 am
That few third basemen are in the Hall does not imply that third basemen are under-represented. But Santo should be in.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:01 am
I agree, he should go in. I also agree that anything under 70 WAR is debatable with most in the 60's getting in, and a good bit less than half in the 50's getting in.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:19 am
I think Santo's pretty close to the line for induction. But the fact that he'd be the fourth Hall of Famer off a perennially non-competitive team is a bit of a drawback.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:02 am
.406 career road slugging average? .747 road OPS? Sorry, no.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Santo is often recognized as one of the best non-HoFers who is eligible for the veterans committee. I think he'll make it in eventually because of that.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:16 am
From 1967 to 1972 the Cubs averaged 86 wins. Of the 4 "HoFers" referenced, Banks was a shell of his former (SS) self by then and was barely above replacement during the 1969 heartbreak season. The 1987 Cubs will have 3 HoFers, 4 if Lee Smith eventually makes it. These teams lost not because of their stars (tho Banks, like I said, was no longer a star, and Maddux wasn't yet), but because they were playing people near or below replacement level at like 6-7 positions each. Point is this is a pretty weak argument. The only real argument against Santo is the Small Hall one; compared to the median HoFer (much less the dregs), he's clearly qualified.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I'm really torn on this. Santo is not a guy I was that familiar with, outside of a documentary or newspiece I saw on his health struggles. As a ballplayer, he really falls right on the line for me. His career was a bit short for me, but his peak was pretty impressive, even if it means being 2nd to Mays in that time frame. However, it was a fairly short peak and, coupled with a short career, I think I'm leaning towards "no".
August 24th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Santo is the most qualified player eligile for the HOF who is not in.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Santo's absence from the Hall of Fame is a bit of a mystery to me in a way, when you consider that most of the other great 3B came after him. When he retired, he was arguably the second greatest third baseman of all time, with only Mathews being clearly better. Brooks Robinson had the longevity and defense but wasn't the hitter that Santo was, and Frank Baker was brilliant over a short career, but I'd rank Santo about even with those two behind Mathews, and both of the others are in the HoF. It also does not appear to be the case that Santo was underrated throughout his career. He was a 9 time All Star and a 5 time Gold Glover, so he was clearly seen as a top 3B and a good fielder, and he received moderate MVP support despite playing on mediocre teams with a more prominent star in Ernie Banks.
I think there's several things that worked against him:
- His prime came right in the heart of the biggest pitcher's era since the dead-ball era
- He was a great player by virtue of being very good at many things, rather than having a few specialties that really stood out.
- His time on the ballot happened to coincide closely with the careers of Schmidt, Brett, and Boggs, redefining the perspective on what a great hitting 3B's numbers look like.
His lukewarm support throughout his BBWAA candidacy is a bit similar to Alan Trammell's candidacy so far. Both Santo and Trammel were direct contemporaries of a clearly superior player (Mathews and Ripken) and a defensive legend (Robinson and Smith) at their position. Both players ended their careers just as offensive levels were rising. Both players were evaluated through a lens that included a trio of active offensive superstars at the position (Schmidt, Brett, and Boggs for Santo, A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar for Trammell).
August 24th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Something everyone should remember about Santo is that his useful playing time came between the ages of 20-33 and I don't know of any allegations that he failed to take care of himself so as to extend that career. I do know that he was injecting himself with insulin from the time he joined the Cubs because he played his entire career with (juvenile, type 1) diabetes.
Kirby Puckett's career accomplishment might seem a little short, or that of Addie Joss, Sandy Koufax, Dizzy Dean, Ross Youngs, Mickey Cochrane, Roy Campanella, or Hank Greenberg.
In these and perhaps other cases, some voters have made allowance for the fact that something completely beyond the player's control -- prejudice, war, injury, illness, death -- abbreviated that player's career. You don't have to agree with the Hall of Fame status of the eight players listed above to recognize that there may be justice to making such an allowance. And yes, "life is unfair," and this doesn't mean that Herb Score and Tony Conigliaro, whose careers were cut TOO short, go to Cooperstown.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Nice points, WilsonC.
I'm sure it doesn't help Santo that just as he retired, Schmidt came up and by 1980 (Santo's first year on the ballot) was already widely considered the best-hitting third baseman of all-time. Even Schmidt's contemporary, George Brett, was overshadowed by Schmidt to a degree.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Jim Fregosi had a nice 1964-1967. The Mets don't look so bad now (although the trade was 5 years later).
August 24th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Ron Santo is worthy of being inducted.
I'm afraid that the Veterans Committee stand against him. Not the members, per se, but the process. He wasn't able to get in with the process the way it was the last several years, and now the process has been changed again. I don't think Santo will be on the ballot this time, though I could be wrong about that.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Andy says:
"Even during his excellent peak period he wasn't the best player in baseball."
What, as opposed to Fred Lindstrom?
August 24th, 2010 at 10:20 am
#15: Many HOF voters like to see a player who was "the greatest" for at least a season or two. Santo was among the best at his peak but not "the best". For me, this argument doesn't carry a lot of weight, but for many, it does.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Jeff says:
"Santo is the most qualified player eligile for the HOF who is not in."
Blyleven, Bill Dahlen and Tim Raines would like to have a chat with you
August 24th, 2010 at 10:25 am
all I meant by "underrepresented" was that the percentage of 3Bs who've made the hall was smaller than for any other position. It's hard for me to justify putting anybody in the hall with fewer than ~60 WAR, and it was clear from my search that there are only so many guys who've played 1000 games at third and produced that much value.
But it suggests that something similar (but less extreme) to what happens with catchers might be happening there. Or it could be just random, that very few guys who've played 3B really rise to the standard.
I don't really know, but it seems to me that when there are many fewer of a position in the hall, I should be more inclined to look favorably on players at the borderline level of career value, than for positions with a ton of players.
WAR says this guy is the 6th best 3B since 1901. That matters.
On the question of whether 4 guys from a team that was rarely competitive belong in the hall: First, this would be a better argument against Santo if he were the least qualified of the 4. He isn't, by a long shot. Billy Williams was a borderliner, and moderately dubious selection. Banks has far better batting stats which makes him look like a clearer selection to the saber-phobic and saber-ignorant crowd, but we know that much is and should be expected of 1Bs, and all told, it seems that Santo's resume is about as good, maybe even slightly better. Jenkins is the only guy of the 4 that's a 100% clear selection.
Further, both Banks and Jenkins put up most of their value before and after Santo's peak. Jenkins was a solid starter for the second half of Santo's peak, but did not peak until Santo was already on the decline, and put up 40% of his career value after he left the cubs. Banks was an average minus player by the time Santo was a star, putting up a total of 8 WAR during santo's peak 7 year spread, and 21 WAR the whole time they played together (12 of which were in santo's first year and a half). Only Williams really shared peaks with Santo, and he was inferior in total career value, and greatly inferior in peak value. He hit somewhat better, so the voters put him in, and dissed Santo, apparently paying little attention to the value of above average 3B defense versus below average LF defense.
If you're going to leave somebody out because that mediocre a team can't support 4 HoFamers, the guy you should be leaving out is Williams. Denying Santo because they messed up on Williams just compounds the error.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Andy says:
"Many HOF voters like to see a player who was "the greatest" for at least a season or two."
That would knock out, what, about a fourth of the Hall (some people like a really small Hall)
August 24th, 2010 at 10:26 am
It's a shame that Santo sits on the outside while clearly inferior players move on in. Consider Santo vs. two recent inductees, in terms of OPS+, ordered by their 10 best years:
RS 164 161 153 146 139 131 128 126 121 115 career 125
JR 157 154 147 141 136 130 127 123 122 120 career 128
AD 157 141 137 136 135 132 130 123 116 115 career 119
Santo was clearly a superior hitter for his best 4-5 seasons, and then about equal for the next 5-6. For his shortish career, Santo played in 154 more games than Rice, a full season's worth.
Of course, Santo was a much better fielder than Rice, and more valuable than Dawson despite his own Gold Glove pedigree. Of course, Santo kills them both in WAR
RS 10.2 8.3 7.9 7.6 6.1 5.7 5.6 5.1 4.2 2.7 career 66.4
JR 7.0 5.9 5.7 5.1 4.3 3.0 2.9 2.3 2.0 1.7 career 41.5
AD 7.3 6.8 6.7 6.6 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.5 career 57.0
I'm not really playing the "If Rice and Dawson are in, then Santo should be in" card, because I don't believe that Rice and Dawson belong. But it's not like those two are the worst members of the Hall, either. It is a shame that a clearly superior player hasn't been given the honor.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Kelly @ 5
".406 career road slugging average? .747 road OPS? Sorry, no."
Context. His peak was during the most dominant pitchers era since the 1920's. He was a very good fielding 3rd basemen. At the time of his retirement he was was indisputably in the top 5 3rd basemen of all time, arguably the 2nd best (see post #10).
Sorry, but yes.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:08 am
IMO, the easiest way to determine a player's stance in potential HOF induction is a comparison to current HOFers who played the same position. Comparing him to Mathews and Robinson shows he was comparable and better than both in certain categories. Although I have some bias being from Chicago, there's no plausible explanation for him not being in.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:09 am
I've always been torn on Santo, and I am a Cubs fan. I agree that WilsonC makes some good points. Especially early in Santo's eligibility, the way we viewed 3B's was changing. Not only Schimdt's rise, but in 1980 (Santo's first yea ron the ballot), Brett was making a run at .400. Buddy Bell was in the midst of three straight 6.0+ WAR years, Bill Madlock was winning batitng titles, Graig Nettles was all over the TV every October while hitting 30 HR's, even Toby Harrah looked like he might make a run at a borderline HOF career (he finished with 47 WAR).
By the time Santo came back on the ballot in the mid-80's, people were questioning if Boggs might hit .400 or break Cobb's career BA mark, and people like Pedro Guerrero and Gary Gaetti and even Tim Wallach were continuing to change the way we looked at thirdbaseman. It's possible some HOF voters looked at all these pplayers and thought "by the time we get to the year 2005, there will be 15 thirdbaseman in the HOF and Santo will look like a chump." We now know that's not the case. And there is the George Kell decision.
I don't remember the specifics, but I think there was a ground swell of support for Kell from "old timers" after Brooks was elected. The argument, as I recall it, was something like "Brooks Robinson was elected to the HOF and his career BA was .267. George Kell's career BA was .306, so he is clearly a HOF'er." The Veteran's Committee took quite a bit of flack for that (as well they should. By any metric, Kell falls short). Could be even the BBWAA was concerned about electig anothey "unworthy" thirdbaseman.
But that dones't answer what to do with Santo. I tend to be a Small Hall type, but I find it a little unsettling that Santo seems to be more deserving than a teammate who has been elected.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:15 am
I think Santo should be the poster child for the Hall of Very Good. While his credentials are just that, Very Good, I think he misses induction into the Hall of Fame. Nothing has changed since the last time the Veterans Committee didn't vote him in. He (probably) has had his credentials reviewed Ad Nausea m by the committee members.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Good, yes. HOF-worthy, maybe. As a personal favorite, definitely. To the best of my knowledge, Santo was the first Type-1 diabetic to make it big in the game as well.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:17 am
"Even during his excellent peak period he wasn't the best player in baseball."
Which is why there are only 31 players in the Hall of Fame, which is as it should be.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:17 am
The argument for why Santo should be in the Hall of Fame is primarily a peak value, not a career value, argument. Some of the posts in this thread seem not to recognize that.
In a 9/21/2007 articel on BaseballProspectus.com [sorry, subscription required], Nate Silver named using a multi-year stretch of statistics who he thought the best players in baseball were. Silver named Santo as the best player in baseball in 1966-67 and roughly tied for the best in 1965 and 1968. Everyone else listed as the best player in baseball for that long of a stretch is in the Hall of Fame (or is out for reasons other than their playing ability).
Silver wrote:
"The first question on the Keltner List is “was [so-and-so] ever regarded as the best player in baseball?” I don’t know whether Ron Santo was ever regarded as the best player in baseball, but he probably was the best player in baseball for a couple years during the late 1960s. All that Santo did between 1964 and 1968 was win five consecutive Gold Gloves while posting an OPS of 150+. A 150 OPS+ is very good—that’s about the number that Alex Rodriguez has averaged over his past five or six seasons—and Santo was saving an additional 15 or 20 runs a season in the field. He did not have that one signature season, though; he never hit better than .313 nor did he ever hit more than 33 home runs, but he was third in baseball in VORP in 1964, sixth in 1965, third again in 1966, and fifth in 1967."
August 24th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Bill James in his book The Politics of Glory also calls Santo the most qualified player eligile for the HOF who is not in, though Raines (and possibly Blyleven) was still playing at the time the book was published.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Good points Michael E. Sullivan, and Wilson C, and Hartvig.
Following up what Michael E. said about third basemen. There's only 11 in the HOF, by far the fewest by position, and what makes matters worse is that 2 of them, KELL and LINDSTROM were terrible choices, they were around the 30-40th best 3rd basemen of all-time. Two other choices, Jimmy Collins and Pie Traynor rank in the top 16-20 all time. So basically you have a position were only 7 of the top 15 are in the HOF. There's no other position remotely like that.
I think there's 3 basic reasons why 3rd base is the most underrated position in baseball:
1-originally in the dead ball era it was a defensive position because of all the bunting so there weren't a great deal of great hitters who played 3rd base.
2-It's evolved into a half/half position. You must be able to hit a third base but you must be able to field as well. If you can't field you become a 1b or a LF or a DH. If you can't hit you see if you can make it as a SS or else your out of the majors.
3-As a result of taking the position so long to evolve, 60% of the top 20 third basemen of all time played the bulk of the careers during a time 25 year period from 1963-1987. Think about it, Mike Schmidt, Eddie Mathews, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Ron Santo, Brooks Robinson, Ken Boyer, Sal Bando, Graig Nettles, Buddy Bell, Daryl Evans, and Ron Cey.
It's very odd, I can't think of another position were so many of the top 20 played during the same time period. Then you have guys like Toby Harrah and Bill Madlock who were among the top 30 third basemen of all time, so it was really was a golden age of the 3b.
So I think as a result it's made it difficult to give credit and properly honor third basemen because they all played roughly during the same time period.
As far as Santo goes it's just a combination of 3b being underrated and writers not putting his 60's numbers in context and not giving him enough credit for his fielding. I think by the time he became eligible in 1980, those 60's numbers no longer seemed so great. There was also a case where the writers overrated batting average and underrated on base percentage and slugging percentage.
Frankly I'm shocked he's still not in the HOF because Bill James' was talking about this stuff back in the 80's. He's among the top 5 most eligible players not in the HOF. He's also more qualified than roughly 60% of the players already enshrined in the HOF.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
The disparity between Santo's home and away figures are such that I can't help thinking his stats would have been decidedly mediocre if he hadn't been boosted by playing at Wrigley.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
As far as the home/road splits go, if you look at Yaz and Ernie Banks splits they resemble Santo's splits.
Yaz:
Home: .306/.402/.503
Road: .264/.357/.422
Banks:
Home: .290/.349/.537
Road: .256/.311/.462
Banks & Yaz were both first ballot HOF and I can't remember one person saying that they weren't HOF because of poor road splits.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
The argument that there are unqualified 3b in the Hall and Santo was better than those player does nothing for me. Just because there are unqualified people in the hall does not mean they should add people who are slightly less unqualified. Ron Santo was a very good player but not a great one. He is as about as borderline as a player can be without being a worthy of being in the HoF.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
JohnQ, your comment makes absolutely no sense. First, neither of the disparities you point out is nearly as pronounced as Santo's:
Home: .296/.383/.522
Road: .257/.342/.406
His OPS delta at home is +158, compared to +126 for Yaz and +113 for Banks.
Second, Banks and Yaz' aggregate career numbers are far better than Santo's in every respect. It's the combination of Santo being a borderline case *and* having been overly helped by his ballpark that prevents him from being a HOF'er.
The argument for Santo is apparently that in terms of one pretty dubious statistic, he was one of the best in baseball during a four year period which represented his peak (along with Jim Fregosi, who also excelled during those four years and I guess also belongs in the Hall).
Santo - great player yes, All-Time Great no.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
@AltF4
I agree completely - can't stand the "George Kell is in the Hall so _____ should get in" argument. If anything, there are a few guys who should be voted OUT
As far as 3B's being underrepresented, where are Graig Nettles and Darrell Evans? Ken Boyer, Ron Cey and Bill Madlock belong in the conversation. And Chipper Jones and Scott Rolen are on their way, and even A-Rod may end his career with more games at 3B than SS.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
I'd say yes to Santo, and it wouldn't surprise me to see the Veteran's Committee agree at some point. The point for me is that he played in an era where practically nobody lasted into their mid-30s, and so the fact that he had a seven year stretch where he won 5 GG and posted a 144 OPS+ is even more impressive in context. And while could argue that Eddie Matthews may have slightly edged Santo as a hitter, when you factor fielding in the Cubbie almost certainly emerges as the best third baseman of the 1960s. I would find it hard to imagine a time so bad that of the 50+ guys who posted full seasons at a position, the best of them didn't deserve enshrinement.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
You could also say that 1963-87 was the golden-age for catcher too (pitchers perhaps as well), another position underrepresented in the Hall. You had Fisk, Bench, Carter, Porter, Freehan, Munson, Simmons, Parrish, and Sundberg to name a few. Of this group Munson and Simmons should probably be in the Hall, and a good case could be made for Freehan as well.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
@34
Nettles and Evans have career batting averages of under .250. Madlock is an interesting case, excellent hitter, but not close enough. Rolen has the intestinal fortitude of a little girl, he and Carlos Beltran would be All-Stars on the All-Tulip team. Cey and Boyer were solid players. Chipper Jones is a no brainer Hall of Famer, unless it comes out he used PED's.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I don't find Rolen to have little intestinal fortitude --he gets hurt a fair amount, but that always seemed to be b/c he plays hard and plays 3rd base. I agree largely though, saberheads often bring up Nettles and Evans, and my response is, under .250, don't think so --yes, OBP is a better stats, but not by the amount some statheads want to make it out to be. Some others also like to bring up Bell, and he too is short of the line IMO. I'd like to put Nettles in, especially given he was actually a better third baseman that Brooks, despite Brooks getting all the GG. Santo is the one 3B that should be in --I think he should get some points for having Type 1 diabetes too.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
he played in an era where practically nobody lasted into their mid-30s
Santo turned 35 in 1975, the year after he retired. From 1970 to 1980, there were an average of 9 active players each season who were at least 35 and had at least 400 PA. That's an average of about 0.36 per team.
Over the past decade there were 19 such players per season, 0.64 per team. Obviously the DH affects this somewhat. Oddly there were 30 in 2007, then only 16 in 2008.
In the '50s there were 6 per season with 380 PA (pro-rated for the shorter season), 0.40 per team.
The average batting age was under 28 years old from 1962 through 1978. It had not been that low since a brief period in the early '40s, and before that in the '10s, and it has not been that low since then (in recent seasons it has been over 29). I would guess that the increased focus on speed made younger players more important and forced out some older players before they might have been done in other eras.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
You knock Rolen and Beltran, based on what? And not a word against Madlock, more interested in batting titles than his team?
August 24th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
@Kelly
The argument for Santo for the past 20+ years has always been that he's the best 3B eligible that hasn't already been inducted. People have been pushing for Santo since long before WAR was invented. Andy rarely posts the most flattering charts. Santo is 4th when extending the period from 1963-72. And he does well on all the metrics. He only appears borderline when you compare his hitting stats to OF-ers and 1B-men.
But if you've already made up your mind then you can find some exaggerated split or prop up some Jim Fregosi strawman argument.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
@40
Scott Rolen whined his way out of Philadelphia and St. Louis. Beltran is doing his best impression of a guy who could care less to be on a sinking ship with the Mets. Hell, the Mets weren't even Beltran's first choice, he wanted to be a Yankee and offered himself for 1 million less per season to sign with the Yanks. There are a lot of selfish guys out there like Madlock. I do have a problem with guys crying there way out or playing soft to get out of places they don't want to be in. I lost a lot of respect for Ramirez in what he pulled with the Sox also.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
"The argument for Santo is apparently that in terms of one pretty dubious statistic, he was one of the best in baseball during a four year period which represented his peak (along with Jim Fregosi, who also excelled during those four years and I guess also belongs in the Hall)."
"One" statistic? Just about any comprehensive stat (be it WAR, Win Shares, or VORP, et al) will likely show the same thing. Each time the candidacy comes up of a player who isn't an A+ slam dunk, we invariably get posters who like to pretend that the Hall has solely and forever(more) been about Willie Mays or Walter Johnson, but it has also been about Jim Bunning, Phil Rizutto, and Nellie Fox as well (and none of those examples represent the _real_ dregs). Santo compares favorably to Kell or Lindstrom in the sense that he absolutely blows them out of the water, and would likely be about as average a electee, at worst, as you can get (I also think he's significantly better than several recent BBWAA electees too). He may, or may not, have been the best player in the league during his peak, but he sure as heck was the best 3B (after 1963 at least when Eddie Mathews started declining). But some people like to pretend that a player who would be an average HoFer is somehow not worthy, and frankly I could never grasp that.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
"Second, Banks and Yaz' aggregate career numbers are far better than Santo's in every respect."
No. Yaz's aggregate career *offensive* numbers are far better than Santo's. But he didn't play third base, or a similarly valuable position.
Banks's offensive numbers are pretty similar to Santo's.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Although he later moved to first, Tony Perez started out as the third sacker for the Big Red Machine. I wonder how many recall his exploits in those days -- like when he won the '67 All-Star game with an extra-inning homer or how he, Bench and May combined one year for more homers than a couple of teams.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
I was away for 9 days and didn't get a chance to check this weeks HOF blog/poll until now. I am sorry I missed the beginning of the Santo discussion. He is an interesting case. So many things to balance. An underrepresented position at 3B, a hitters ballpark in a pitchers era. The gold gloves, the all star games, the short career, the diabetes, the lack of a championship or MVP. I could go on.
Personally I believe he belongs. Many posters above have stated my reasons. I hope the Vets committee understands what Santo did during his career and agrees with me that he belongs. I think Joe Morgan was quoted as saying about something about Santo and not wanting to water down the standards of the HOF. What was he talking about????? What standards? The Hall (and mostly the Vets Committee) has made some terrible selections over the years. But Santo belongs. I just don't know if they see it.
On another semi related note, and I am sorry if I end up taking this discussion in another direction. I think it is time the Hall stopped separating combined careers of players, managers and broadcasters. I would like to see some sort of combined lifetime service vote.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I remember Perez as a third baseman.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
A very good player, but not a Hall of Famer. (in my humble opinion.)
August 24th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
@Kelly33, Your comment made little sense.
"neither of the disparities you point out is nearly as pronounced as Santo's":
That's not true, Banks' batting average and on base percentage disparities are roughly the same as Santo and Yaz' batting average and on base percentage exceeds Santo:
Yaz disparities home/road splits:
.42/.45/.81
Banks Disparities home/road/splits:
.34/.38/.75
Santo Disparities home/road splits:
.39/.41/.116
The only category where Santo exceeds the other two is slugging percentage.
August 24th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
@ #46
I'm all for Joe Morgan-bashing, but in this case it seems to be unwarranted. This video shows Morgan actually advocating Santo for the HOF and noting that he has voted for Santo in past VC elections. Let's instead get on Morgan for stumping for Maury Wills in the same video (or Dave Concepcion on every SNB telecast).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/d43f6e40-6337-45b9-9131-7a4be2e2d494
August 24th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
has there ever been a post about who should be removed from the HOF if they ever decided to shrink it? or has there ever been a discussion of the "optimal" number of HOF members theoretically/mathematically/metric-wise (of AL/NL/NA players only lets say)? that would be a very fun post to comment on and there would be thousands of responses.
August 24th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
@51
Who to remove first would be very easy. There's a handful of simply boneheaded picks which are indefensible. Tommy McCarthy comes to mind. High Pockets Kelly is another. Read Bill James' book on Hall of Famer's for a good list of questionable picks.
I don't think there is an "optimal" number of inductees. There's always going to be a "borderline". That is, I don't think there are any natural gaps in the talent pool. One thing many people have discussed is to attempt keep the number of inductees per era consistent with each other. Whether that be a fixed number or proportional to the number of teams is open for debate. You should check out the Hall of Merit over at baseballthinkfactory. They've discussed these types of issues for years.
August 24th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Here's five more solid HOF players who have roughly the same or worse home/road differentials than Ron Santo:
Wade Boggs:
.52/.56/.96
Bobby Doerr:
.55/.69/.144
Jimmie Foxx:
.38/.48/.102
Roy Campenella:
.46/.44/.113
Hank Greenberg:
.49/.49/.152
No one would make the claim that Wade Boggs or Jimmie Foxx doesn't deserve to be in the HOF because they have a poor home/road split.
August 24th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
#50 Mike,
Thanks for posting the link. I hate misquoting someone or misrepresenting his views. I searched the 'net for
the quote that I THOUGHT I read. Here is what I probably got it from.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/02/27/mlb-hall-veterans.html
In this article Morgan is quoted as saying,""We are being blamed because something hasn't happened," Hall member and vice-chairman Joe Morgan said. "If you're asking me, 'Do we lower our standards to get more people in?' my answer would be no."
This is from 2007. I guess Morgan was referring to the voting procedure and not Santo. My Bad.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/02/27/mlb-hall-veterans.html#ixzz0xZXPsKHM
August 24th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
One final thought; the Santo-era cubs were the epitome of what was discussed in a prior blog -- the one regarding how the Pirates profitted from losing. It took quite a bit of business acumen to field a fan-drawing team -- one that had more than it's share of stellar performers -- and manage to make it one that drew adequate fan support -- but one on which the owners never had to stick a crowbar in their wallets to financially reward a World Series {or for that matter, Division} Champion. Even if his "College of Coaches" experiment was a notable flop,from a management standpoint, the Cubs should have another HOF candidate -- Phil Wrigley.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
342 Homers, 1,331 Runs Batted In. Seems like he has good numbers, but no World Series titles or playoff numbers does make me think.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Might have been more worthy if he had never played for the White Sox (5 Homers, .221 batting average).
No disrespect intended for you White Sox fans.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
For those that say his number are good but not Hall of Fame good: I wonder how other hall of famers would have fared had they played their entire career with diabetes. I am not advocating that every player with an issue like this should be automatically elected, but come on, he put up his "borderline hall of fame numbers" while dealing with a serious health issue. I know many of voters look at leadership and character qualities in addition to stats, why not consider Santo for what he played through?
August 24th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
For me, it's a really close call, but Santo is JUST on the wrong side of the question. Maybe the classic borderline out guy.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
I see that those who think him lacking often share little or none of their rationales.
About the splits: he benefited from his park. Besides that John Q. shows you how this alone should not disqualify you, does not OPS +, VORP, Win Shares, WAR...All adjust for that adequately?
It cannot be overstated that both career & peak value must be considered. What is an intuitive & defensible definition of excellence/how good you are? It is everything you do, put in context, AND how good you are in total accomplishments for a good # of years. Factoring in properly all aspects of the game.
He is about exactly the same WAR as Walker, who i also found worthy. Difference is Santo played his season more concentrated, had more really good peak years. He does not even need any character credit to be easily worthy, Unless someone can show how measures of productivity all over rate him, or that the park factor adjustment should be even larger, he is easily worthy.
August 25th, 2010 at 2:35 am
@53, John Q, there's a problem with your argument, which I'll display by using Ron Santo vs. Jimmie Foxx.
Here are Santo's home/road splits:
Home: .296 .383 .522 .905
Road: .257 .342 .406 .747 (-158)
Here are Jimmie Foxx's home/road splits:
Home: .345 .453 .663 1.116
Away: .307 .405 .561 .966 (-150)
So, sure, you're correct that other players such as Foxx and Boggs and Campanella have had equally large splits, as displayed here in OPS. Yet you can immediately see the problem above when comparing the two. Santo has a negative differential of 158 OPS points between home and road, which is similar to Foxx's 150 differential, but that's where the comparision ends. Foxx was a great hitter on the road. He was a HOF-level hitter on the road. It just so happens he was even better at home, where he was a total Beast. Certainly that can't be said for Santo. I mean, Foxx had a better OPS on the road than Santo did at home! Foxx also accumulated tremendous overall stats. He was a three-time league MVP. Won the triple crown. He had a career OPS+ of 163. He is one the greatest power hitters to ever play the game. I'm sorry, but how does that compare to Santo?
Campanella was a catcher and a three-time MVP. Boggs was a five-time batting champion, including four in a row, raking out more than 200 hits and scoring over 100 runs in seven straight seasons. He hit better at Fenway because he was skilled enough to take advantage of the wall, but he also hit over .300 on the road, while collecting more than 3,000 hits in his career. Of course he's a HOFer, even with the home/road splits, because he was an excellent hitter no matter where he played. Greenberg was a four-time HR and RBI champion, including 58 HRs one year and two years of 170 and 183 RBIs. A two-time MVP who lost nearly four years to WWII. A life-time OPS+ of 158. He was legitimate all-time great.
The problem for Santo is he was not a great hitter on the road, and he didn't accumulate great career stats, like 500 HRs, or 3,000 hits, or win MVPs, etc. He was a very good player. I'm just not sure that's enough to get him in the Hall, especially when we consider those home/road splits that suggest he was not really all that good a hitter away from Wrigley. I know the stats community actively used Jim Rice's home/road splits against him. They can't ignore them with Santo just because he's their current cause. (BTW, Doerr was one of the worse mistakes, but that doesn't mean we have to compound one mistake with another, although certainly Santo was a far greater player than Doerr.)
August 25th, 2010 at 3:38 am
MikeD @ 61
.243 .300 .341
.277 .346 .404
What's it mean? The first line is the league average for the National league in 1968, the second for the American league in 1932. Context. Santo was far better than league average on the road for the era he played.
Yes, Ron Santo was not a good a hitter as Jimmy Foxx. But I challenge anyone to name 10 third basemen in the history of the game that they would rather have than Santo.
August 25th, 2010 at 5:17 am
Mike Schmidt
George Brett
Eddie Matthews
Wade Boggs
Chipper Jones
Alex Rodriguez
Edgar Martinez
Paul Molitor
Rico Petrocelli (69)
Pie Traynor
August 25th, 2010 at 6:12 am
Rico Petrocelli says:
Alex Rodriguez>
Alex Rodriguez is still a career SS (and should always be were it not for the selfish Jeter)
Yeah, good thing when he could no longer DH, he was able to extend his career greatly at 3B
ditto Edgar
One year is now a career. You forgot the obviously superior Al Rosen.
You want a guy who had a 107 OPS+
Are we saying that only the top 10 at each position should be allowed in?
August 25th, 2010 at 6:56 am
Santo will make it because he was a Cub.
August 25th, 2010 at 8:19 am
With all due respect Mr. Petrocelli, but I only see five 3B on your list better than Santo. Edgar was a DH, Molitor jumped all over the place positionally, Arod is still a SS, and the others on the list were inferior to Santo over a career.
August 25th, 2010 at 8:23 am
I would put Brooks Robinson on your list, even though he was a fair bit overrated, but still clearly a HoFer. I would rank Santo somewhere around 7-8th all-time best 3B, and yes, I think he should get a bit of a bump for playing with Type 1 diabetes, especially given it was at a time they had far less to help diabetics.
August 25th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Sal Bando would also be on that list and a decent Vet pick --there's be worse. In fact, Santo and Bando had similar careers, but I'd say Santo borderline in, Nettles and Bando borderline out.
August 25th, 2010 at 8:46 am
These four 3B present an interesting case for me --I'd rank Brooks Robinson borderline clearly in, Santo borderline just in, Nettles borderline just out, and Bando borderline clearly out. I want to make it clear that I would not vote for Bando, but if he were to go in, there would be much worse Vet picks.
August 25th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Extra points for diabetes? Its a great personal story, but this isn't horse racing where we sometimes let the slower horses carry less weight to even the field. (He's deserving anyways.)
August 25th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Some more third basemen worth mentioning are Lave Cross (he should be in the HOF), Bob Elliott, he was arguably the top third baseman of his time while some folks weren't too certain Santo was much better than Kenny Boyer of St. Louis. Stan Hack, another former Cubs third sacker, was a vastly underrated little leadoff man who, like Santo, drew a ton of walks. Deadball Era third basemen like Heinie Groh, Tommy Leach, Bill Bradley and Larry Gardner should also be discussed since HOFer Jimmy Collins wasn't much better than them. Bill Madlock won several batting titles in his career but, unlike HOF peers George Brett and Wade Boggs, failed to reach 3,000 hits. Eddie Yost of the Senators was an on-base percentage god who, despite his .250-or-so career BA, had a much higher on-base percentage than most .300 hitters.
Like the first poster mentioned, the third base position is the least represented, but there are plenty of candidates for enshrinement. Let's not forget guys like Sal Bando, Graig Nettles, Willie Jones, Ron Cey, Al Rosen (whose career was rather brief, or else he'd be a lock), Matt Williams, Darrell Evans, Milt Stock, the Pinkys: Whitney and Higgins, Kenny Keltner, Ossie Bluege, Harlond Clift, Buddy Bell and Willie Kamm. All of these guys could play for me any day but Lave Cross is the only one I'll say SHOULD be in the HOF. Santo is close and so is Ken Boyer, but I put them slightly below Lave on my wish list. However, on the poll I have posted on my blog: brettkiser.wordpress.com, Ron Santo leads in "best third baseman not in the HOF."
August 25th, 2010 at 9:58 am
I'm amazed how everyone relies on stats to determine whether someone should be in he Hall of Fame. Stats can help but they are often misleading and don't tell the whole story. Ron Santo was an excellent player and a Cubs fixture but he was always the third best player in the lineup--Banks and Williams were, even if you didn't look at stats, obviously great players, a level above Santo. Hodges, Maris, Mattingly, Blyleven, Morris,Wills, even Raines WERE called "great" by teammates, opponents, and fans who saw them play. So were Eddie Mathews and Brooks Robinson and it's worrisome when people who never saw Robinson play now look at hitting stats and begin to question if he was such a great all-around player--anyone who saw him play can vouch for his greatness. Santo was never called great, just excellent like his equal Sal Bando and others like Scott Rolen, Fred McGriff. He was kind of like Kevin Youklis or Mike Lowell of Ken Caminiti--does Youklis, if he plays at his level for ten more years, deserve to be in the HOF? Santo is beloved in Chicago and gets everyone's sympathy vote and it would be no tragedy if he were elected, but we shouldn't overrate him by playing with dubious statistics in an attempt to revise history.
August 25th, 2010 at 10:03 am
He is deserving, but there's many cases where Hall voters took into account Wars fought in, careers shortened because of career-ending injuries and other medical issues.
August 25th, 2010 at 10:20 am
I know little of Santo, but here is the definition of borderline.
Defining his peak as 64-67 is too narrow a range for inclusion in my book, but I used a longer peak. If I look from 63-70, he posted batting numbers of .277, an average of 29-105 (and yes this angers all of you, but it matters some), and OPS+ of 140 in an at best iffy offensive area. 3B was a defensive position at the time, not seen as offensive as it is since Schmidt, Brett et al.
On the other side, how good is an 877 OPS for his peak? At Wrigley? As a previous commenter mentioned, his road/home splits were widely variant.
He does deserve points for the TypeI diabetes thing. Don't knock it til you've lived with it (I haven't).
August 25th, 2010 at 10:27 am
#51:"jason Says: has there ever been a post about who should be removed from the HOF if they ever decided to shrink it?"
#51 - I'm sorry,but this is just a TERRIBLE idea, the HOF can't have inductees wondering if their membership in the HOF is temporary. The removal process (who would decide?) would be full of acrimony and bad feelings all around...
However, if you are proposing some abstract process for serious fans to "restock" the baseball Hall Of Fame, it already exists at baseballthinkfactory.org, which has the "Hall Of Merit". This is an attempt to have the same number of players as the actual HOF, but fix the mistakes, both players left out and players who do not belong. Santo was easily elected by them, BTW.
I consider Santo one of the worst omissions from the HOF, along with (currently on the ballot) Blyleven, Raines and Alomar. Amongst third baseman, he would be somewhere in the middle; while clearly not as good as Schmidt, Mathews, and Brett, he is clearly better than Lindstrom, Kell, Collins, and Traynor.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
#61/Mike D: "The problem for Santo is he was not a great hitter on the road, and he didn't accumulate great career stats, like 500 HRs, or 3,000 hits, or win MVPs, etc."
This is NOT a realistic standard, as someone upthread said, some people act like the HOF is reserved for the likes of Willie Mays and Walter Johnson, and that just not true:
{breakdown of position players in the HOF}
- players with 3000 hits or 500HR or MVP award:...... 65
- elected primarily* as position players in the HOF: 145
*eliminating those elected as managers(23)/umpires(1)/executives, and Negro League players with short ML careers, such as Willard Brown or Satchel Paige(3) - sometimes this got confusing
So clearly less than half of the position players in HOF DO NOT satisfy this standard, including:
Gary Carter, Joe Cronin, Carlton Fisk, Ralph Kiner, Johhny Mize, Kirby Puckett, Al Simmons, Duke Snider
August 25th, 2010 at 10:32 am
"The problem for Santo is he was not a great hitter on the road, and he didn't accumulate great career stats, like 500 HRs, or 3,000 hits, or win MVPs, etc."
Looking at raw unadjusted stats will kill you every time.
Santo was a perfectly fine hitter on the road. In the context of his time, his road split translates to around 116 OPS+. For a good 3B that's excellent. He hit better at home, of course, but so does almost everybody else. He was no Jimmy Foxx of course, but neither were 80% of all hall of fame players. And Foxx didn't play 3B.
If you expect 3Bs to hit like Jimmy Foxx to make the hall of fame, here's your list of hall of fame third basemen:
That's it. That's the list.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Santo was better than Bando, and he was clearly overshadowed by Williams and a past his prime Banks. Yes, Brooks Robinson was clearly a HoFer, and i did see him play -- he's right at that line between no-brainer and borderline clearly in IMO. Nettles was better defensively with more pop, but when you add everything up Brooks was better overall. I'm not a huge WAR guy, but I do think it's a very useful stat, and his WAR of 69 seems about right --he's clearly in, but not some immortal lock. He's in that group, perhaps a slight notch above, the Younts and Molitors.
August 25th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
There will always be a "greatest player not in the Hall."
August 25th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
You can't put Santo in the Hall Of Fame, while Ken Boyer is not in the Hall either. Boyer and Santo are very similar players, and both are appropriately NOT in the Hall of Fame.
Boyer had a higher batting average than Santo, but Santo has better power numbers than Boyer. Boyer and Santo also have the same amount of Gold Gloves.
Boyer though, has an MVP award AND a World Series ring to his name, wheras Santo does not. Yet despite Boyer's MVP and World Series ring, he never comes up for the Hall Of Fame Discussion, but for some reason Santo still does.
My vote, keep Santo out. I should mention though if I had my druthers, I'd kick OUT a ton of guys that are already in, and the Hall of Fame would have about 14 total players in it.
August 25th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@Mike D, #61
A point against Ron Santo were his home/road differentials and that Santo had far too great a home/road split to be considered a HOF. I gave examples of 7 solid HOF players that had differentials similar or that exceeded Santo's differentials.
As far as your Foxx analogy, your using raw numbers from two distinctive eras and trying to compare them as relative. One from the greatest offensive eras in baseball history (Foxx), and another from the second worst offensive era in baseball history (Santo).
August 25th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
A quick look showed that Santo and Ron Cey had similar stats, both career and 162 gave average. Santo was a little better at drawing walks (yes, the all important stat). Where's the Cey love? He also had some big post-season moments as a clutch hitter. None of the Dodgers from that great team in the 70's and early 80's are in the hall.
August 25th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Yes, using raw unadjusted stats makes no sense whatsoever. It is irrational to only look at a raw stat, regardless of whether it is, say, a huge pitchers, era, then add a road consideration, even absent looking at what that is ADJUSTED compared to other players. IF people are in favor of this, go ahead & elect a huge % of pitchers from this era, a huge % of dubious batters from the 20'-'30's & the steroid era, & then you have to scrap the validity of toms of worthy & better HOF players. Madness.
Mr. Peary (post #72): stats can be misleading, that is why we use adjusted stats, critical thinking, & parse out the details back & forth. What have you used as a substitute? Wholly unsubstantiated premises about who you feel was better, or what you feel is or was the conventional wisdom. Some of those players were poorly rated, due to things like selection bias, who was liked, a disproportionate impact of a very few games, offensive era, runs support...It does not matter who was "called" great or feared-for example, Blyleven was massively better in career & peak value than the overrated Morris & Hunter.
Mr. Kiser (post #71): it is good to consider neglected players, but sometimes they should be clearly considered just good, not HOF worthy. And many rightly bemoan the argument that if one (clearly unworthy) guy gets in, then another better guy should. That is a recipe for the Hall being standards declining towards the worst selections ever, since there are tons of players as good or a little better than the worst choices. In the case of Jimmy Collins, you introduce a new wrinkle. You would have us discuss the candidacy of a raft of dead ball era #B guys since they were at least close to, not even better than or as good, as Jimmy Collins. It seems to me this only makes sense if Collins is clearly better than borderline. If he is not, then we have a recipe for an ever declining standard of "almost as good as" already unworthy players, until Bob Ueker makes the Hall!
Collins looks like...Not the worse pick ever, but seems a little under borderline. Limited longevity should give him a better peak to distinguish him. Lave Cross? Thanks for the impetus to look him up, by why is he worthy? Exactly 100 OPS +, best 2 years in WAR by far 5.7 & 5.4, good fielder, but range factor exactly average for a career...Well below average HOFer by all statistical standards, inc. adjusted ones, not high in gray ink (excellence for era), or black ink (era dominance).
Unless there is a reason presented why we should either have only the very best players recognized, thus most of the current hall is unworthy, OR that the average is way too low (which would dilute the quality of the Hall tremendously, & means we should have SEVERAL TIMES as many players): can we not agree that both some worthy players having been excluded, some poor choices included, but the rough standards of quality, using advanced stats or not-those parameters are pretty clear?
August 25th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Boyer and Santo both played during the second deadball era, whereas Cey largely did not. Boyer winning MVP and a WS does make the argument more interesting. Perhaps the voters got it right with neither going in --with that said, maybe perhaps both would make pretty good Vet picks. Cey was clearly not the player these two were though. I saw plenty of Cey and he was no HoFer; Nettles was closer to the line than Cey.
August 25th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Awards are notoriously bad measures of even who deserved that award! If a player was the best over a year or a period, you are far more likely to know it by weighing the various factors, like WAR, VORP, Win Shares...Than a standard which weighs largely who is liked, good at context dependent stats, who is on a better team so that a player gets a chance to go to the Post Season. And Boyer is one of a ton of players who won MVP & was not the best player in the league. Willie Mays had the best league WAR 10 times! While great players get certain advantages, it is well known that they get tired of giving the same awards to the same players, & look for things like performances on a playoff team, which was never fair. I doubt Boyer was 2nd best in '61, but I defy anyone to show me how his total game was as good as Mays that year.
Ron Santo led the league in WAR in '67, with a # somewhat higher than Cey ever achieved. He likely deserved the MVP that year. Also, WHY give ANY extra credit for a player being on a post season team in itself? Cey was mediocre in his one (World Series) Post Season. It should neither be credited for or against him. Though he seems a borderline pick, we can make an argument for his inclusion, Santo is better by objective measures.
August 25th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
84,
"WHY give ANY extra credit for a player being on a post season team in itself"?
I will take this to mean that if you play well in the playoffs it should count some?
I will say it again, lack of playoff numbers should NOT hurt someone, however, acting like the numbers don't exist is just plain ridiculous! At the very, very least, just add the numbers to the adjusted stats. If Tom Glavine finished his career with a WAR of 57 but earned another 4-5 WAR points in playoffs then it should count!! A WAR of 61 would read much better than a WAR of 57 --at least in this forum! I would argue the same if Pettitte gets to ~55 WAR --add another 5-6 points in playoff WAR.
August 25th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
"does Youklis, if he plays at his level for ten more years, deserve to be in the HOF?"
Yes, absolutely. That's of course a big "if," and a highly unlikely one (seeing as he's already 31), but Youkilis is a great player, and would be a no-brainer if he put together ten more seasons at his current level of production.
August 25th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Yes Matt, that is exactly what my words mean. Of course I am saying give at least proportionate credit for PS accomplishments. You can certainly argue for at least something more than that due to the importance of the games, but that is dubious, at least (as in most cases) there is a small sample size: it has been overwhelmingly proven that "clutch" play is at best quite uncommon-rare, & statistically anything can happen good or bad through chance over a few games.
A good pitcher may be used disproportionately during the PS, so a Schilling-like performer might actually add 5 or so WAR if enough excellent IP.
August 25th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Why can't we require that we provide evidence for our assertions?
Post #72 says, "[Ron Santo] was always the third best player in the lineup." Well, except for 1963 (tied with BillyW for tops on the team). And 1964 (Santo 36 win shares, Williams 28, Banks 15). And 1965 (Williams 33, Santo 32). And 1966 (Santo 30, Williams 21, Banks 11). And 1967 (Santo 38 [best in the league], Williams 28, Banks 17). And 1968 (Williams 30, Santo 28, Banks 18). And 1969 (Santo 26, Williams 24, Randy Hundley 21). That's seven not "always." 1967 the highest win shares number in the National League.
To paraphrase #72, I'm amazed at how anyone would make a claim so at variance with the facts and not check them. It's like trying to revise historic interpretation without even knowing what happened.
August 25th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
An earlier comment which disparages over-reliance on stats then declares that some players (he includes Hodges and Maris) were "obviously great. . . . Anyone who saw [Brooks Robinson] play can vouch for his greatness. Santo was never called great."
What can you do with an argument like this except throw up your hands? (Well, I can write this comment.) I was around and watching baseball in the 1960's. Hodges was a very good player whose highest win-share seasons were 29 and 26. [Demand a different metric and we could go on for pages, but the verdict would be the same: win shares are quick and comprehensive.] Maris was a fine fielder and he hit 61 home runs the same year his batting average was .269. You would win a pennant with 8 players like Hodges and Maris. But they were not obviously great to me. I saw Brooks Robinson play, particularly on the big World Series stage where he made some dazzling stops in the field. He played more games at third base than anyone ever (he didn't have diabetes), and he deserves to be in the Hall. But over the decade 1961-70, when Santo was 21-30 and Robinson 24-33, Santo reached base 300 more times, had 41 more extra-base hits including 80 more home runs, and hit with OPS+ 131 vs. Brooks's 115. And was awarded 5 Gold Gloves to Robinson's 10. I called Santo great. People I talked to called Santo great. What else can you say to someone so omniscient that he knew that nobody ever said such a thing?
August 25th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
"There will always be a "greatest player not in the Hall.""
And when the day comes that that player is not better than 40-50% of the guys who *are* in the hall, I'll stop arguing for him to go in.
August 25th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
While I don't think that merely being a better player than the Hall of Fame's mistakes is enough to warrant induction, I do think it's hard to exclude a guy who is squarely among the 10 best third basemen of all time. He was helped a little by his park, but his road totals were probably artificially limited because his prime years were in the pitching-dominated 1960s. Great glove. Could do everything Brooks Robinson could in the field, and was a much better hitter.
I have no problems voting "Yes" for Ron Santo.
August 25th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Among the words that anyone should obviously always never use in a serious discussion of a controversy:
anyone, obviously, always, and never.
August 25th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
"Does Youklis, if he plays at his level for ten more years, deserve to be in the HOF?"
Let me support DavidJ's "yes." Youkilis would finish with 948 extra-base hits and averages of .296/.395/.505 with OPS+ of 130, several Gold Gloves while switching back and forth between positions and having his first full season at age 27.
Of course, he won't, because excellence for 15 years is Hall-of-Fame rare. That's the point about Santo's diabetes. He shouldn't get "extra points" for playing with it. Bob Dillinger played 3rd base with glasses. Many have to play with limited coordination. But when you have established your performance level for 14 years and then can't continue at the level of similarly-gifted 34-year-olds, we shouldn't complain about your lack of "accumulation." Your career didn't last as long as it should have and neither did your legs, and any sensible person will notice that.
August 25th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Dave in Toledo,
Excellent points. I have a Boy's Life Magazine from 1969 with Ron Santo on the cover. In the article the writer often refers to Santo as: "Great", "One of the Greats in the Game", and a "Future HOF".
What happened was he wasn't eligible for the HOF until 1980 and suddenly those 1960's era numbers didn't look that great anymore to the baseball writers because the were putting those 60's numbers into a context of 1980's baseball.
August 26th, 2010 at 1:24 am
Yep, excellent comments. "Course I am biased because they agree with mine! We cannot give credit for physical issues-they are unlike war or segregation, where the player was fully capable of producing but was prevented from doing so. Though there is plenty to admire in Santo's effort, & more than enough to warrant induction on his own merits. Know how many HOFers & really SUPERB players did little after 33? How about check Hornsby & Foxx. Mantle was still valuable through power & walks, but a shell of his former self. Whenever someone puts up the #s is fine, & you can be incredible by 33. Josh Gibson was dead at 35.
But where did the "Dave in Toledo" Meme start anyway? I can hear it being said, cannot quite recall the provenance...
August 26th, 2010 at 6:01 am
One more word on the great Italian names.
Santo, Bando. Add Torre, Carbo. It's a meal!
August 26th, 2010 at 10:52 am
I literally just stumbled upon this 30 min ago while looking for something else, What a great discussion, and on one of my favorite topics no less! Wish I'd found it yesterday.
Ron Santo ABSOLUTELY belongs. In the 10-year period from 1962 to 1971, only Santo (101.2), Henry Aaron (109.7) and Harmon Killebrew ((104.3) averaged 100+ RBIs per season. Ron Santo drove in more runs in that period than nine of his slugger contemporaries who are in the Hall of Fame (more than Williams, the Robinsons, Mays, McCovey, Yaz, Clemente, Cepeda and Stargell), and he did so while also surpassing his peers defensively, judging by statistics, Gold Gloves and All-Star teams. From 1964-70, he led the majors (and ALL the glittering stars of that pitchers’ era who are now enshrined in the HOF) in RBIs. Did you know also that from 1964-70, Santo reached base more times than any other player except Carl Yastrzmski? And he was an ironman - 2nd in games played in the 60's.
No, I don't believe his battle with diabetes should be factored in, except that, IMO, it shortened his career. Yes, I agree that the preponderance of great 3rd basemen who came in right behind his exit skewed the perceptions of his accomplishments. No, I don't believe his lack of post-season play or the fact that other HoF'ers were on his team should be considered one iota. Not his fault. The fact that he never led the league in any glamour offensive stats doesn't help, but boy was he consistently great over many seasons.
I hope he gets elected to the Hall while he's still alive and when he does, I'll be in Cooperstown to see it.
August 26th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I just ran a search to see how many players had done the following between ages 20 and 33: 325 doubles, 300 home runs, 3200 times on base, and an OPS+ of at least 125.
The answer is 9 players. 5 outfielders, 2 first basemen, A-Rod, and Ron Santo. Pretty rare company.
Here is the age at which each played his last full season: Aaron 41, Barry 42, Ott 36, F. Robinson 38, Babe 39, Foxx 33, Gehrig 35, A-Rod 34 and counting. Ron Santo's last season in which he played enough to qualify was at age 33, and he didn't play at all after age 34 (Foxx continued, off and on, through age 38, and his achievement was ended by sinus trouble and/or drinking, take your pick).
We know what each of the others accomplished after age 33 -- more, or much more, than Ron Santo. Maybe we shouldn't hold it against Santo that his career after age 33 didn't add numbers equal to the average of the other eight Hall of Famers. (Well, Barry and A-Rod. . . .)
August 26th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
@72
"Ron Santo was an excellent player and a Cubs fixture but he was always the third best player in the lineup"
There were several years that Earle Combs was probably the FOURTH best Yankee position player, so he must be nowhere near deserving
August 26th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
@78
"There will always be a "greatest player not in the Hall."
Among eligible players, it may always be Bill Dahlen
August 26th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
@90
"And when the day comes that that player is not better than 40-50% of the guys who *are* in the hall, I'll stop arguing for him to go in."
Wow, you have to be as good as the top half of the Hall to deserve to go in?
August 26th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Don't think that was his point.