PDA

View Full Version : Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame?


jamokes
02-25-2007, 12:00 PM
This Tuesday the Veterans Committee will announce if they have voted any veteran ballplayers in the Hall.
I hope Ron Santo makes it in. Yes, he is terrible as an announcer for the cub but as a ball player he belongs in the Hall of Fame. If you are old enough to have been able to watch him play, even though he was a cub, he should be in the Hall.

And of course I hope my buddy Jim Kaat gets in too!!

DumpJerry
02-25-2007, 12:02 PM
Santo=no.

You're friends with Kaat?

skobabe8
02-25-2007, 12:10 PM
There's a reason Santo has to campaign to get in--he wasn't a good enough ballplayer.

TDog
02-25-2007, 12:17 PM
This Tuesday the Veterans Committee will announce if they have voted any veteran ballplayers in the Hall.
I hope Ron Santo makes it in. Yes, he is terrible as an announcer for the cub but as a ball player he belongs in the Hall of Fame. If you are old enough to have been able to watch him play, even though he was a cub, he should be in the Hall.

And of course I hope my buddy Jim Kaat gets in too!!

I am old enough to have watched him play for the Cubs in the '60s up until he played for the Sox in '74. I was in Old Comiskey the day he hit his inside- the-park home run. I never believed he was worthy of making the Hall of Fame, and even with his more recent attempt at grabbing the sympathy vote, I don't think the Veterans Committee will think so either.

His former '74 teammate Jim Kaat is much more worthy. It would be a shock if the Veterans Committee elects one man. They won't elect two.

TornLabrum
02-25-2007, 12:36 PM
I am old enough to have watched him play for the Cubs in the '60s up until he played for the Sox in '74. I was in Old Comiskey the day he hit his inside- the-park home run. I never believed he was worthy of making the Hall of Fame, and even with his more recent attempt at grabbing the sympathy vote, I don't think the Veterans Committee will think so either.

His former '74 teammate Jim Kaat is much more worthy. It would be a shock if the Veterans Committee elects one man. They won't elect two.

Besides which, the one they should elect is named Saturnino Orestes Arieta Armas Minoso.

IndianWhiteSox
02-25-2007, 12:36 PM
This Tuesday the Veterans Committee will announce if they have voted any veteran ballplayers in the Hall.
I hope Ron Santo makes it in. Yes, he is terrible as an announcer for the cub but as a ball player he belongs in the Hall of Fame. If you are old enough to have been able to watch him play, even though he was a cub, he should be in the Hall.

And of course I hope my buddy Jim Kaat gets in too!!

Santo=no.

You're friends with Kaat?

See I'm on the fence with this, because he might have not have been the best 3B in the NL at the time, due to Dick Allen being present, but he put up those numbers despite having to play through diabetes in those days. However, considering he never played in the post-season and didn't have any magnificent numbers(yes I know I might be contradicting myself, but that's how the world works) and comes off a whiny ass wipe who was really cocky in those days( there are plenty of stories about those incidents). I guess after all of that, I would have to say no.

By the way Dump, if you look at jamokes biography, you'll be surprised at how many White Sox experiences he had.

WhiteSox5187
02-25-2007, 01:02 PM
I think that Ron Santo put up serious enough numbers to give him serious consideration into the Hall...Santo is well before my time so I can't say with certainty "Yes, he belongs in..." He was one of the premier third basemen of this time though...maybe we should make a compromise, he gets into the Hall but has to wear a Sox hat?

TornLabrum
02-25-2007, 01:23 PM
I think that Ron Santo put up serious enough numbers to give him serious consideration into the Hall...Santo is well before my time so I can't say with certainty "Yes, he belongs in..." He was one of the premier third basemen of this time though...maybe we should make a compromise, he gets into the Hall but has to wear a Sox hat?

Kenny Boyer was better.

Foulke You
02-25-2007, 02:01 PM
I'm not old enough to have seen Santo play so I can't comment. However, his numbers appear to be borderline HOF worthy.

Does anyone know if Billy Pierce is elgible for the veteran's commitee? This is the biggest White Sox HOF snub ever in my opinion.

TornLabrum
02-25-2007, 02:09 PM
I don't think Pierce was on the ballot. Minoso definitely is. IMHO, having seen both play and subsequently having met both of them, I'd say that both are equally odious snubs.

Lukin13
02-25-2007, 02:25 PM
If Santo played on the Royals and was an insurance salesman after his playing days, this conversion wouldn't be happening on a annual basis.

MarySwiss
02-25-2007, 02:29 PM
I am old enough to have watched him play for the Cubs in the '60s up until he played for the Sox in '74. I was in Old Comiskey the day he hit his inside- the-park home run. I never believed he was worthy of making the Hall of Fame, and even with his more recent attempt at grabbing the sympathy vote, I don't think the Veterans Committee will think so either.

His former '74 teammate Jim Kaat is much more worthy. It would be a shock if the Veterans Committee elects one man. They won't elect two.

I too am old enough to have watched him play, although I avoided it whenever possible. My clearest memory of Santo was from a game at Wrigley that my Girl Scout troop dragged me to. The Cubs were losing by 10 or so runs in the bottom of the ninth, two out, nobody on, Santo comes up and hits a home run. Big deal, right? Well, if you need further proof about Cubs fans, they were all ecstatic. I was like 12 years old and I'm sitting there thinking, "What the hell are you people so happy about? You just got your asses kicked."

As I believe another poster mentioned the last time Santo came up for discussion, he hit a lot of meaningless home runs. If that and playing for the most consistently crappy team in history qualifies you for the Hall, then he should be in. But until then....

MarySwiss
02-25-2007, 02:35 PM
Besides which, the one they should elect is named Saturnino Orestes Arieta Armas Minoso.

Okay, Hal; so what's up with the new sigs? Daver, too. I think they're both very nice, BTW, so this is just idle curiosity.

TDog
02-25-2007, 02:48 PM
... If that and playing for the most consistently crappy team in history qualifies you for the Hall, then he should be in. But until then....

The number of crappy teams Ron Santo played for is overshadowed by the best team he played for. Ernie Banks, Billy Williams and Ferguston Jenkins belong in the Hall of Fame, and they played for the same crappy teams Santo did. They even played for a Hall of Fame manager in 1969. But one has to ask, how many members of the 1969 Cubs belong in the Hall of Fame?

How could a team have four Hall of Fame players and a Hall of Fame manager and never get close to the World Series?

Daver
02-25-2007, 02:56 PM
Okay, Hal; so what's up with the new sigs? Daver, too. I think they're both very nice, BTW, so this is just idle curiosity.

Michelle was feeling creative.

MarySwiss
02-25-2007, 03:03 PM
Here's a thought, guys. At least if he did get into the HOF, we would no longer have to listen to the campaigning every time he came up for election.

Then again, from that day forward throughout eternity, every time the Trib printed a story that referred to him, his name would be prefaced by the phrase "Cub Hall-of-Famer..."

Actually, I think a compromise is in order. Santo gets in as long as Minnie, Billy Pierce, Buck Weaver, and Joe Jackson do as well. I could live with that.

I really think that most Sox fans are sympathetic to what Santo has gone through physically; how could you NOT be? But that's not the issue. The issue is, "Does he belong?"

MarySwiss
02-25-2007, 03:05 PM
Michelle was feeling creative.

Yeah, I thought I recognized Michelle. Her style is unique. To restate the obvious, WSI is lucky to have her.

TornLabrum
02-25-2007, 03:05 PM
Okay, Hal; so what's up with the new sigs? Daver, too. I think they're both very nice, BTW, so this is just idle curiosity.

Daver gave a good explanation. I saw his and I asked Michelle to do one for me, too. You may have to help me explain to the younger whippersnappers who the guy on the right is, and why he is saying what he is.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-25-2007, 03:08 PM
Okay, Hal; so what's up with the new sigs? Daver, too. I think they're both very nice, BTW, so this is just idle curiosity.

Who is playing the saxophone Torn? Perhaps Michelle can add an audio component to the snazzy new sigs. :cool:

Dick Allen
02-25-2007, 03:11 PM
One needs to remember that power stats tend to get inflated when you play half your games at that Pony League park that Santo played in. I hope he doesn't get in only because we'd never hear the end of it, whether from him or the rest of the scatter-brained media.

TornLabrum
02-25-2007, 03:18 PM
Who is playing the saxophone Torn? Perhaps Michelle can add an audio component to the snazzy new sigs. :cool:

I have no idea who it is. Michelle took care of the images. If I had my druthers, though, the audio would be Sonny Rollins.

MarySwiss
02-25-2007, 03:23 PM
Daver gave a good explanation. I saw his and I asked Michelle to do one for me, too. You may have to help me explain to the younger whippersnappers who the guy on the right is, and why he is saying what he is.

I'll do my best, Hal.

Hey, whippersnappers--and that means you too, Chips--welcome to Classic TV 101. The distinguished looking gentleman on the right in Hal's signature is Jack Benny. He was one of the pioneers of early TV comedy. He began in vaudeville (for more info on this, check out the "Old Time Entertainment 101" course), and moved into radio, which actually used to have programs on it instead of just sports talk. His radio program, "The Jack Benny Show," was so successful, it was picked up as one of the earliest TV shows.

"Now cut that out!" was his catchphrase whenever he pretended to take offense at something someone said. He also was famous for his bad violin playing (although he was really a competent violinist), for being cheap, and for always claiming to be 39 years old.

According to Internet sources, at his funeral, George Burns (also part of the Classic TV 101 course), broke down in tears.

Edit: Whoops, I had forgotten this, but he was from Waukegan.

DrCrawdad
02-25-2007, 03:26 PM
Kenny Boyer was better.

I just looked over Santo's (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/santoro01.shtml) and Boyer's (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/boyerke01.shtml) pages at the great Baseballreference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/). According to their HoF ratings...

Boyer/Santo
Black Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink): 4/11
Gray Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#gray_ink): 138/147
HoF Standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards): 35.7/40.9
HoF Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): 74.5/88.0

I don't remember seeing either play (Boyer's career ended when I was five) and I'm dispassionate about Santo. If Santo belongs in the HoF, fine. Although I'll get tired hearing about just as I'm tired of the perpetual campaigning for him. Just wondering though why you think Boyer was better. It looks to me that Santo was more of a slugger but Boyer may have been a better hitter.

Crede_Fan
02-25-2007, 04:25 PM
Okay, Hal; so what's up with the new sigs? Daver, too. I think they're both very nice, BTW, so this is just idle curiosity.


Yeah I was wondering that too. Wilkes has got a new one too. Also new avatars. I'm really jealous!

TornLabrum
02-25-2007, 04:56 PM
I just looked over Santo's (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/santoro01.shtml) and Boyer's (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/boyerke01.shtml) pages at the great Baseballreference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/). According to their HoF ratings...

Boyer/Santo
Black Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink): 4/11
Gray Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#gray_ink): 138/147
HoF Standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards): 35.7/40.9
HoF Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): 74.5/88.0

I don't remember seeing either play (Boyer's career ended when I was five) and I'm dispassionate about Santo. If Santo belongs in the HoF, fine. Although I'll get tired hearing about just as I'm tired of the perpetual campaigning for him. Just wondering though why you think Boyer was better. It looks to me that Santo was more of a slugger but Boyer may have been a better hitter.

He was a helluva lot better third baseman (and his brother Clete was even better). When both were playing, no one considered Santo to be the better third basemen, except Cubs fans.

viagracat
02-25-2007, 05:03 PM
I'll do my best, Hal.

Hey, whippersnappers--and that means you too, Chips--welcome to Classic TV 101. The distinguished looking gentleman on the right in Hal's signature is Jack Benny. He was one of the pioneers of early TV comedy. He began in vaudeville (for more info on this, check out the "Old Time Entertainment 101" course), and moved into radio, which actually used to have programs on it instead of just sports talk. His radio program, "The Jack Benny Show," was so successful, it was picked up as one of the earliest TV shows.

"Now cut that out!" was his catchphrase whenever he pretended to take offense at something someone said. He also was famous for his bad violin playing (although he was really a competent violinist), for being cheap, and for always claiming to be 39 years old.

According to Internet sources, at his funeral, George Burns (also part of the Classic TV 101 course), broke down in tears.

Edit: Whoops, I had forgotten this, but he was from Waukegan.

I knew that was Jack Benny and I remember the "Now cut that out!" tagline. Then again, I'm not a young whippersnapper.

Those new sigs are pretty cool. Cooler than mine. I'm jealous.

viagracat
02-25-2007, 05:09 PM
Who is playing the saxophone Torn?

I'm going to take an educated guess and say Paul Desmond from the Dave Brubeck Quartet.

MarySwiss
02-25-2007, 05:09 PM
I have no idea who it is. Michelle took care of the images. If I had my druthers, though, the audio would be Sonny Rollins.

Hey Hal; what do you think the chances are of adding Jimmy Roberts and Norma Zimmer to your sig? Especially if you could get the audio! :D::D::D:

TornLabrum
02-25-2007, 05:15 PM
Hey Hal; what do you think the chances are of adding Jimmy Roberts and Norma Zimmer to your sig? Especially if you could get the audio! :D::D::D:

"One toke over the line, sweet Jesus..."

TornLabrum
02-25-2007, 05:21 PM
I'll do my best, Hal.

Hey, whippersnappers--and that means you too, Chips--welcome to Classic TV 101. The distinguished looking gentleman on the right in Hal's signature is Jack Benny. He was one of the pioneers of early TV comedy. He began in vaudeville (for more info on this, check out the "Old Time Entertainment 101" course), and moved into radio, which actually used to have programs on it instead of just sports talk. His radio program, "The Jack Benny Show," was so successful, it was picked up as one of the earliest TV shows.

"Now cut that out!" was his catchphrase whenever he pretended to take offense at something someone said. He also was famous for his bad violin playing (although he was really a competent violinist), for being cheap, and for always claiming to be 39 years old.

According to Internet sources, at his funeral, George Burns (also part of the Classic TV 101 course), broke down in tears.

Edit: Whoops, I had forgotten this, but he was from Waukegan.

In fact there is a school named after him there, originally named Jack Benny Junior High, it is now Jack Benny Middle School. There is also a terrific web site run by a gal in her '30s who founded a fan club for Jack when she was ten. The International Jack Benny Fan Club is free to join, and they have a message board to which I make an occasional contribution as "Maxwell" (the kind of car Jack supposedly drove). Check it out at http://www.jackbenny.org (http://www.jackbenny.org/).

veeter
02-25-2007, 05:44 PM
Santo's begging has become so emabarrasing. Almost as bad as Phil Rogers' obsession with Shammy. Fans from around the country must think Chicago is filled with saps. Santo, move on. It ain't happenning. He has never been voted in, for a reason. And last time I checked, his stats are not improving each year. They are staying the same.

MarySwiss
02-25-2007, 05:49 PM
In fact there is a school named after him there, originally named Jack Benny Junior High, it is now Jack Benny Middle School. There is also a terrific web site run by a gal in her '30s who founded a fan club for Jack when she was ten. The International Jack Benny Fan Club is free to join, and they have a message board to which I make an occasional contribution as "Maxwell" (the kind of car Jack supposedly drove). Check it out at http://www.jackbenny.org (http://www.jackbenny.org/).
I will. Many of those early TV shows were a scream then and still are. We have a five-DVD set of "The Burns and Allen Show" that Jim picked up for something like $3 out of a bin at an electronics store. Those shows are laugh-out-loud funny; some of the wacky humor actually leaves you out-of-breath.

BTW everyone who is more interested in the Santo debate; sorry about the hijack.

WhiteSox5187
02-25-2007, 05:53 PM
I'll do my best, Hal.

Hey, whippersnappers--and that means you too, Chips--welcome to Classic TV 101. The distinguished looking gentleman on the right in Hal's signature is Jack Benny. He was one of the pioneers of early TV comedy. He began in vaudeville (for more info on this, check out the "Old Time Entertainment 101" course), and moved into radio, which actually used to have programs on it instead of just sports talk. His radio program, "The Jack Benny Show," was so successful, it was picked up as one of the earliest TV shows.

"Now cut that out!" was his catchphrase whenever he pretended to take offense at something someone said. He also was famous for his bad violin playing (although he was really a competent violinist), for being cheap, and for always claiming to be 39 years old.

According to Internet sources, at his funeral, George Burns (also part of the Classic TV 101 course), broke down in tears.

Edit: Whoops, I had forgotten this, but he was from Waukegan.
I am twenty years old and love Jack Benny and George Burns. On long road trips my dad used to buy these cassette tapes of their radio shows and they were great. Burns and Allen had a better TV show than a radio show...a great radio show that never had a TV show was Bob and Ray.

Paulwny
02-25-2007, 06:01 PM
a great radio show that never had a TV show was Bob and Ray.

I know I saw them on TV when I was a kid, did a search, they were on NBC , Nov. 51 to Sept. 53.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_and_Ray

viagracat
02-25-2007, 06:22 PM
BTW everyone who is more interested in the Santo debate; sorry about the hijack.

I thought the Benny and sig discussion was better than the Santo story.

Does he belong in the HOF? He's borderline; you can make an argument either way. He was a slick fielder at a tough position and could hit, but also a poor clutch hitter and general hot dog. But his shameless campaigning for induction is pathetic. He's never been known for restraint.

MarySwiss
02-25-2007, 07:12 PM
I am twenty years old and love Jack Benny and George Burns. On long road trips my dad used to buy these cassette tapes of their radio shows and they were great. Burns and Allen had a better TV show than a radio show...a great radio show that never had a TV show was Bob and Ray.
MrMarySwiss (who's older than I am) RAVES about Bob and Ray. And I suppose most of you guys know that Bob Elliott of Bob and Ray is the father of Chris Elliott, whose short-lived TV show, "Get a Life," was, IMO, one of the goofiest things I ever have seen. Watching him dance to "Alley Cat" was hysterical. He was also pretty fair in "There's Something About Mary."

And another hijack begins!!!

1917
02-25-2007, 07:36 PM
I have always been a big supporter of Roger Maris being in the HOF...In the wake of the roid scandel with Bonds, McGuire and Sosa, this guy did it on meat and potato's, and never lived to see the * taken away from his record. He was also a 2 time MVP. I know his career avg may not be HOF material, but the guy broke Babes record, and in my eye's, the only guy to do it legit. Let Roger in!!

Craig Grebeck
02-25-2007, 07:39 PM
He was a helluva lot better third baseman (and his brother Clete was even better). When both were playing, no one considered Santo to be the better third basemen, except Cubs fans.
And the statistics.

PaulDrake
02-25-2007, 07:53 PM
Here are the Third Basemen currently in the Baseball HOF.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/lists/pos&3B.htm

I see Santo comparing quite favorably to more than a few of these guys. Yes, he is a terrible announcer and a shameless self promoter. Let me amend that, his "self promotion" borders on begging at times. I saw Santo play many times at the park, or on good old WGN. Santo made his share of errors, but also made more than his share of spectacular plays. He was one of the best I ever saw at denying the hitter that shot down the third base line. I'd rate him as a very good fielding third baseman, but I'd also rate him below his contemporaries Brooks Robinson, Ken Boyer, Clete Boyer, and Aurelio Rodriguez just off the top of my head. Rodriguez won a total of 1 Golden Glove and Clete Boyer never even got to sniff one, both were great fielders. They just happened to be playing at the same time as Brooks Robinson. Santo was a damn good hitter with power in his prime. The problem was, by the time the Cubs started winning more than they lost Santo was past his peak. In 1969 Santo faded badly in the stretch. He had plenty of company, only pitcher Bill Hands and outfielder Billy Williams continued playing like winners while the whole thing fell apart. This is long enough, I suppose. Santo in the Hall is not that big a stretch to me.

PaulDrake
02-25-2007, 07:55 PM
I have always been a big supporter of Roger Maris being in the HOF...In the wake of the roid scandel with Bonds, McGuire and Sosa, this guy did it on meat and potato's, and never lived to see the * taken away from his record. He was also a 2 time MVP. I know his career avg may not be HOF material, but the guy broke Babes record, and in my eye's, the only guy to do it legit. Let Roger in!! A great guy and a very good all around ball player. He was a solid defender with a strong arm in the outfield. He was made to suffer a number of unnecessary indignities in that epic summer of 61. That being said, he's not a HOFer.

NoNeckEra
02-25-2007, 09:21 PM
As I believe another poster mentioned the last time Santo came up for discussion, he hit a lot of meaningless home runs. If that and playing for the most consistently crappy team in history qualifies you for the Hall, then he should be in. But until then....
Couple of thoughts on this:
1) I am sick and tired about hearing how impressive Santo's #s were in the 60s era of pitching. He was the third best offensive player on his team, behind Williams and Banks, and as I recall, pitchers would pitch around Williams to get to Santo, and he would promptly hit into a DP or strike out.
Pitchers never said, "Uh oh, Santo's up", like they would for Williams.

Santo was a terrible clutch hitter, at least by HOF standards. My friend argues Santo's #s vs. Brooks Robinson. Please, don't go there. Brooksie was a guy who'd come to plate at Comiskey and you would say to yourself, "This is the one guy I don't want to face in this situation." He always seemed to come thru in the clutch.

2) If Santo's so deserving, why isn't he in already? Solid player, even an all-star caliber player: Yes. HOF no.

WhiteSox5187
02-25-2007, 10:38 PM
A great guy and a very good all around ball player. He was a solid defender with a strong arm in the outfield. He was made to suffer a number of unnecessary indignities in that epic summer of 61. That being said, he's not a HOFer.
I agree...one GREAT season is not enough for the Hall, you have to have a GREAT career. Sorry Roger. He was a good ballplayer, but not immortal.

Craig Grebeck
02-25-2007, 10:49 PM
Check out the splits if you think Robinson was a better "clutch" hitter than Santo. Santo is way ahead of him in every category (late and close, tie game, 2 outs RISP).

Scottiehaswheels
02-25-2007, 10:51 PM
I have this strange feeling they are gonna induct him as a broadcaster... I vote that they have this lil button you push to hear him broadcast and they dub it over with Homer Simpson's D'oh! No matter how many times you push the button it doesn't change... :D:

jabrch
02-25-2007, 11:20 PM
I have this strange feeling they are gonna induct him as a broadcaster...

There's no way in hell that he gets in as a broadcaster. He was a decent ball player and you can argue his credentials as a player. But as a broadcaster, he's amongst the worst. I believe that if he weren't ill, he'd have been let go years ago.

RadioheadRocks
02-25-2007, 11:42 PM
"One toke over the line, sweet Jesus..."


Ah, memories of the Lawrence Welk thread! :D:

Scottiehaswheels
02-25-2007, 11:43 PM
There's no way in hell that he gets in as a broadcaster. He was a decent ball player and you can argue his credentials as a player. But as a broadcaster, he's amongst the worst. I believe that if he weren't ill, he'd have been let go years ago.Sorry.. that post was meant as a joke... I forgot the teal...

SOX ADDICT '73
02-25-2007, 11:54 PM
It would be a shock if the Veterans Committee elects one man...
This is a key point that has been overlooked through most of this thread. It seems like these guys don't think anybody but themselves deserves to be in the Hall.

Kinda reminds me of the Tenure Committee at my school: they chose two of the most curmudgeonly teachers to serve on it, and each year they come up with every excuse imaginable to deny a tenure application or reject someone's professional development credits. It's as though they think tenure is somehow theirs to bestow, rather than something a teacher earns (I have tenure BTW, lest you think this is sour grapes, but enough of my co-workers have been screwed over by these two).

Not that I think Santo deserves election to the HOF, but I will be surprised if ANYONE gets in this way, EVER.

Nellie_Fox
02-26-2007, 02:14 AM
I think that a very important question is being overlooked. Banks, Williams, and Jenkins are already in the Hall. If Santo gets in, how in the hell did a team with four HOFers never win a thing?

WhiteSox5187
02-26-2007, 02:30 AM
I think that a very important question is being overlooked. Banks, Williams, and Jenkins are already in the Hall. If Santo gets in, how in the hell did a team with four HOFers never win a thing?
Durocher did a poor job managing them in '69 and ultimately, the Mets were a better team in 1969 and the year after that, the Reds were a better team. They had a two year span to do something and they didn't. Oh well.

PatK
02-26-2007, 10:00 AM
In some ways, I think he not getting in is karma.

He was a showboater and apparently not so kind to other players and teammates.

Now it's up to them to vote him in.

The wheel comes around.....

1917
02-26-2007, 10:19 AM
I agree...one GREAT season is not enough for the Hall, you have to have a GREAT career. Sorry Roger. He was a good ballplayer, but not immortal.

Not that 2 great seasons makes it any better, but he was the MVP in 1960 as well as 1961. I just feel with al the tainted HR records broken in recent years, he deserves the HOF in my eye's

TomBradley72
02-26-2007, 10:40 AM
I can't get there with Santo as far as the HoF goes...nice player who was one of the top 3Bs in his era...but is he one of the greatest of all time? not in my book. If Santo had been a Phillie, or a Brave, etc...and not a "Cubbie"...this wouldn't even be a debate.

russ99
02-26-2007, 11:08 AM
He was a helluva lot better third baseman (and his brother Clete was even better). When both were playing, no one considered Santo to be the better third basemen, except Cubs fans.

I'd think the tough bastards on the Veteran's Committee would also know this, and with their history of not electing players each time the VC vote comes up will surely not give in to any sympathy vote.

Definately Minoso should go into the hall before Santo.

One other comment: I recently went to a concert at the Cubby Bear (ick, I know) and they have a framed photo of Santo on the wall in a Sox uniform. :o: Way to shove it in my face, guys... as if anyone needs to remember Santo's horrible year with the Sox.

TDog
02-26-2007, 12:42 PM
I think that a very important question is being overlooked. Banks, Williams, and Jenkins are already in the Hall. If Santo gets in, how in the hell did a team with four HOFers never win a thing?

And, as I also didn't overlook when I made the point earlier in this thread, the manager was deemed worthy of Hall of Fame election. Banks, Williams Jenkins and Santo played together under Durocher before and after 1969, when it was teams other than the Mets that were better.

You might criticize Leo Durocher's management style. In retrospect, you might say he was the reason that team didn't win (even though the pre-Durocher Cubs were even more abysmal). But at the time, I'm sure hiring a firey old pro who had won in the past with different teams and wouldn't tolerate losing seemed like a good idea.

But I'm not saying Cubs history repeats itself.

vegyrex
02-26-2007, 03:21 PM
I think that a very important question is being overlooked. Banks, Williams, and Jenkins are already in the Hall. If Santo gets in, how in the hell did a team with four HOFers never win a thing?

http://yentala.typepad.com/cyber_yenta/images/goat.jpg
"Hehehe, I've been such a bad goat."

SOXPHILE
02-26-2007, 10:50 PM
Besides all the discussion about Ron Santo's stats, and if he should be in the Hall of Fame, (He doesn't), people also need to remember another thing: This veterans committee that is his last chance to get in...DOESN'T LIKE HIM. It is made up of many former players who played with and against him, and they cannot stand him. Santo and TribCo like to sell the Blue Sheep this image of him as this lovable, fun grandfatherly former Cub who, gosh darn it, just wants the Cubs to win. It's B.S. Sure, he wants the Cubs to win. But he was an arrogant jerk when he played, not liked by too many, and now, is an angry bitter man who does nothing but self promote himself, begging, pleading to get into the HOF, as well as quite possibly being the worst, most incoherent color commentator in all 4 pro sports leagues. Santo in the Hall ? HAH ! Get ready for another summer of Pat and Ron bemoaning the fact he didn't get in, while still plugging that pile of vomit movie This Old Cub.

TheVulture
02-27-2007, 01:05 AM
he hit a lot of meaningless home runs.

Well, he did play for the cubs right?

TheVulture
02-27-2007, 01:07 AM
I think that a very important question is being overlooked. Banks, Williams, and Jenkins are already in the Hall. If Santo gets in, how in the hell did a team with four HOFers never win a thing?

Well, they did play for the Cubs right?

Viva Medias B's
02-27-2007, 09:22 AM
I think Santo does not deserve to be elected to the HOF because of his showing up other teams (see "Heel clicking") and his petulant whining about not being in the HOF.

DrCrawdad
02-27-2007, 09:23 AM
...Get ready for another summer of Pat and Ron bemoaning the fact he didn't get in, while still plugging that pile of vomit movie This Old Cub.

What I'll never forget in This Old Cub is Slanto's pandering to the snobbish arrogance and stupidity of (some) Cubs fans when he says in the movie, "When I signed with the Cubs I did not know who the Sox even played in Chicago..." That statement gets a chuckle from the Cubs fans listening to Slanto in the movie. But how could a guy who claims to have been a baseball fan NOT know the Sox were a Chicago team when he signed? If that's true, it's not proof of the Cubs popularity and the Sox un-popularity (as that is what seems to be amusing to Cub fans) but it's proof of Slanto's ignorance and stupidity.


http://www.thisoldcub.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/dvd_skew_auto_thumb.jpg = http://www.petplace.com/articles/images/181941897thm.jpg

PaulDrake
02-27-2007, 09:42 AM
What I'll never forget in This Old Cub is Slanto's pandering to the snobbish arrogance and stupidity of (some) Cubs fans when he says in the movie, "When I signed with the Cubs I did not know who the Sox even played in Chicago..." That statement gets a chuckle from the Cubs fans listening to Slanto in the movie. But how could a guy who claims to have been a baseball fan NOT know the Sox were a Chicago team when he signed? If that's true, it's not proof of the Cubs popularity and the Sox un-popularity (as that is what seems to be amusing to Cub fans) but it's proof of Slanto's ignorance and stupidity. When Santo signed with the Cubs they were in the middle of the worst 2 decades of their existence and the Sox were perennial contenders. He's either lying, or like you say stupid.

johnr1note
02-27-2007, 01:02 PM
I came of age in the late 60s and early 70s. My Dad used to refer to Santo as "the King of the warning track fly balls."

The problem is, while Santo compares (marginally so) with some of the third basemen already in the HOF, in intangibles, he does not. If you read the in depth studies of the Cubs of that era (e.g. "Durocher's Cubs" by Clauerbaut, "Miracle Collapse" by Feldmann, and I believe there was a more recent book by one of the former WSCR personalities), it becomes clear that the one player who let the Cubs down in the stretch drives of each of thier pushes towards division titles starting in 1969 was Santo. And he WAS the team Captain, remember? One of these books actually had an appendix or statitstical section breaking down Santo's absolute uselessness in the key games down the stretch. Now, if Santo had 500 home runs, or 3000 hits, the classic statistical open doors to the HOF, that would be one thing. But Santo is the poster boy for the Cubs and thier image as chokers in 1969 and those early 1970s teams. I tell you what -- do a poll. Which thirdbaseman would you want in your lineup in the 7th game of a world series. Brooks Robinson, Clete Boyer, Ken Boyer, or Ron Santo. Heck, add Joe Crede to that list. Santo gets left off the list against every one of them. Why? Because each of the others carried thier teams on thier back with glove and bat, and helped lead them to a championship. Santo, as the Cubs team captain, failed miserably in that function. In my book, he was a very good, all star calibre player, who belongs in the same category as former St. Louis star Harlond Clift -- one of the best 3rd baseman of his era who nobody remembers today because he played for piss poor teams AND he never had the moxie to be a leader or carry his team. He doesn't belong in the HOF. Santo wouldn't even be in the running if not for WGN.

SBSoxFan
02-27-2007, 01:35 PM
As I believe another poster mentioned the last time Santo came up for discussion, he hit a lot of meaningless home runs. If that and playing for the most consistently crappy team in history qualifies you for the Hall, then he should be in. But until then....

Wow, is that a requirement for Cubs' third basemen?

itsjustinf
02-27-2007, 01:41 PM
I came of age in the late 60s and early 70s. My Dad used to refer to Santo as "the King of the warning track fly balls."

The problem is, while Santo compares (marginally so) with some of the third basemen already in the HOF, in intangibles, he does not. If you read the in depth studies of the Cubs of that era (e.g. "Durocher's Cubs" by Clauerbaut, "Miracle Collapse" by Feldmann, and I believe there was a more recent book by one of the former WSCR personalities), it becomes clear that the one player who let the Cubs down in the stretch drives of each of thier pushes towards division titles starting in 1969 was Santo. And he WAS the team Captain, remember? One of these books actually had an appendix or statitstical section breaking down Santo's absolute uselessness in the key games down the stretch. Now, if Santo had 500 home runs, or 3000 hits, the classic statistical open doors to the HOF, that would be one thing. But Santo is the poster boy for the Cubs and thier image as chokers in 1969 and those early 1970s teams. I tell you what -- do a poll. Which thirdbaseman would you want in your lineup in the 7th game of a world series. Brooks Robinson, Clete Boyer, Ken Boyer, or Ron Santo. Heck, add Joe Crede to that list. Santo gets left off the list against every one of them. Why? Because each of the others carried thier teams on thier back with glove and bat, and helped lead them to a championship. Santo, as the Cubs team captain, failed miserably in that function. In my book, he was a very good, all star calibre player, who belongs in the same category as former St. Louis star Harlond Clift -- one of the best 3rd baseman of his era who nobody remembers today because he played for piss poor teams AND he never had the moxie to be a leader or carry his team. He doesn't belong in the HOF. Santo wouldn't even be in the running if not for WGN.

good post. :gulp:

johnr1note
02-27-2007, 02:04 PM
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/news/2007/07027b.htm

spiffie
02-27-2007, 02:05 PM
And once again Santo doesn't make it. 69.5% of the votes, needed 75% to get in.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/news/2007/07027b.htm

Gammons Peter
02-27-2007, 02:05 PM
failed again

SOXPHILE
02-27-2007, 02:10 PM
Ha Ha ! Just heard the good news on the Score. I think I'm gonna turn it off now, as I don't care to hear Murphy sobbing over it and slobbering over the Toupee'd one for the next hour. (On a side note, would they PLEASE give Hanley and Mulligan the full 10-2 spot, and put that sports ignoramus Murph out to pasture somewhere !? )

Nellie_Fox
02-27-2007, 02:19 PM
Damn shame that Minnie didn't even come close. 14.6%.

TDog
02-27-2007, 02:20 PM
Wow, is that a requirement for Cubs' third basemen?

When you get down to it, just about anyone who hits a lot of home runs, hits a lot of meaningless home runs. Joe Crede in 2005 is an exception, as is Mike Caruso, who didn't even hit a lot of home runs. In 1999, he only hit two, one leading off a game in Yankee Stadium and the other in Wrigley Filed. When Cubs fans talked about Sammy Sosa hitting home runs, I used to point out that even Mike Caruso hit a home run in Wrigley Field to shut them up for a few minutes.

A few years ago, I recall reading that about one-third of Frank Thomas' career home runs were hit in the first inning, which certainly aren't meanigless. And a few others stand out, such as a three-run, two-out shot to tie the Indians in the ninth before Joe Crede singled home the game winner on the Sunday that Royce Clayton couldn't pinch run without his spikes, a pinch-hit home run in Cincinnati to give the Sox the lead and an eighth-inning blast into the night off Jeff Montgomery on Aug. 13, 1993, to extend the Sox division lead to 3.5 games over the Royals. But others might choose to remember home runs that were plentiful in losing seasons.

The Hall of Fame is more about the intangibles than stats. For that matter baseball is more about the intangibles than stats. I've been to three games in Wrlgley Field in my life, all from 1969 to 1972. Ron Santo was booed in all three. Cubs fans now choose not to remember such things.

WizardsofOzzie
02-27-2007, 02:36 PM
Ha Ha ! Just heard the good news on the Score. I think I'm gonna turn it off now, as I don't care to hear Murphy sobbing over it and slobbering over the Toupee'd one for the next hour. (On a side note, would they PLEASE give Hanley and Mulligan the full 10-2 spot, and put that sports ignoramus Murph out to pasture somewhere !? )

Murphy's theory is that the veterans committee doesn't want other people in the hall so they will be more popular because they will be part of a more exclusive group if they don't let anyone else in. Geeshhh :rolleyes:

Uncle_Patrick
02-27-2007, 02:39 PM
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/news/2007/07027b.htm

Brace yourself for all the whining from Cubs fans.

WizardsofOzzie
02-27-2007, 02:41 PM
Brace yourself for all the whining from Cubs fans.
Murph has already started on the Score. He basically ripped on everyone who doesn't want Santo (and of course said they are all Sox fans) in the HOF and played the disabled card.

Fenway
02-27-2007, 02:42 PM
Brace yourself for all the whining from Cubs fans.

and Dodgers and Mets fans as well as Gil Hodges fell short as well. I don't think the Veterans Committee will ever elect ANYBODY.

MrX
02-27-2007, 02:46 PM
Murphy's theory is that the veterans committee doesn't want other people in the hall so they will be more popular because they will be part of a more exclusive group if they don't let anyone else in. Geeshhh :rolleyes:
I have no problem with Santo not getting in but hasn't Bob Feller admitted that, atleast as far as he's concerned?

minutia
02-27-2007, 02:47 PM
I too am old enough to have watched him play, although I avoided it whenever possible. My clearest memory of Santo was from a game at Wrigley that my Girl Scout troop dragged me to. The Cubs were losing by 10 or so runs in the bottom of the ninth, two out, nobody on, Santo comes up and hits a home run. Big deal, right? Well, if you need further proof about Cubs fans, they were all ecstatic. I was like 12 years old and I'm sitting there thinking, "What the hell are you people so happy about? You just got your asses kicked."

As I believe another poster mentioned the last time Santo came up for discussion, he hit a lot of meaningless home runs. If that and playing for the most consistently crappy team in history qualifies you for the Hall, then he should be in. But until then....

I laughed outloud at this post because I had a similar memory albeit in the 1980's. I am too young to have seen Santo play but I was at a game where they were beaten really badly and then one or their players, I don't even remember who, I was pretty unhappy to have been dragged to Wrigley in the first place, came up and hit some meaningless homerun. I asked my grandmother and uncle why he done that a few more times earlier in the game and they were like "who cares, the Cubs hit a homerun". I just shook my head and waited to go home.

Hitmen77
02-27-2007, 02:47 PM
Which thirdbaseman would you want in your lineup in the 7th game of a world series. Brooks Robinson, Clete Boyer, Ken Boyer, or Ron Santo. Heck, add Joe Crede to that list. Santo gets left off the list against every one of them. ...

IMO, I wouldn't complain about having Robin Ventura in my lineup in that situation. I'm not saying Robin's a HOFer, but he seemed to come through with big hits for us and was also a gold glove.

Of course, one of the biggest differences between Santo and ALL of the other guys mentioned here is that all the rest played in the World Series while Santo had zero postseason games.
Oh well, now we get to listen to Cub fans whine about how Santo was "robbed".:rolleyes:

spiffie
02-27-2007, 02:55 PM
and Dodgers and Mets fans as well as Gil Hodges fell short as well. I don't think the Veterans Committee will ever elect ANYBODY.
And that's not a bad thing in the slightest. Seriously, Santo had 15 years on the BBWA ballot, and 2 different types of Veteran's Committee looks. Somehow all of those groups rejected him time and time again. Oh he might eventually get in just because people feel bad for him and want to shut the whining Cub fans up. But if you haven't made it in after a certain point, and this goes for Minnie Minoso and Gil Hodges just as much as for Ron Santo, maybe it should be time to stop considering them.

chisoxmike
02-27-2007, 03:04 PM
:rolling:

The best part of this whole thing is; again, all the news cameras will be at Santo's house waiting for the call, they'll show the phone ring, him pick up the phone, then say "'not this year" and thank everybody for the support. It's like clockwork... :rolling:

OOOOOHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOO

minutia
02-27-2007, 03:35 PM
I just saw this on the Sun-Times page.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/274708,santo022707story.article

SouthSide_HitMen
02-27-2007, 03:39 PM
I don't think the Veterans Committee will ever elect ANYBODY.

:supernana:

The HOF is stocked with people who shouldn't have been elected in the first place. Most of this is the fault of the Veterans Committees in years past. The 2006 Negro League Committee went overboard as well. I rather have them be very strict versus waiving everyone home like Joey Cora on several Red Bulls and Vodka.

The dancing nana is not for Santo as much as it is for the strict standards the HOF should incorporate for future inductees. Failure to be elected doesn't mean you were not a very good player - it means you are not among the elite.

There will be no heel-clicking today. :redneck

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9599/photo1autocu9.jpg


July 8, 1969 (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/chronology/1969JULY.stm#day8): With three runs in the 9th inning, the Mets beat the Cubs 43, cutting Chicago's lead in the National League East to four games. Ron Santo rips into CF Don Young (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/Y/Young_Don.stm) for two misplays in the OF. Santo will apologize tomorrow for criticizing Young, who had left early and didn't take the team bus. Santo will get booed in his first game back at Wrigley.

July 14, 1969 (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/chronology/1969JULY.stm#day14): At Wrigley, the Cubs top the Mets 10 to give Bill Hands (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/H/Hands_Bill.stm) (117) the win over Tom Seaver (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/S/Seaver_Tom.stm) (144). Billy Williams (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/W/Williams_Billy219.stm) singles home the winner, boosting the Cubs lead to five 1/2 games. After the last out, Ron Santo jumps up and clicks his heels, igniting a roar from the crowd. The Mets think it's bush.


Three months later & two days later:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1749/10worldseries1969nymetsem6.jpg

:gulp:

Craig Grebeck
02-27-2007, 03:46 PM
Fire away-there's no doubt in my mind he should be in.

itsjustinf
02-27-2007, 03:52 PM
Fire away-there's no doubt in my mind he should be in.

Based on what?

itsnotrequired
02-27-2007, 03:59 PM
The HOF is stocked with people who shouldn't have been elected in the first place. Most of this is the fault of the Veterans Committees in years past. The 2006 Negro League Committee went overboard as well. I rather have them be very strict versus waiving everyone home like Joey Cora on several Red Bulls and Vodka.

The dancing nana is not for Santo as much as it is for the strict standards the HOF should incorporate for future inductees. Failure to be elected doesn't mean you were not a very good player - it means you are not among the elite.

I was under the impression that it is harder to get in now since they expanded the committee back in 2001. No one got in for 2003, 2005 or 2007 from the player or composite ballots, candidates now need 75% of the vote rather than just being the top vote getter, etc.

jdm2662
02-27-2007, 04:05 PM
Fire away-there's no doubt in my mind he should be in.

I'm too young to see Santo play, so I couldn't make this determination. My father did, however, and always said he should've been inducted a long time ago. And, he grew up a Sox fan, but he didn't hate the Cubs (Cub fans however...).

itsnotrequired
02-27-2007, 04:10 PM
and Dodgers and Mets fans as well as Gil Hodges fell short as well. I don't think the Veterans Committee will ever elect ANYBODY.

Marvin Miller didn't make it either. He missed it by, what, 10 votes? I feel he should be in there.

RKMeibalane
02-27-2007, 04:12 PM
Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2781628)

Thinking about this clown's endless campaigning, only to come up short again and again brings a smile to my face.

itsnotrequired
02-27-2007, 04:12 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84610

Get on the trolley.

vegyrex
02-27-2007, 04:13 PM
When Santo signed with the Cubs they were in the middle of the worst 2 decades of their existence and the Sox were perennial contenders. He's either lying, or like you say stupid.

He's lying. Back in the early 90's I saw a quote by Santo saying that when he first came up with the Cubs he noticed how the Sox were the talk of the town.

WhiteSox5187
02-27-2007, 04:15 PM
It doesn't bring a smile to my face, but the guy needs to give it up. He's not getting into the Hall, too bad. He has border line numbers and if this guy had his best years with the Sox we'd all be saying he was getting robbed.

RKMeibalane
02-27-2007, 04:18 PM
It doesn't bring a smile to my face, but the guy needs to give it up. He's not getting into the Hall, too bad. He has border line numbers and if this guy had his best years with the Sox we'd all be saying he was getting robbed.

You're probably right regarding your last statement, but there's no question Santo's HOF crusade is a lost cause. (Normal) people are getting sick and tired of listening to him whine and complain year after year. There are several borderline players who never make it to the HOF. Why is so much attention devoted to this self-promoting idiot?

CHISOXFAN13
02-27-2007, 04:18 PM
Based on what?

For one, he was a nine-time all-star, which means he was among the best in his position during his era, a five-time Gold Glove winner, and he put up very respectable offensive numbers.

He finished in the top ten in RBI eight times, top ten in homers seven times, OBP seven times, walks nine times, runs scored three times and slugging five times.

Now don't get me wrong, I think he's an absolute buffoon and his constant whining and announcing in general makes me want to vomit, but his numbers are Hall worthy for what he did in his era, IMO.

If Santo played most of his career on the South Side, people would be outraged that he's not in based on his humbers alone.

Chicken Dinner
02-27-2007, 04:24 PM
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Chips
02-27-2007, 04:25 PM
If Santo gets in, I would assume that value of my Ron Santo bobbleheads would increase and thus net me more money.

Good luck, Ron.

TDog
02-27-2007, 04:26 PM
He's lying. Back in the early 90's I saw a quote by Santo saying that when he first came up with the Cubs he noticed how the Sox were the talk of the town.

It's funny what organization men say sometimes to further the company line. When I was a kid and Ernie Banks was closing in on 500 home runs, Jack Brickhouse sat down with him for a half-hour special. Banks said he first heard of Babe Ruth after he signed with the Cubs. That sounded strange, but I looked into Ernie Banks' career. I'm sure he had heard of Josh Gibson while playing for the Kansas City Monarchs before signing with the Cubs. Oddly enough, a couple of years ago, he said that he grew up dreaming of breaking Babe Ruth's record.

I lost respect for Ernie Banks when he decided to pretend the whole segregated baseball thing never happened. But I never had any respect for Ron Santo, even when he was the starting second baseman for the White Sox.

spiffie
02-27-2007, 04:27 PM
You're probably right regarding your last statement, but there's no question Santo's HOF crusade is a lost cause. (Normal) people are getting sick and tired of listening to him whine and complain year after year. There are several borderline players who never make it to the HOF. Why is so much attention devoted to this self-promoting idiot?
Sadly, he seems to be the Phil Rizzuto of this era. He'll keep whining and his fans will keep bitching until eventually the voters cave and let Ol' Ronnie in.

Thankfully, all the whining and complaining in the world can't change his World Series Ring-less fingers.

Fenway
02-27-2007, 04:35 PM
Compare Brooks Robinson to Ron Santo

They are MUCH closer than you would first think.

But Robinson had the 1966 World Series stage something Santo never had

RKMeibalane
02-27-2007, 04:36 PM
Sadly, he seems to be the Phil Rizzuto of this era. He'll keep whining and his fans will keep bitching until eventually the voters cave and let Ol' Ronnie in.

Thankfully, all the whining and complaining in the world can't change his World Series Ring-less fingers.

I wish I had an audio clip of Andre Dawson, talking about his chances of reaching the HOF. He was interviewed in 2002, and made the following statement:

"I think my numbers are strong to enough for me to be considered, but I'm not going to worry about it too much. I had a great career, but there's nothing I can do about it now. What's done is done, and I'm won't waste my time whining about it in front of the media."

Lip Man 1
02-27-2007, 04:36 PM
Personally I think Santo's constant whinning and getting the Tribune Company involved to 'influence' the voting pisses off more folks and doesn't help him at all.

I think his numbers are 'borderline' but he'd probably be better served by taking Jim Kaat's quiet approach to things. Eventually Kaat will get in, he's been told he will by voters like Bob Feller and Bobby Doerr....Santo....I don't think it will happen unless he keeps quiet.

Lip

RKMeibalane
02-27-2007, 04:42 PM
Personally I think Santo's constant whinning and getting the Tribune Company involved to 'influence' the voting pisses off more folks and doesn't help him at all.

I think his numbers are 'borderline' but he'd probably be better served by taking Jim Kaat's quiet approach to things. Eventually Kaat will get in, he's been told he will by voters like Bob Feller and Bobby Doerr....Santo....I don't think it will happen unless he keeps quiet.

Lip

I don't think it should happen unless he keeps quiet. There's something to be said for modesty and humility, neither of which appears to be part of his personality.

PatK
02-27-2007, 04:48 PM
There's something to be said for modesty and humility, neither of which appears to be part of his personality.

Which is why he will never get in.

I lost all respect for the guy when that steaming pile "This Old Cub" came out.

soxinem1
02-27-2007, 04:50 PM
He has been one of the biggest self-promoters of HOF consideration I have ever seen.

He's a borderline case like Rice, Evans, Mattingly, Murphy, and Tony Perez (Perez did not deserve it but is in). If a guy like him gets in, it makes the case stronger for borderline candidates.

Socializing the HOF voting is bad enough already, but having this guy whine his way in is wrong. Maybe if he shut up 20 years ago he would have made it.

TDog
02-27-2007, 04:58 PM
... But Robinson had the 1966 World Series stage something Santo never had


Brooks Robinson played in the World Series in 1966, 1970 and 1971, but it was the 1970 World Series against the Reds that he owned defensively.

Ron Santo may have been a good defensive third baseman, but Brooks Robinson is the standard at the position, and that's why he was elected by the writers in his first year of eligibility.

Fenway
02-27-2007, 05:01 PM
Brooks Robinson played in the World Series in 1966, 1970 and 1971, but it was the 1970 World Series against the Reds that he owned defensively.

Ron Santo may have been a good defensive third baseman, but Brooks Robinson is the standard at the position, and that's why he was elected by the writers in his first year of eligibility.

of course I was thinking of 1970 but take a look the numbers between Robinson and Santo

TDog
02-27-2007, 05:10 PM
of course I was thinking of 1970 but take a look the numbers between Robinson and Santo

They are irrelevant. Take a look at Ozzie Smith's numbers. Brooks Robinson is in the Hall of Fame because he was the "human vacuum cleaner."

SouthSide_HitMen
02-27-2007, 05:48 PM
I was under the impression that it is harder to get in now since they expanded the committee back in 2001. No one got in for 2003, 2005 or 2007 from the player or composite ballots, candidates now need 75% of the vote rather than just being the top vote getter, etc.

This is true now. The Veterans Committee was been out of control over several periods in history. The Veterans Committee has elected more players than the BBWAA (and I am not lumping the various Negro League Committees in with the VC vote).

The Veterans Committee was set up as a temporary committee to review and induct 19th century players when the HOF was established. IMO, the Veterans Committee should be abolished and all future HOFers should be inducted by the BBWAA.

The VC can vote on owners, umpires, announcers and Marvin Miller. Frankly, I don't care what happens to non players - the HOF should be players only.

I also think the should create a committee and kick about 50 or so players out who never should have been inducted in the first place or create a ring of honor for the BBWAA inductees, the top Negro League players (most of which were inducted in the 1970s and 1980s) and a few of the worthy Veterans Committee choices and put the other plaques somewhere else.

jortafan
02-27-2007, 06:21 PM
There's no way in hell that he gets in as a broadcaster. He was a decent ball player and you can argue his credentials as a player. But as a broadcaster, he's amongst the worst. I believe that if he weren't ill, he'd have been let go years ago.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who may vote in the future for broadcasters for the Hall of Fame.

While many of us noticed the broadcaster vote this year because of Ken Harrelson, what caught my attention was that people were seriously being asked to consider whether Dizzy Dean warranted Hall of Fame recognition (and I am not in the mood right now for hearing the argument that the sportswriters and broadcasters are not real Hall of Famers, but merely award recipients) for his ability behind a microphone.

Yes, Dean had a career in broadcasting, and was noted for his malaprops and gaffes. He was professionally pathetic. But some try to claim his bumpkin style was a sign of personality on-air that helped make the game more colorful for listeners. I could easily see someone in the future making the same claims for Santo's work on WGN. As annoying as we realize his work to be, someone could get stupid in the future. You might even get some people who support him as a Hall of Fame broadcaster out of some sense of making up for the injustice of not electing him as a ballplayer.

MarySwiss
02-27-2007, 06:58 PM
Which is why he will never get in.

I lost all respect for the guy when that steaming pile "This Old Cub" came out.

Never saw it; don't plan to.

HotelWhiteSox
02-27-2007, 07:11 PM
I wish I had an audio clip of Andre Dawson, talking about his chances of reaching the HOF. He was interviewed in 2002, and made the following statement:

Great quote, be happy about being in the league. I think it's crazy about all the campaigning that goes on and all the people that feel bad about it. At some point you have to check the ego and move on. If you don't get in for so long I say take a hint. Now, what, they are going to change the process just so he can get in? Pshh...

MincHiaPettito
02-27-2007, 07:23 PM
Bruce Levine was campaigning for him like crazy last night on the radio. Here is audio of him getting mad with Joe Morgan about it http://espn-mp3-od.andomedia.com/stations/990/joemorgan.mp3

Vernam
02-27-2007, 07:32 PM
Bruce Levine was campaigning for him like crazy last night on the radio. Here is audio of him getting mad with Joe Morgan about it http://espn-mp3-od.andomedia.com/stations/990/joemorgan.mp3Just heard that replayed on MJH. Levine is like a Chihuahua nipping at Morgan's heel. :roflmao:

For people who didn't see Santo play, think of him as the anti-Baines. Never seemed to hit when it mattered, always seemed to rack up RBI in non-critical situations. And if leadership skills are a legitimate qualification for the HoF, then Santo's brutal display in '69 of what a leader shouldn't do -- from clicking his heels to berating a young teammate -- is a legitimate thing for voters to consider. It seems a lot of them did.

Vernam

soxinem1
02-27-2007, 07:40 PM
Just heard that replayed on MJH. Levine is like a Chihuahua nipping at Morgan's heel. :roflmao:

For people who didn't see Santo play, think of him as the anti-Baines. Never seemed to hit when it mattered, always seemed to rack up RBI in non-critical situations. And if leadership skills are a legitimate qualification for the HoF, then Santo's brutal display in '69 of what a leader shouldn't do -- from clicking his heels to berating a young teammate -- is a legitimate thing for voters to consider. It seems a lot of them did.

Vernam

I couldn't have put that any better. Well said...:smile:

And the only guy I heard who was worse behind the mike is Randy 'Uh...Uh... Uh...' Hundley!

Daver
02-27-2007, 07:46 PM
This is true now. The Veterans Committee was been out of control over several periods in history. The Veterans Committee has elected more players than the BBWAA (and I am not lumping the various Negro League Committees in with the VC vote).

The Veterans Committee was set up as a temporary committee to review and induct 19th century players when the HOF was established. IMO, the Veterans Committee should be abolished and all future HOFers should be inducted by the BBWAA.

The VC can vote on owners, umpires, announcers and Marvin Miller. Frankly, I don't care what happens to non players - the HOF should be players only.



BBWAA can't get it right either, hell a third of the voters are not even active journalists. The process to get into the baseball HOF is a joke all the way around.

34rancher
02-27-2007, 09:34 PM
So his stats were not good enough 30 years ago? Guess what, they are not good enough now. If one is to argue Santo, then they have to use the same arguement for Robin Ventura. Very similar numbers, and neither one belongs in the hall of fame. They are both great guys, just not Hall of Fame baseball players.

WhiteSox5187
02-27-2007, 11:15 PM
So his stats were not good enough 30 years ago? Guess what, they are not good enough now. If one is to argue Santo, then they have to use the same arguement for Robin Ventura. Very similar numbers, and neither one belongs in the hall of fame. They are both great guys, just not Hall of Fame baseball players.
I think one can ultimately make a better case of Santo than Ventura though...but that might be because Santo is a Cub and is ancient.

itsnotrequired
02-27-2007, 11:26 PM
I think one can ultimately make a better case of Santo than Ventura though...but that might be because Santo is a Cub and is ancient.

They played in different eras. Comparing the two is a waste of time.

34rancher
02-27-2007, 11:38 PM
They played in different eras. Comparing the two is a waste of time.

For the most part I agree. But the arguement for Santo has always been how good he was during his era (Gold gloves, all star games, blah, blah, and blah.). I am not sure that there was not a better 3rd baseman, especially in the clutch than Robin in his era also. Neither deserve to get in. I am just saying that the arguement for Santo is baseless, except from an emotional cub standpoint.

ranger_bob
02-28-2007, 12:23 AM
I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but as I look at and crunch the numbers, it appears that Santo's omission is a bit dubious. The stats certainly support his worthiness.






Right now the HOF lists 13 players that have been inducted primarily as 3B. Three of those were inducted from the Negro Leagues.

If Santo were added to the other ten, there would be eleven third basemen in the HOF. So, how would he rank among these other greats? In other words, I wanted to answer the question if Santo would lower the quality of player in the HOF.

Here's what I came up with.

Santo's 342 homeruns would rank him third among HOF thirdbasemen behind only 500 HR club members Mike Schmidt and Eddie Matthews.

Santo's 1331 RBI would rank him fourth among the current HOF third sackers.

His .277 BA might be one of the knocks on him as six of the ten HOF third basemen have hit over 300. However, there still would be four HOF thirdbasemen with lower batting averages.

Santo has five Gold Gloves. Only two HOF thirdbasemen (Schmidt and Robinson) have more, and six have none.

Santo's 954 Fielding % ranks him at sixth would be middle of the pack.

Santo scored 1138 runs which places him in the middle of the pack at fifth.

His 362 OBP would rank him sixth and his 464 SLG would rank him fourth.

Finally, his OPS+ of 125 would rank him fifth and his 324 Win Shares would be fifth on the list as well.

There's not a single category that would rank him in the lower third. Most metrics place him squarely in the middle of the pack among HOF thirdbasemen.

I don't think there should be a doubt he belongs. Now, that may not be a popular view here. But looking at the numbers from an intellectually honest view, Santo belongs. Did Santo rub some people the wrong way? Certainly. Is he a sure-fire, upper echelon HOF? No. Was he one of the top ten third basemen ever to play? Absolutely.

RadioheadRocks
02-28-2007, 12:46 AM
Brace yourself for all the whining from Cubs fans.


You may also want to steer clear of NorthsideBaseball.com, BleedCubbieBlue.com, etc... the villagers are NOT happy!!!

DrCrawdad
02-28-2007, 12:51 AM
He's lying. Back in the early 90's I saw a quote by Santo saying that when he first came up with the Cubs he noticed how the Sox were the talk of the town.

That must have come for a shock to a guy who claims to not have known that the Sox played in Chicago when he was signed by the Cubs.

Scottiehaswheels
02-28-2007, 12:58 AM
You may also want to steer clear of NorthsideBaseball.com, BleedCubbieBlue.com, etc... the villagers are NOT happy!!!:violin:

DrCrawdad
02-28-2007, 01:00 AM
I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but as I look at and crunch the numbers, it appears that Santo's omission is a bit dubious. The stats certainly support his worthiness.






Right now the HOF lists 13 players that have been inducted primarily as 3B. Three of those were inducted from the Negro Leagues.

If Santo were added to the other ten, there would be eleven third basemen in the HOF. So, how would he rank among these other greats? In other words, I wanted to answer the question if Santo would lower the quality of player in the HOF.

Here's what I came up with.

Santo's 342 homeruns would rank him third among HOF thirdbasemen behind only 500 HR club members Mike Schmidt and Eddie Matthews.

Santo's 1331 RBI would rank him fourth among the current HOF third sackers.

His .277 BA might be one of the knocks on him as six of the ten HOF third basemen have hit over 300. However, there still would be four HOF thirdbasemen with lower batting averages.

Santo has five Gold Gloves. Only two HOF thirdbasemen (Schmidt and Robinson) have more, and six have none.

Santo's 954 Fielding % ranks him at sixth would be middle of the pack.

Santo scored 1138 runs which places him in the middle of the pack at fifth.

His 362 OBP would rank him sixth and his 464 SLG would rank him fourth.

Finally, his OPS+ of 125 would rank him fifth and his 324 Win Shares would be fifth on the list as well.

There's not a single category that would rank him in the lower third. Most metrics place him squarely in the middle of the pack among HOF thirdbasemen.

I don't think there should be a doubt he belongs. Now, that may not be a popular view here. But looking at the numbers from an intellectually honest view, Santo belongs. Did Santo rub some people the wrong way? Certainly. Is he a sure-fire, upper echelon HOF? No. Was he one of the top ten third basemen ever to play? Absolutely.

Why was Santo never voted as MVP?

Why is it that the highest he reached in MVP was 4th?

Why was Santo passed over for what 15 years by the baseball writers?

rainbow6
02-28-2007, 01:08 AM
I think White Sox fans, if delusional like many Cub fans, could adopt Harold Baines as their "Ron Santo." I'm fairly certain I could provide a similar list of "10 Tens" for Baines...isn't he in the top twently all-time RBI list?

Baines has been my favorite player since I was 10....he's not a Hall Of Famer.

I'd like to think if I was a Cub fan during the Santo era I'd be blessed with the same perspective.


If you were picking a team from scratch and you had the choice of Baines or Santo, who would it be?

.......

That's what I thought.



Luke




For one, he was a nine-time all-star, which means he was among the best in his position during his era, a five-time Gold Glove winner, and he put up very respectable offensive numbers.

He finished in the top ten in RBI eight times, top ten in homers seven times, OBP seven times, walks nine times, runs scored three times and slugging five times.

Now don't get me wrong, I think he's an absolute buffoon and his constant whining and announcing in general makes me want to vomit, but his numbers are Hall worthy for what he did in his era, IMO.

If Santo played most of his career on the South Side, people would be outraged that he's not in based on his humbers alone.

spiffie
02-28-2007, 01:09 AM
I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but as I look at and crunch the numbers, it appears that Santo's omission is a bit dubious. The stats certainly support his worthiness.






Right now the HOF lists 13 players that have been inducted primarily as 3B. Three of those were inducted from the Negro Leagues.

If Santo were added to the other ten, there would be eleven third basemen in the HOF. So, how would he rank among these other greats? In other words, I wanted to answer the question if Santo would lower the quality of player in the HOF.

Here's what I came up with.

Santo's 342 homeruns would rank him third among HOF thirdbasemen behind only 500 HR club members Mike Schmidt and Eddie Matthews.

Santo's 1331 RBI would rank him fourth among the current HOF third sackers.

His .277 BA might be one of the knocks on him as six of the ten HOF third basemen have hit over 300. However, there still would be four HOF thirdbasemen with lower batting averages.

Santo has five Gold Gloves. Only two HOF thirdbasemen (Schmidt and Robinson) have more, and six have none.

Santo's 954 Fielding % ranks him at sixth would be middle of the pack.

Santo scored 1138 runs which places him in the middle of the pack at fifth.

His 362 OBP would rank him sixth and his 464 SLG would rank him fourth.

Finally, his OPS+ of 125 would rank him fifth and his 324 Win Shares would be fifth on the list as well.

There's not a single category that would rank him in the lower third. Most metrics place him squarely in the middle of the pack among HOF thirdbasemen.

I don't think there should be a doubt he belongs. Now, that may not be a popular view here. But looking at the numbers from an intellectually honest view, Santo belongs. Did Santo rub some people the wrong way? Certainly. Is he a sure-fire, upper echelon HOF? No. Was he one of the top ten third basemen ever to play? Absolutely.
The problem is that simply being better than the worst player in the HOF should not be the standard. Simply because various groups of Veterans Committee voters tended to be willing to open the doors to anyone who ever shook Frankie Frisch's hand is not reason to induct everyone who slides in above the lowest bar.

You can't kick people out of the HOF who shouldn't be in, but you can keep people out who aren't yet in and shouldn't get in. That's what happened with Santo, and I applaud that.

ewokpelts
02-28-2007, 03:26 AM
Forget Santo.
Minnie has been shut out 2 years in a row. This year by his peers, and last year by the definitive Negro League Panel. Both he and Buck O'Neal(the ULTIMATE ambassador of the Negro Leagues and Ernie Banks' mentor) were snubbed in favor of a white woman PRETENDING TO BE BLACK who was merely MARRIED to a Negro League Owner.

That's all I gotta say about this.

As for Santo, I somehow have a feeling that he'll get the extra five votes in 2009. The cubbie propaganda machine will hammer that fact from now till selection day 2009. And god forbid the Cubs are good in the next two years. the masses will practically DEMAND it.

Gene

chaerulez
02-28-2007, 03:49 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2782088

This guy sucks bad. He's always either kissing Cub or Duke ass and even when he tries other topics (Bears) he still fails miserably. Santo was a good player, but that's not what the HOF is for. I think it's fitting that baseball-reference.om lists Dale Murphy as Santo's most similar batter. Murphy is also not in the HOF, and would probably deserve going more than Santo due to the fact he actually won 2 MVPs to Santo's 0. Santo's next two similar batters are Ken Boyer and Gary Gaetti. I think these are good comparsions too because they both played the same position as Santo and not only had similar stats on offensive, but in defense as well. Again both good players, just not great. If any ex-Cub deserves to go to the HOF it's Andre Dawson, not Ron Santo. It's also worth noting yet again any article that says Santo should be in the HOF brings up his medical condition to get some kind of sympathy vote.

MincHiaPettito
02-28-2007, 04:54 AM
I just ignore his columns now, he s a moron. Ive been watching less ESPN TV too and its been working great. I watched for like 2 minutes today and it was Tim Kurkijan saying that Santo not making it was the biggest snub of all time. No, I am not exaggerating it, he used those words

RadioheadRocks
02-28-2007, 05:02 AM
I watched for like 2 minutes today and it was Tim Kurkijan saying that Santo not making it was the biggest snub of all time. No, I am not exaggerating it, he used those words

Hey Kurkjian,

Go back and check the results from the 1985 Writers HOF Ballot and see what happened to Nellie Fox, then get back to me.


At least in Nellie's case justice finally prevailed, although it took the Veterans Committee FOREVER to finally get it right.

Craig Grebeck
02-28-2007, 08:07 AM
The problem is that simply being better than the worst player in the HOF should not be the standard. Simply because various groups of Veterans Committee voters tended to be willing to open the doors to anyone who ever shook Frankie Frisch's hand is not reason to induct everyone who slides in above the lowest bar.

You can't kick people out of the HOF who shouldn't be in, but you can keep people out who aren't yet in and shouldn't get in. That's what happened with Santo, and I applaud that.
He's not only better than the worst player, he compares favorably to all of the other third baseman in the hall of fame.

ranger_bob
02-28-2007, 08:20 AM
The problem is that simply being better than the worst player in the HOF should not be the standard. Simply because various groups of Veterans Committee voters tended to be willing to open the doors to anyone who ever shook Frankie Frisch's hand is not reason to induct everyone who slides in above the lowest bar.

You can't kick people out of the HOF who shouldn't be in, but you can keep people out who aren't yet in and shouldn't get in. That's what happened with Santo, and I applaud that.

Oh I agree that being better than the worst shouldn't get a player in. But when looking at the numbers, Santo simply isn't better than the worst. He's middle of the pack. He played a position that is grossly under-represented in the HOF. Only 13 3B, and three of those from the Negro Leagues. He's clearly in the middle group, and depending on which numbers you like, upper half.

ranger_bob
02-28-2007, 08:36 AM
Why was Santo never voted as MVP?

Why is it that the highest he reached in MVP was 4th?

Why was Santo passed over for what 15 years by the baseball writers?

It's true that Santo never earned an MVP, but that is also true of 7 of 10 non-Negro League third basemen. His highest finish of fourt puts him on the same plane as HOFers Wade Boggs and George Kell and ahead of such luminaries as Pie Traynor and Jimmy Collins.

As to why the voters never voted for him, I have no clue because when looking at his numbers, he clearly belongs. Considering he came up before election with the BBWAA prior to the induction of Brett, Boggs, and Schmidt makes that omission even more glaring. My only explanation is that those writers aren't capable of looking at a stat sheet or are incompetent to evaluate players in comparison to others.

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-28-2007, 09:10 AM
Personally I think Santo's constant whinning and getting the Tribune Company involved to 'influence' the voting pisses off more folks and doesn't help him at all.

But now the Trib has its "Lovable Loser" ammo for the 2007 baseball season; they'll "dedicate" the season to this shameless self promoter to help their "new" team this year.

For a guy who can't make one cognitive sentence over a public airwave, who had his # retired by the team he works for (no coinkidink there), this smells of a huge "Win it for Ronnie!!" campaign in 2007.

Fresh blue Kool Aid, coming right up...

SouthSide_HitMen
02-28-2007, 09:11 AM
It's true that Santo never earned an MVP, but that is also true of 7 of 10 non-Negro League third basemen. His highest finish of fourt puts him on the same plane as HOFers Wade Boggs and George Kell and ahead of such luminaries as Pie Traynor and Jimmy Collins.

As to why the voters never voted for him, I have no clue because when looking at his numbers, he clearly belongs. Considering he came up before election with the BBWAA prior to the induction of Brett, Boggs, and Schmidt makes that omission even more glaring. My only explanation is that those writers aren't capable of looking at a stat sheet or are incompetent to evaluate players in comparison to others.

I'm not a Santo fan by any means and think his campaign has been shameful and appalling (http://www.thisoldcub.com/) to most of the civilized world but if you look at his numbers objectively he does rate in the upper 1/3 - 1/2 of HOF 3B. A few of the VC inductees should not have been inducted in the first place but the fact remains Santo would be one of the Veterans Committee better selections, as revolting as that may be.

I think the hall should have a relative equal representation among the positions and 3B is sorely underrepesented in the HOF. Also, the 1960s was a pitching dominant era so Santo's numbers were tougher to come by than say the 1920s or the current era.

Catchers 16
First Baseman / DH 22
Second Baseman 18
Shortstops 22
Third Baseman 13
Left Fielders 19
Center Fielders 23
Right Fielders 22

DrCrawdad
02-28-2007, 09:20 AM
It's true that Santo never earned an MVP, but that is also true of 7 of 10 non-Negro League third basemen. His highest finish of fourt puts him on the same plane as HOFers Wade Boggs and George Kell and ahead of such luminaries as Pie Traynor and Jimmy Collins.

As to why the voters never voted for him, I have no clue because when looking at his numbers, he clearly belongs. Considering he came up before election with the BBWAA prior to the induction of Brett, Boggs, and Schmidt makes that omission even more glaring. My only explanation is that those writers aren't capable of looking at a stat sheet or are incompetent to evaluate players in comparison to others.

You and "SouthsideHitmen" made convincing arguments. Thanks.

For the record though, are you a Cubs fan?

Dan Mega
02-28-2007, 09:27 AM
Now that Santo has not been elected, can we end the debate until the next time voting comes up again? 100+ posts dedicated to Santo?

:rowand "Even I can't top that!"

ranger_bob
02-28-2007, 09:27 AM
I have Cub sympathies, but I'm a Ranger fan first and foremost. I have some Cub fans in my family however.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-28-2007, 09:39 AM
I have Cub sympathies, but I'm a Ranger fan first and foremost. I have some Cub fans in my family however.

My family is mostly Cub fans :angry: as well but my mom is a Sox fan and would probably shoot me if she read my post somewhat defending Santo's candidacy. :redneck

She was a Cubs fan until 1969 and Santo's shameful display against his teammate as well as the team's sorry behavior during the rest of the season.

Mom and my grandparents were the only Sox fans to give me backup growing up. All but two of my classmates in grade school were Cubs fans - they shot off fireworks in front of my house after the Sox were eliminated in 1983. :o:

I did get some revenge the following year. :cool: Back then it was friendly natured ribbing. Both teams sucked for the most part and the crosstown classic was rightfully an exhibition game for charity.

As I stated earlier (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1496318&postcount=107), I rather have the VC disbanded as their initial purpose, to induct 19th century HOFers, has well since passed. Also, I certainly did not shed a tear when Santo was rejected yesterday. My only point is he does have a legitmate case and if he is eventually inducted he would be among the VC's better selections. I'm in no rush to see it happen, however.

:gulp:

johnr1note
02-28-2007, 09:44 AM
I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but as I look at and crunch the numbers, it appears that Santo's omission is a bit dubious. The stats certainly support his worthiness.

Right now the HOF lists 13 players that have been inducted primarily as 3B. Three of those were inducted from the Negro Leagues.

If Santo were added to the other ten, there would be eleven third basemen in the HOF. So, how would he rank among these other greats? In other words, I wanted to answer the question if Santo would lower the quality of player in the HOF.

Here's what I came up with.

Santo's 342 homeruns would rank him third among HOF thirdbasemen behind only 500 HR club members Mike Schmidt and Eddie Matthews.

Santo's 1331 RBI would rank him fourth among the current HOF third sackers.

His .277 BA might be one of the knocks on him as six of the ten HOF third basemen have hit over 300. However, there still would be four HOF thirdbasemen with lower batting averages.

Santo has five Gold Gloves. Only two HOF thirdbasemen (Schmidt and Robinson) have more, and six have none.

Santo's 954 Fielding % ranks him at sixth would be middle of the pack.

Santo scored 1138 runs which places him in the middle of the pack at fifth.

His 362 OBP would rank him sixth and his 464 SLG would rank him fourth.

Finally, his OPS+ of 125 would rank him fifth and his 324 Win Shares would be fifth on the list as well.

There's not a single category that would rank him in the lower third. Most metrics place him squarely in the middle of the pack among HOF thirdbasemen.

I don't think there should be a doubt he belongs. Now, that may not be a popular view here. But looking at the numbers from an intellectually honest view, Santo belongs. Did Santo rub some people the wrong way? Certainly. Is he a sure-fire, upper echelon HOF? No. Was he one of the top ten third basemen ever to play? Absolutely.

You are making the mistake of comparing Santo to the other HOF 3rd baseman based on modern statistical standards. You are also presuming that simply because a mistake was made in allowing a "lesser light" into the HOF, that we should perpeturate that concept by allowing other marginal players in.

I mentioned it already in an earlier post -- there is more to HOF eligibility than statistics. If it were not so, there are many players with Ron Santo-like stats who should be there. Santo was the CAPTAIN of those near-great Cub teams. If you look at his performance in the stretch drives of the pennant chases of 1969-73 or so, one thing is apparent -- Ron Santo failed. Of all the good/great players on the team, he is the one you can single out as the poster boy for why the Cubs choked in each of those seasons, most particuarly in 1969.

Look at the other non-negro league HOF third basemen -- almost to a man, they were team leaders who besides being great, all star quality players who won gold gloves, HR titles etc. -- they carried thier team into the playoffs or world series with bat and glove. They were proven winners. All other things being equal, Santo was never a winner. The only current HOF third baseman with statistics similar to Santo with a similar dearth of post season experience is George Kell. Kell was a much better pure hitter than Santo, and, most of his teams never had the opportunity to BE a winner. Even Jimmy collins played for the 1903 world champion Red sox. And he played in the deadball era, so statistical compairisons are futile.

To paraphrase a bibilical axiom, Ron Santo has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Over and over and over again.

Hitmen77
02-28-2007, 10:02 AM
He's lying. Back in the early 90's I saw a quote by Santo saying that when he first came up with the Cubs he noticed how the Sox were the talk of the town.

When he first came up with the Cubs, the Sox were defending American League champions. Any talk about not even knowing who the Sox were is just him pandering to the Cub fans' attitude that the Sox "don't exist".

spiffie
02-28-2007, 10:38 AM
You are making the mistake of comparing Santo to the other HOF 3rd baseman based on modern statistical standards. You are also presuming that simply because a mistake was made in allowing a "lesser light" into the HOF, that we should perpeturate that concept by allowing other marginal players in.

I mentioned it already in an earlier post -- there is more to HOF eligibility than statistics. If it were not so, there are many players with Ron Santo-like stats who should be there. Santo was the CAPTAIN of those near-great Cub teams. If you look at his performance in the stretch drives of the pennant chases of 1969-73 or so, one thing is apparent -- Ron Santo failed. Of all the good/great players on the team, he is the one you can single out as the poster boy for why the Cubs choked in each of those seasons, most particuarly in 1969.

Look at the other non-negro league HOF third basemen -- almost to a man, they were team leaders who besides being great, all star quality players who won gold gloves, HR titles etc. -- they carried thier team into the playoffs or world series with bat and glove. They were proven winners. All other things being equal, Santo was never a winner. The only current HOF third baseman with statistics similar to Santo with a similar dearth of post season experience is George Kell. Kell was a much better pure hitter than Santo, and, most of his teams never had the opportunity to BE a winner. Even Jimmy collins played for the 1903 world champion Red sox. And he played in the deadball era, so statistical compairisons are futile.

To paraphrase a bibilical axiom, Ron Santo has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Over and over and over again.
Interesting fact about Santo that speaks to what you're talking about is that over his career his OPS in Sept. was 70 points lower than his career average. When the season got hard and they needed someone to step up, Ronnie was not that guy.

Also, again with some of these arguments the problem is that Ron is being compared to guys who probably shouldn't be in there. The list of 3B inducted by the writers (as opposed to either Negro-League committee or guys who got inducted by the horribly incompetent veteran's committee) is as follows with their HOF standards and HOF monitor scores:

Wade Boggs (57.5, 267)
George Brett (60.6, 210.5)
Eddie Mathews (53.6, 152.5)
Brooks Robinson (34, 128)
Mike Schmidt (55.6, 249.5)
Pie Traynor (43.1, 96)

Ron Santo scores at a 40.9 and 88. The average HOF'er scores at a 50, 100. The only two 3B elected by the writers who don't exceed those numbers drastically are Robinson, the best fielding 3B of all-time, and Traynor. And even Traynor comes out better than Santo.

Ron Santo was a very good player. He was better than some people who, sadly, have been inducted into the HOF. But at some point there will always be someone who is the best guy not good enough for the HOF. Right now it seems Santo might be that guy.

ILuvThatDuck
02-28-2007, 10:38 AM
Can we put this to bed until 2009?

spiffie
02-28-2007, 10:41 AM
Can we put this to bed until 2009?
Heaven forbid we discuss the leading vote-getter for the Hall of Fame at a baseball site!

soxfan13
02-28-2007, 10:42 AM
You are making the mistake of comparing Santo to the other HOF 3rd baseman based on modern statistical standards. You are also presuming that simply because a mistake was made in allowing a "lesser light" into the HOF, that we should perpeturate that concept by allowing other marginal players in.

I mentioned it already in an earlier post -- there is more to HOF eligibility than statistics. If it were not so, there are many players with Ron Santo-like stats who should be there. Santo was the CAPTAIN of those near-great Cub teams. If you look at his performance in the stretch drives of the pennant chases of 1969-73 or so, one thing is apparent -- Ron Santo failed. Of all the good/great players on the team, he is the one you can single out as the poster boy for why the Cubs choked in each of those seasons, most particuarly in 1969.

Look at the other non-negro league HOF third basemen -- almost to a man, they were team leaders who besides being great, all star quality players who won gold gloves, HR titles etc. -- they carried thier team into the playoffs or world series with bat and glove. They were proven winners. All other things being equal, Santo was never a winner. The only current HOF third baseman with statistics similar to Santo with a similar dearth of post season experience is George Kell. Kell was a much better pure hitter than Santo, and, most of his teams never had the opportunity to BE a winner. Even Jimmy collins played for the 1903 world champion Red sox. And he played in the deadball era, so statistical compairisons are futile.

To paraphrase a bibilical axiom, Ron Santo has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Over and over and over again.

I am sorry but Santo should be in. Yes you can compare stats because Santos stats were put up in the supposed "pitchers golden era". Also why does your team, according to you, have to make the playoffs and win a World Series? If a player such as Mays put up his exact numbers and his team never made the playoffs according to you he shouldnt be in the Hall. Also a modern example would be Bonds (minus the steroid accusations) a few of his teams have made the playoffs but he has choked big thime when playing in them.

ranger_bob
02-28-2007, 10:55 AM
Interesting fact about Santo that speaks to what you're talking about is that over his career his OPS in Sept. was 70 points lower than his career average. When the season got hard and they needed someone to step up, Ronnie was not that guy.

.


Could Santo's weaker numbers in September be attributed to having played an entire season with diabetes?

The season often has a grind on the best of ball players. Adding to it the effects of being a diabetic likely accelerates that.

I'm not sure I want "clutchiness" being a HOF criteria anyway.

By most metrics, Santo should have been inducted long ago.

spiffie
02-28-2007, 10:58 AM
Could Santo's weaker numbers in September be attributed to having played an entire season with diabetes?

The season often has a grind on the best of ball players. Adding to it the effects of being a diabetic likely accelerates that.

I'm not sure I want "clutchiness" being a HOF criteria anyway.

By most metrics, Santo should have been inducted long ago.
Maybe those numbers could be. It's a damn shame he had diabetes. It's a damn shame Jim Abbott only had one hand too. I can applaud the man for being brave enough to play with this disorder, yet still look at what he did objectively.

And by every single HOF metric that Bill James elucidates in his book on the HOF Santo falls short. He fails the Black Ink test, the Gray Ink test, the HOF monitor, and the HOF Standards test.

chaerulez
02-28-2007, 11:12 AM
Off the top of my head I can name two players with Chicago history that deserve to be the HOF before Santo.

Jim Kaat
Andre Dawson

The fact it took Nellie Fox forever to get in is a shame. I think Alan Trammell would also be another player that deserves to get in before Santo. I've always found it odd that Santo's number has been retired by the Cubs but not Fergie Jenkins who is in the HOF.

ranger_bob
02-28-2007, 11:19 AM
Maybe those numbers could be. It's a damn shame he had diabetes. It's a damn shame Jim Abbott only had one hand too. I can applaud the man for being brave enough to play with this disorder, yet still look at what he did objectively.

And by every single HOF metric that Bill James elucidates in his book on the HOF Santo falls short. He fails the Black Ink test, the Gray Ink test, the HOF monitor, and the HOF Standards test.

That's interesting because James himself believes Santo belongs.

Here is a quote by James on Santo.

During his career Ron Santo was a nine-time All-Star. He finished in the top ten in MVP voting four times. He had the fifth highest RBI total of all major league players during the 1960s (topped only by Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Harmon Killebrew and Frank Robinson). During that period no player in the National League drew more walks. 3 He won five consecutive Gold Gloves at third base, and led NL third basemen in putouts, assists, chances and double plays in many seasons. He was among the league leaders in on base percentage and slugging percentage throughout the 1960s; he finished in the top 10 in both categories in his league in every season from 1964 through 1967. He hit more home runs in his career than any third baseman currently in the Hall of Fame other than Mike Schmidt and Eddie Mathews.

And one more by James,

To me it is clear and unequivocal that Santo is a Hall of Famer. ... Putting guys like George Kell, Freddy Lindstrom, and Tony Lazzeri in the Hall of Fame while you leave out Ron Santo is like putting Dalmatians, Palominos, and Siamese in the zoo while you let the lions roam the streets.

I think the last one sums it up best.

spiffie
02-28-2007, 11:26 AM
That's interesting because James himself believes Santo belongs.
Just goes to show sometimes even the guy who invents a metric doesn't always buy into it. And that's when you end up getting into those "intangibles" that people have brought up. His lack of ability to step up his game (for whatever reason) in the stretch run, his demeanor with teammates (the showing up of Don Young), etc. And those things do not help Santo's cause.

Bill James isn't a robot. He's a guy who grew up watching baseball, and is a human being with feelings. To most of the world, Santo has been presented as a tragic figure who lives every day just hoping to get into the HOF. It's only natural that when given that image many people will check their hyperrationality at the door and give into the human urge to make an old man dying of diabetes and walking on prosthetic legs have a moment of pure unrefined joy and love from millions.

I however, living in Chicago and having to deal with the endless Santo apologists have no problem saying **** him, I hope he dies never having been inducted into the HOF because he doesn't belong in there. Him getting in would be the equivalent of the Weinstein Brothers basically buying the Best Picture Oscar for Shakespeare in Love.

Oh, and as for the last quote, here's another one from James:
The real problems with the Hall of Fame argument are caused by the Lowest Common Denominator Argument...There is no end to it. The circle of players who could be honored by this logic would expand ceaselessly; it would never reach its boundary. If Charlie Grimm, why not Lu Blue and Jack Fournier. If Lu Blue, why not Phil Cavaretta and Dolph Camilli? Why not Rudy York and Vic Wertz.

The Lowest Common Denominator argument assumes that everyone who is as good as the worst player now in the Hall of Fame should be honored.

Using the logic of the lowest common denominator, yesterday's mistakes become a curse from which the Hall of Fame can never escape.

The widespread acceptance of the If-One-Then argument causes there to be a large number of candidates who are seen as fully qualified Hall of Famers by their own supporters. This then reduces the selection process to a political battle among the advocates of the dozens of popular candidates.

That last quote sums up Santo perfectly.

johnr1note
02-28-2007, 11:44 AM
I am sorry but Santo should be in. Yes you can compare stats because Santos stats were put up in the supposed "pitchers golden era". Also why does your team, according to you, have to make the playoffs and win a World Series? If a player such as Mays put up his exact numbers and his team never made the playoffs according to you he shouldnt be in the Hall. Also a modern example would be Bonds (minus the steroid accusations) a few of his teams have made the playoffs but he has choked big thime when playing in them.

If I did not make myself clear, I apologize. But someone like Mays has such overpowering statistics, it doesn't matter what kind of team he played on. Bonds (if you put the steroid controversy aside) also had those kinds of stats. Ty Cobb and Ted Williams never had much in the realm of post season success either, but thier overwhelming brilliance as players get them in, regardless of the quality of team they played for.

Santo's statistics are borderline. He didn't hit 500 home runs, or get 3000 hits, etc., the criteria we usually expect for a "slam dunk" hall of fame selection for a hitter. What I am saying is that compared to the other 3rd basemen in the HOF, Santo fails in the "intangibles," his ability as a team leader, his ability to carry his team with his bat and glove. These are not necessarily requirements for HOF membership. But in Santo's case, for those of us who watched him play, I see it as the defining issue in his career. There are, what, 3 hall of famers on that 69 Cubs squad? Yet, as it has been explained by me and others in previous posts here, Santo was the major "let down" factor in the failure of those Cubs teams.

I think the arguments made for his inclusion by you and ranger bob have merit. I just think that when it comes to HOF caibre players, Ron is borderline 2nd tier. He just doesn't make the cut. This takes nothing away from his accomplishments. But I think the total "Santo package" is not the quality player that belongs in the hall of fame.

In an earlier post here, I suggested a poll -- pick any third baseman from history you would want in your lineup in game 7 of a world series, who would you choose? Based on statistics, history, character and makeup of each of the players, I bet any thinking baseball man never chooses Santo, when you could have Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt, Ken Boyer, or even our own Joe Crede.

I also admit my "flubsessed" bias probably plays a role in my dislike of Santo. But I think the evidence is strong enough to support my case.

My aging father, who used to refer to Santo as "King of the Warning Track Fly Balls," yesterday told me because its a borderline case, they should just let Santo in, so an aging, ill man can enjoy an honor he otherwise would be without. I'm not sure I want to HOF to be based on sentiment.

soxfan13
02-28-2007, 12:26 PM
If I did not make myself clear, I apologize. But someone like Mays has such overpowering statistics, it doesn't matter what kind of team he played on. Bonds (if you put the steroid controversy aside) also had those kinds of stats. Ty Cobb and Ted Williams never had much in the realm of post season success either, but thier overwhelming brilliance as players get them in, regardless of the quality of team they played for.

Santo's statistics are borderline. He didn't hit 500 home runs, or get 3000 hits, etc., the criteria we usually expect for a "slam dunk" hall of fame selection for a hitter. What I am saying is that compared to the other 3rd basemen in the HOF, Santo fails in the "intangibles," his ability as a team leader, his ability to carry his team with his bat and glove. These are not necessarily requirements for HOF membership. But in Santo's case, for those of us who watched him play, I see it as the defining issue in his career. There are, what, 3 hall of famers on that 69 Cubs squad? Yet, as it has been explained by me and others in previous posts here, Santo was the major "let down" factor in the failure of those Cubs teams.

I think the arguments made for his inclusion by you and ranger bob have merit. I just think that when it comes to HOF caibre players, Ron is borderline 2nd tier. He just doesn't make the cut. This takes nothing away from his accomplishments. But I think the total "Santo package" is not the quality player that belongs in the hall of fame.

In an earlier post here, I suggested a poll -- pick any third baseman from history you would want in your lineup in game 7 of a world series, who would you choose? Based on statistics, history, character and makeup of each of the players, I bet any thinking baseball man never chooses Santo, when you could have Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt, Ken Boyer, or even our own Joe Crede.

I also admit my "flubsessed" bias probably plays a role in my dislike of Santo. But I think the evidence is strong enough to support my case.

My aging father, who used to refer to Santo as "King of the Warning Track Fly Balls," yesterday told me because its a borderline case, they should just let Santo in, so an aging, ill man can enjoy an honor he otherwise would be without. I'm not sure I want to HOF to be based on sentiment.

He might be boderline in comparing him to all HOFers but he is by no way 2nd tier in comparing him to the 3rd basemen that are in the hall. The stats have already been thrown out there in this thread so I wont rehash them. I agree with you that he shouldnt be put in just because of just plain "poor old Ron is sick and dying, lets give him his last wish". I think he deserves it on what he did in the field.
I cant believe I am defending a Cub player:tongue:

TDog
02-28-2007, 12:47 PM
...

As to why the voters never voted for him, I have no clue because when looking at his numbers, he clearly belongs. Considering he came up before election with the BBWAA prior to the induction of Brett, Boggs, and Schmidt makes that omission even more glaring. My only explanation is that those writers aren't capable of looking at a stat sheet or are incompetent to evaluate players in comparison to others.

It isn't about numbers on a page. A 20-something last summer told me he didn't understand why Aparicio was in the Hall of Fame. Of course, he never saw him play. The writers who never came close to electing Santo saw him play. It wasn't that Santo was forgotten. He always kept a high profile.

Santo wasn't Tony Lazzeri, a feared clutch RBI machine for the most dominant team in baseball. He didn't put up his respectable-by-Hall-of-Fame-standards numbers (albeit in a hitters' park) on a team devoid of any other talent. He played most of the 1960s with Banks and Willilams. In 1969, most of the Cubs regulars played for the NL in the All-Star Game. Santo wasn't the reason the Cubs finished 8 games behind the Mets after holding an 8.5-game lead in August, but his play and actions contributed to the mess. And despite having Hall of Fame teammates, that was as close as he came to playing for a winner. Not everyone can win and no one wins every year, but the Veterans Commitee didn't see fit to elect the Mighty Casey either.

Santo was a loser. Santo is celebrated by a team and fan that celebrates losing. There is a huge difference between the Cubs Hall of Fame and Cooperstown.

AZChiSoxFan
02-28-2007, 01:55 PM
If Santo played on the Royals and was an insurance salesman after his playing days, this conversion wouldn't be happening on a annual basis.

I think this is POTW material and sums up this entire thread perfectly.

AZChiSoxFan
02-28-2007, 01:57 PM
The writers who never came close to electing Santo saw him play. It wasn't that Santo was forgotten.



Great point TDog. Totally agree.

voodoochile
02-28-2007, 02:08 PM
The writers who never came close to electing Santo saw him play. It wasn't that Santo was forgotten. He always kept a high profile.

You are correct. He wasn't forgotten, he was rejected. In fact it was more than a rejection, it was one of those slapped into the fifth row, finger wagging, trash talking, here's your hat, what's your hurry, don't let the door hit you on the way out rejections.

Fenway
02-28-2007, 02:13 PM
Gammons was asked on WEEI about Santo

"He will get in when he is dead. He has angered many ( especially Bob Feller ) by not shutting up about not being in."

soxfan13
02-28-2007, 03:11 PM
Gammons was asked on WEEI about Santo

"He will get in when he is dead. He has angered many ( especially Bob Feller ) by not shutting up about not being in."

Boy they are a bunch of cankerous fellows:smile:

PaulDrake
02-28-2007, 04:31 PM
You are correct. He wasn't forgotten, he was rejected. In fact it was more than a rejection, it was one of those slapped into the fifth row, finger wagging, trash talking, here's your hat, what's your hurry, don't let the door hit you on the way out rejections. Kind of like Billy Pierce and Minnie Minoso got.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-28-2007, 06:25 PM
In an earlier post here, I suggested a poll -- pick any third baseman from history you would want in your lineup in game 7 of a world series, who would you choose? Based on statistics, history, character and makeup of each of the players, I bet any thinking baseball man never chooses Santo, when you could have Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt, Ken Boyer, or even our own Joe Crede.

Ok, I like using hyperboyle more than most and Joe Crede is my favorite current White Sox player but you cannot seriously say Joe Crede rates as a better 3B as Ron Santo.

I cant believe I am defending a Cub player:tongue:

I'm with you Sox fan.


Santo was a loser. Santo is celebrated by a team and fan that celebrates losing. There is a huge difference between the Cubs Hall of Fame and Cooperstown.

Should Banks, Williams and Jenkins be considered losers as well? How about Ted Williams, Harold Baines, Nellie Fox or Tony Gwynn? Gayle Sayers, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino and Barry Sanders? (And I am not saying Santo is on par with a Ted Williams - I'm simply asking should they be considered losers?)

IMO, there are dozens of HOFers in the hall riding the coattails of teammates. They were at the right place at the right time. They did not qualify on their own merits. The HOF is not a team award, it is an individual award. Players from Phil Rizzuto to Tony Perez and many others in between are in the HOF solely because of the front of their uniform, not the back of their uniform.

I think there are legitimate arguments for and against Santo, but I don't think what team you played for is a factor of whether or not you are HOF worthy. Walter Payton and Frank Thomas were HOFers even if they retired in 1984 and 2004, respectively and they certainly weren't losers.

TDog
02-28-2007, 08:15 PM
Ok, I like using hyperboyle more than most and Joe Crede is my favorite current White Sox player but you cannot seriously say Joe Crede rates as a better 3B as Ron Santo.

...

Should Banks, Williams and Jenkins be considered losers as well? How about Ted Williams, Harold Baines, Nellie Fox or Tony Gwynn? Gayle Sayers, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino and Barry Sanders? (And I am not saying Santo is on par with a Ted Williams - I'm simply asking should they be considered losers?)

IMO, there are dozens of HOFers in the hall riding the coattails of teammates. They were at the right place at the right time. They did not qualify on their own merits. The HOF is not a team award, it is an individual award. Players from Phil Rizzuto to Tony Perez and many others in between are in the HOF solely because of the front of their uniform, not the back of their uniform.

I think there are legitimate arguments for and against Santo, but I don't think what team you played for is a factor of whether or not you are HOF worthy. Walter Payton and Frank Thomas were HOFers even if they retired in 1984 and 2004, respectively and they certainly weren't losers.

First of all, Joe Crede is better defensively than Ron Santo was. And Crede probably has more big hits in seven seasons than Santo did in 15. But I won't compare Crede to Santo. Ernie Banks and Billy Williams, like Ted Williams and Tony Gwynn, were among the premier hitters of their generation and certainly Hall of Fame worthy, but I'm sure you're not comparing Santo to any of them. Santo wasn't even good enough to ride in on their coattails into the postseason. Santo put up some numbers -- inflated numbers in a hitters' ballpark -- but he wasn't a winner. Had Tony Perez been the Cubs' third baseman in 1969, Cubs fans probably wouldn't be whining about that stupid goat.

I haven't heard of most of the non-baseball people you mention so I wouldn't call them losers. (I did read Gale Sayres' autobiography, however, and know that he had a short career.) And I hope you're not comparing Santo to Nellie Fox, a man who came to the Sox and was one of the reasons the Sox were competitive in years of Yankee dynasty. Only in Fox's first year with the Sox did the team have a losing record. Letting your teammates down, choking your team's chances away at nearly every opportunity is a legitimate knock on a player. That was never a knock on Fox, but it was the knock on Santo when he was a player. No matter how you spin Santo's .277 lifetime batting average, being a loser isn't the same as being a great player on a losing team.

Vernam
02-28-2007, 08:37 PM
Gammons was asked on WEEI about Santo

"He will get in when he is dead. He has angered many ( especially Bob Feller ) by not shutting up about not being in."And last week, Santo said he doesn't want to get in posthumously. That settles that! :redneck

Vernam

Hitmen77
02-28-2007, 09:01 PM
Ok, I like using hyperboyle more than most and Joe Crede is my favorite current White Sox player but you cannot seriously say Joe Crede rates as a better 3B as Ron Santo.



To be fair, I believe the poster said he'd rather have Crede up in a clutch situation (game 7 of the world series). I don't see that as the same thing as saying Crede rates as a better 3B than Santo.

johnr1note
03-01-2007, 12:11 PM
To be fair, I believe the poster said he'd rather have Crede up in a clutch situation (game 7 of the world series). I don't see that as the same thing as saying Crede rates as a better 3B than Santo.

That is exactly what I meant. Santo played, and for the most part played well, over 15 seasons, Crede has only played 7. Santo's peak production years (about 1963-1967, when he was 23-27 years old) yielded offensive statistics that are far better then Crede's peak years so far (Joe is 29 this year, I think). Obviously, by even arguing that Santo might belong in the HOF, he is a far better overall player than our man Joe, especially when you isolate those peak years.

But, Joe does not compare poorly with "this Old Cub" when you look at lifetime averages. Joe's lifetime BA is .262, Santo's is .277. Santo obviously walked more than Joe ever has (OBP of .362 to Joe's .308), but Joe's slugging is very near to Ron's (.455 for Joe, .464 for Santo). Santo's HR totals for the same point of his career is much higher (167 to 104), but, to be fair, Joe had only played in 77 games at the start of his 4th season in a Sox uniform, Ronnie played 95 games his rookie year, and was the starting third baseman from then on. As a third baseman, Joe has ten points on Santo in fielding percentage, but Ron had a better range factor.

I am not trying to argue that Joe Crede is in the same orbit as Santo. Maybe if he puts up these kinds of numbers for the next 6 to 8 years, we can talk apples instead of oranges. But for those of our northside bretheren who argue that Joe isn't much of a third baseman, he is at least cut from similar cloth as thier "hero."

The real point of my argument is that Santo spent the most crucial part of his career -- when the Cubs had a contending team in the late 60s and early 70s -- living up to my Dad's nickname for him, "King of the Warning Track Fly balls." When the division title was on the line for the Cubs, Ronnie choked. I have DVD evidence to show example after example of Joe carrying the Sox on his back, with his bat AND his glove, at crucial points in the pennant race and in the postseason. That is an intangible that Santo lacked. It is an intangible that Brooks Robinson possessed in spades, as well as most of the other HOF third baseman, like Mike Schmidt, Wade Boggs, Eddie Mathews, even Frank Baker and Freddy Lindstrom. You don't have to be play for a winner to be a HOFer. But if your career stats are otherwise borderline, AND you failed to carry your team when they needed you? That's the makeup of an ordinary ballplayer -- an allstar to be sure, but not one deserving of baseball's Valhalla.

soxfan13
03-01-2007, 12:30 PM
That is exactly what I meant. Santo played, and for the most part played well, over 15 seasons, Crede has only played 7. Santo's peak production years (about 1963-1967, when he was 23-27 years old) yielded offensive statistics that are far better then Crede's peak years so far (Joe is 29 this year, I think). Obviously, by even arguing that Santo might belong in the HOF, he is a far better overall player than our man Joe, especially when you isolate those peak years.

But, Joe does not compare poorly with "this Old Cub" when you look at lifetime averages. Joe's lifetime BA is .262, Santo's is .277. Santo obviously walked more than Joe ever has (OBP of .362 to Joe's .308), but Joe's slugging is very near to Ron's (.455 for Joe, .464 for Santo). Santo's HR totals for the same point of his career is much higher (167 to 104), but, to be fair, Joe had only played in 77 games at the start of his 4th season in a Sox uniform, Ronnie played 95 games his rookie year, and was the starting third baseman from then on. As a third baseman, Joe has ten points on Santo in fielding percentage, but Ron had a better range factor.

I am not trying to argue that Joe Crede is in the same orbit as Santo. Maybe if he puts up these kinds of numbers for the next 6 to 8 years, we can talk apples instead of oranges. But for those of our northside bretheren who argue that Joe isn't much of a third baseman, he is at least cut from similar cloth as thier "hero."

The real point of my argument is that Santo spent the most crucial part of his career -- when the Cubs had a contending team in the late 60s and early 70s -- living up to my Dad's nickname for him, "King of the Warning Track Fly balls." When the division title was on the line for the Cubs, Ronnie choked. I have DVD evidence to show example after example of Joe carrying the Sox on his back, with his bat AND his glove, at crucial points in the pennant race and in the postseason. That is an intangible that Santo lacked. It is an intangible that Brooks Robinson possessed in spades, as well as most of the other HOF third baseman, like Mike Schmidt, Wade Boggs, Eddie Mathews, even Frank Baker and Freddy Lindstrom. You don't have to be play for a winner to be a HOFer. But if your career stats are otherwise borderline, AND you failed to carry your team when they needed you? That's the makeup of an ordinary ballplayer -- an allstar to be sure, but not one deserving of baseball's Valhalla.

What about Banks and Williams you cant blame the Cubs failure to make the playoffs on one player! I also forgot Fergie Jenkins. Lets see 3 Hall of Fame players on that team but you are putting it all on Santos back.

Risk
03-01-2007, 01:08 PM
What about Banks and Williams you cant blame the Cubs failure to make the playoffs on one player! I also forgot Fergie Jenkins. Lets see 3 Hall of Fame players on that team but you are putting it all on Santos back.

I don't necessarily buy the argument that it was all on Santo for the unlovable losers failure to ever do anything of note during his tenure. However, at least with all three of those guys you named, they all had more individual accomplishments than Santo ever had (Ernie Banks hit 500+ homeruns, 2 time MVP; Billy Williams was ROY and had superior numbers, albeit at a different position; Fergie Jenkins had 7 20+ win seasons and was arguably one of the best pitchers during his era). The same can't be said for a guy like Santo who doesn't have not only the numbers or the individual accomplishments.

I believe that had he done something along the lines of Brooks Robinson (a guy who had less accomplished offensive numbers, but was instrumental in helping his Orioles teams win championships), he probably would be in. However, for someone who had stats that are borderline HOF and didn't have any success in the postseason (when it mattered), I still think it is a stretch for him to be in the Hall of Fame. Ultimately though, another poster said it best (and I'm paraphrasing)--..."The baseball writers had fifteen occasions to put him in, and never once did..." I won't even address the fact of Santo being a major league asshat, as I don't think its relevant to the discussion.

Risk

soxfan13
03-01-2007, 01:25 PM
I don't necessarily buy the argument that it was all on Santo for the unlovable losers failure to ever do anything of note during his tenure. However, at least with all three of those guys you named, they all had more individual accomplishments than Santo ever had (Ernie Banks hit 500+ homeruns, 2 time MVP; Billy Williams was ROY and had superior numbers, albeit at a different position; Fergie Jenkins had 7 20+ win seasons and was arguably one of the best pitchers during his era). The same can't be said for a guy like Santo who doesn't have not only the numbers or the individual accomplishments.

I believe that had he done something along the lines of Brooks Robinson (a guy who had less accomplished offensive numbers, but was instrumental in helping his Orioles teams win championships), he probably would be in. However, for someone who had stats that are borderline HOF and didn't have any success in the postseason (when it mattered), I still think it is a stretch for him to be in the Hall of Fame. Ultimately though, another poster said it best (and I'm paraphrasing)--..."The baseball writers had fifteen occasions to put him in, and never once did..." I won't even address the fact of Santo being a major league asshat, as I don't think its relevant to the discussion.

Risk

I agree they did have better numbers in their career but specifically Jenkins went 3-4 in September of 69 "thats not a HOFer"(I would use teal but my computer is screwy). Also his stats arent boderline when compared to the other 3rd basemen in the Hall. He is in the top 5 in most categories.

TDog
03-01-2007, 02:08 PM
I agree they did have better numbers in their career but specifically Jenkins went 3-4 in September of 69 "thats not a HOFer"(I would use teal but my computer is screwy). Also his stats arent boderline when compared to the other 3rd basemen in the Hall. He is in the top 5 in most categories.

The players you are comparing Santo to didn't get in because of their stats. Brooks Robinson would have been elected if he had Ozzie Smith numbers. Mike Schmidt hit more than 500 home runs, but the intangibles Tony Perez demonstrated to get him into the Hall of Fame were intangibles found lacking in Ron Santo by people who saw them play.

Baseball people have told me that if you took away the 1975 World Series, Carlton Fisk would be a borderline Hall of Famer. And if Fisk came up before the Veterans Committee, I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Feller gave him the thumbs down.

soxfan13
03-01-2007, 02:22 PM
The players you are comparing Santo to didn't get in because of their stats. Brooks Robinson would have been elected if he had Ozzie Smith numbers. Mike Schmidt hit more than 500 home runs, but the intangibles Tony Perez demonstrated to get him into the Hall of Fame were intangibles found lacking in Ron Santo by people who saw them play.

Baseball people have told me that if you took away the 1975 World Series, Carlton Fisk would be a borderline Hall of Famer. And if Fisk came up before the Veterans Committee, I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Feller gave him the thumbs down.

I have to really disagree with you on Fisk being borderline if you take away the 75 Series. So you guys keep saying intangibles, then Robin Ventura should be in cuz he was a really swell guy!!:wink: You can give me all the arguements you want about that but I am sorry when you are in the top 5 statistically with the others already in there and throw in the 5 gold gloves and the average of over 100 rbis for 10 years straight. Santo should be in!! Dont blame just him for the Cubs failure to make the playoffs when there were also 3 other HOFers on the team.

TDog
03-01-2007, 02:44 PM
I have to really disagree with you on Fisk being borderline if you take away the 75 Series. So you guys keep saying intangibles, then Robin Ventura should be in cuz he was a really swell guy!!:wink: You can give me all the arguements you want about that but I am sorry when you are in the top 5 statistically with the others already in there and throw in the 5 gold gloves and the average of over 100 rbis for 10 years straight. Santo should be in!! Dont blame just him for the Cubs failure to make the playoffs when there were also 3 other HOFers on the team.

I didn't say that was my opinon on Fisk. That was the opinion of more than one former major league baseball player I've talked to. I've also met Bob Feller, who is a bitter old man.

Many people in the Hall of Fame aren't there because of their stats but because they had a knack for coming up with big performances when their team needed them over a long career. Ozzie Guillen hit .264 over his career and Ozzie Smith hit .262, but if Ozzie Guillen ever joins Ozzie Smith in the Hall of Fame, it won't be becasue of his playing career.

The Hall of Fame voters who watched Santo play never came close to finding him worthy of induction. It wasn't just about 1969, although that was his showcase. When all of those people die and only the numbers are left to judge talent (and we all know that the Gold Glove award is the most accurate judge of a player's defensive excellence), Santo will look a lot better.

soxfan13
03-01-2007, 02:55 PM
I didn't say that was my opinon on Fisk. That was the opinion of more than one former major league baseball player I've talked to. I've also met Bob Feller, who is a bitter old man.

Many people in the Hall of Fame aren't there because of their stats but because they had a knack for coming up with big performances when their team needed them over a long career. Ozzie Guillen hit .264 over his career and Ozzie Smith hit .262, but if Ozzie Guillen ever joins Ozzie Smith in the Hall of Fame, it won't be becasue of his playing career.

The Hall of Fame voters who watched Santo play never came close to finding him worthy of induction. It wasn't just about 1969, although that was his showcase. When all of those people die and only the numbers are left to judge talent (and we all know that the Gold Glove award is the most accurate judge of a player's defensive excellence), Santo will look a lot better.

I understand that there are players in the HOF not based on their stats offensively. Yes, Ozzie Smith one of the greatest defensive SS's of all-time. Brooks Robinson also one of the best defensively of all time. When Santo was on the original ballot he got black balled by the writers because they disliked him as a person. I dont think it had anything to do with his ability. I guess what really bothers me in some of these posts is that people are solely blaming him for a team not making it to the playoffs. On a side note, Feller really is that nasty in person, huh?

PatK
03-01-2007, 02:56 PM
Stats are overrated.

If you use similarity scores, there's players with an identical or better score that aren't in.

spiffie
03-01-2007, 03:07 PM
Stats are overrated.

If you use similarity scores, there's players with an identical or better score that aren't in.
Not only that, but you'll find that with similarity scores, the truly great players tend to be surrounded by other truly great players. Whereas the borderline guys, not so much so. For example, from Ron Santo's era:

Harmon Killibrew (6 HOF's and 1-3 likely HOF's):
Willie McCovey (877) *
Sammy Sosa (854)
Mike Schmidt (848) *
Eddie Mathews (825) *
Willie Stargell (816) *
Fred McGriff (809)
Ken Griffey (807)
Mickey Mantle (806) *
Reggie Jackson (795) *
Darrell Evans (783)

Willie McCovey (5 HOF's and 3-4 likely HOF's):
Fred McGriff (889)
Willie Stargell (883) *
Harmon Killebrew (877) *
Eddie Mathews (855) *
Mike Schmidt (839) *
Sammy Sosa (838)
Jose Canseco (826)
Jeff Bagwell (813)
Frank Thomas (813)
Mickey Mantle (810) *

Carl Yaztrzemski (8 HOFers)
Dave Winfield (852) *
Eddie Murray (833) *
Stan Musial (763) *
Rafael Palmeiro (762)
Al Kaline (761) *
Frank Robinson (747) *
Mel Ott (745) *
Cal Ripken (741) *
Harold Baines (710)
George Brett (702) *

And then there's Santo:
Dale Murphy (875)
Ken Boyer (875)
Gary Gaetti (875)
Bobby Bonilla (868)
Brian Downing (866)
Graig Nettles (861)
Ruben Sierra (860)
Chili Davis (856)
Luis Gonzalez (855)
Robin Ventura (854)

PaulDrake
03-01-2007, 03:27 PM
Stats are overrated.

If you use similarity scores, there's players with an identical or better score that aren't in. Who for instance? I'm just asking now understand. While we're at it, what the hell is a similarity score?

SouthSide_HitMen
03-01-2007, 03:49 PM
Ultimately though, another poster said it best (and I'm paraphrasing)--..."The baseball writers had fifteen occasions to put him in, and never once did..." I won't even address the fact of Santo being a major league asshat, as I don't think its relevant to the discussion.

Risk

Santo was on the ballot once (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1980.htm) and failed to get 5% by 5 votes (15 votes recorded). Whether he would or would not have built momentum after the first ballot is anyone's guess.

Eleven HOF players were on the 1980 ballot, two of which were inducted that year (Al Kaline on his first attempt and Duke Snyder on his 11th).

Of the remaining nine, three were inducted by the BBWAA (Don Drysdale (10th Ballot), Hoyt Wilhelm (8th) & Luis Aparicio (6th)) and the remaining six were inducted by the Veterans Committee after being rejected 15 times (Jim Bunning, Red Schoendienst, Nellie Fox, Richie Ashburn, Orlando Cepeda & Bill Mazeroski). For the record, I don't think more than 1 or 2 of the eventual Veterans Committee players should have been inducted.

Also, people should be aware that several hall of famers inducted by the BBWAA had a handful of votes on their initial ballot (before they had the 5% cut off rule in place).

Luke Appling - 2 votes on his First Ballot, 3 on the second - Inducted on his 7th try.

Lou Boudreau - 2 votes on First Ballot - Inducted on 10th try.

Joe Cronin - 6 votes on First Ballot, Inducted on 10th try.

Gabby Hartnett - 2 votes (5 years after retirement), 10th try.

Ralph Kiner - 3 votes (1st), 13th Ballot.

Red Ruffing - 10 votes (5 years after retirement), 11th try.

(I didn't count votes for players still active / within 5 years of retirement as this would have added many more inductees and wanted to keep this consistent).

Also, Richie Ashburn received only 2.12% on his first ballot.

spiffie
03-01-2007, 04:01 PM
One more thing on Santo...if all the bitching and moaning gets him in, then I damn well hope the same starts up for two former Sox players who have stat lines surely as worthy as Ronnie. The 162 gm averages of two 3B:
277/362/464 26 doubles, 25 HR, 82 Runs, 96 RBI, 5 Gold Gloves
267/362/444 26 doubles, 23 HR, 78 Runs, 92 RBI, 6 Gold Gloves

Once Ron Santo gets in, throw open the doors for our #23, Mr. Robin Ventura. Unless you think that those 2 HR per season are so much of a gap that there is where the line is.

And of course, Harold Baines would have one more HOF player to point to and say "I'm better than him."

TommyJohn
03-01-2007, 05:22 PM
Santo was on the ballot once (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1980.htm) and failed to get 5% by 5 votes (15 votes recorded). Whether he would or would not have built momentum after the first ballot is anyone's guess.

Eleven HOF players were on the 1980 ballot, two of which were inducted that year (Al Kaline on his first attempt and Duke Snyder on his 11th).

Of the remaining nine, three were inducted by the BBWAA (Don Drysdale (10th Ballot), Hoyt Wilhelm (8th) & Luis Aparicio (6th)) and the remaining six were inducted by the Veterans Committee after being rejected 15 times (Jim Bunning, Red Schoendienst, Nellie Fox, Richie Ashburn, Orlando Cepeda & Bill Mazeroski). For the record, I don't think more than 1 or 2 of the eventual Veterans Committee players should have been inducted.

Also, people should be aware that several hall of famers inducted by the BBWAA had a handful of votes on their initial ballot (before they had the 5% cut off rule in place).

Luke Appling - 2 votes on his First Ballot, 3 on the second - Inducted on his 7th try.

Lou Boudreau - 2 votes on First Ballot - Inducted on 10th try.

Joe Cronin - 6 votes on First Ballot, Inducted on 10th try.

Gabby Hartnett - 2 votes (5 years after retirement), 10th try.

Ralph Kiner - 3 votes (1st), 13th Ballot.

Red Ruffing - 10 votes (5 years after retirement), 11th try.

(I didn't count votes for players still active / within 5 years of retirement as this would have added many more inductees and wanted to keep this consistent).

Also, Richie Ashburn received only 2.12% on his first ballot.

Santo was on the ballot more than once. In 1985 his name was restored,
along with Dick Allen and a few others. I don't remember the exact
reasons for it, though.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-01-2007, 06:52 PM
Santo was on the ballot more than once. In 1985 his name was restored,
along with Dick Allen and a few others. I don't remember the exact
reasons for it, though.

Thanks for the correction. I did not realize he returned to the ballot. Santo's highest BBWAA vote total was 43.13% in 1998, his final year on the ballot.

Ron Santo

Year Election Votes Pct
1980 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1980.htm) BBWAA 15 3.90
1985 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1985.htm) BBWAA 53 13.42
1986 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1986.htm) BBWAA 64 15.06
1987 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1987.htm) BBWAA 78 18.89
1988 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1988.htm) BBWAA 108 25.29
1989 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1989.htm) BBWAA 75 16.78
1990 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1990.htm) BBWAA 96 21.62
1991 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1991.htm) BBWAA 116 26.19
1992 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1992.htm) BBWAA 136 31.63
1993 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1993.htm) BBWAA 155 36.64
1994 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1994.htm) BBWAA 150 32.97
1995 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1995.htm) BBWAA 139 30.22
1996 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1996.htm) BBWAA 174 37.02
1997 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1997.htm) BBWAA 186 39.32
1998 (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1998.htm) BBWAA 204 43.13

DrCrawdad
03-01-2007, 10:14 PM
Did you see todays Cubune articles on Santo? My god, would you agree that these articles are a over the top?


Here's some of the melodramatic terms used by Downey and beat writer Paul Sullivan:


Enduring torture
painful conclusion
distraught
recurring nightmare
torture test
hurt
sick
perturbed
devastated
saddest
sad day in baseball's historyOk Cubune sportswriters, Santo was passed over again by the HOF. He should be used to it now. He didn't lose his job, get thrown out on the street.

Sullivan, Downey and the rest of the Cubune propaganda machine, put down the thesauruses and lose the hyperbolic language.

TommyJohn
03-02-2007, 08:06 AM
Did you see todays Cubune articles on Santo? My god, would you agree that these articles are a over the top?


Here's some of the melodramatic terms used by Downey and beat writer Paul Sullivan:

Enduring torture
painful conclusion
distraught
recurring nightmare
torture test
hurt
sick
perturbed
devastated
saddest
sad day in baseball's historyOk Cubune sportswriters, Santo was passed over again by the HOF. He should be used to it now. He didn't lose his job, get thrown out on the street.

Sullivan, Downey and the rest of the Cubune propaganda machine, put down the thesauruses and lose the hyperbolic language.


My favorite was that Santo was the "best thing ever to happen
to baseball" which was a quote from the guy Downey interviewed.
If I went into that one full bore, I'd be typing all night. The words
speak for themselves.

mwc44
03-02-2007, 08:41 AM
My favorite was that Santo was the "best thing ever to happen
to baseball" which was a quote from the guy Downey interviewed.
If I went into that one full bore, I'd be typing all night. The words
speak for themselves.

My thoughts, exactly!

38,000 other people who filled Wrigley on a semi-daily basis back then, who were also looking at the guy who was playing first base, would most likely disagree, and they would definitely be right.

That's just one reason the first baseman is in the HOF and the third baseman isn't.

PKalltheway
03-02-2007, 11:55 AM
But at some point there will always be someone who is the best guy not good enough for the HOF. Right now it seems Santo might be that guy.
Yeah, I'd agree with you there. It's a sticky issue with him. Yeah, there is proof that he failed down in the stretch, but the regular season numbers he put up during the 1960s (a tough era for hitters) were good.

Speaking of guys who toot their own horns too much, what about Bert Blyleven? That guy put up some of the best numbers by a pitcher ever, and he still isn't in. 3,701 career strikeouts, 287 career wins! Yeah, he does toot his own horn, but I believe his numbers are WAY more convincing than Santo's, and Blyleven should have been in the hall A LONG time ago.

chaz171
03-02-2007, 02:11 PM
I am glad that he didn't get in. I still don't think he deserves it. this whole thing of voting in people 30 years later is bunk as well.

if you can't get in after say 3 years, you should never be able to get in.

vegyrex
03-02-2007, 02:39 PM
I am glad that he didn't get in. I still don't think he deserves it. this whole thing of voting in people 30 years later is bunk as well.

if you can't get in after say 3 years, you should never be able to get in.

Does that include Nellie Fox?

Santo should go in but I don't mind seeing him wait.

Fox didn't get in until after he died.

If that's what it takes for Santo, so be it.

johnr1note
03-02-2007, 03:27 PM
I understand that there are players in the HOF not based on their stats offensively. Yes, Ozzie Smith one of the greatest defensive SS's of all-time. Brooks Robinson also one of the best defensively of all time. When Santo was on the original ballot he got black balled by the writers because they disliked him as a person. I dont think it had anything to do with his ability. I guess what really bothers me in some of these posts is that people are solely blaming him for a team not making it to the playoffs. On a side note, Feller really is that nasty in person, huh?

Again, I don't want my arguments to be misconstrued.

I don't blame Santo alone for the demise of the Cubs in `69, `70, and `71. Most of the regulars of the day to day lineup for those Cubs teams has similar fall offs in production during the September stretch drives. In fact, Santo's drop in offensive production probably wasn't as stark as some of this teammates, at least in 1969 --

For the 1969 season, the Cubs starters had the following stats. First column is for games through September 2, second column are for the last 26 games of the season: (The stats are avg., HR, & RBI)

Kessinger: .287 4-53 .171 0-0
Beckert .293 1-33 .200 0-4
Williams .293 15-81 .294 6-14
Santo .293 27-110 .262 2-13
Banks .262 21-92 .209 2-14
Hundley .273 16-60 .157 2-4
Hickman .240 17-47 .226 4-7

Defensively, the team went from an average of .39 earned runs per game, to a .69 earned runs per game, and in the 18 losses during the September stretch, it went to .72 a a game.

(All of these stats are from David Claerbaut's book "Durocher's Cubs")

In 1970, the Cubs had an even better chance to win the division than 1969. On Sept. 19, the Pirates led the Cubs by 1.5 games, the Mets by 3.5, with 11 games to go.

Here are the stats for the key players for 1970 -- 1st column is for games up to the all star break, 2nd column is games from all star break to Sept. 19, last column is the last 11 games (stats are batting avg/slugging pct.)

Kessinger .281-.394 .259-.318 .200-.200
Beckert .261-328 .335-.392 .156-.200
Williams .317-.607 .341-.584 .250-.425
Hickman .335-.622 .317-.597 .162 -.297
Santo .246-.416 .302-.578 .200-.280
Callison .250-.400 .286-.500 .143-.143
Hundley .227-.227 .255-.385 .179-.179

(Durocher was fired in mid `72, so there are no stats from Claebault's book for the end of that season).

So there it is -- Ron had a lot of accomplices. (This doesn't take into account the pitching collapse).

But my point is this -- I think most knowledgable baseball fans can accept that fact that while Ron Santo had a great career both offensively and defensively as a third baseman, his lifetime statistics are "on the bubble" for hall of fame inclusion. There are arguments to be made to exclude him and for enshrinement.

My argument for thumbs down is simple. Many of the arguments for Santos enshrinement end up with this kind of argument -- "had the Cubs won the pennant in 1969 or 1970, or had Ron played for another team that had won the world series, there would be no doubt he would be in the hall of fame."

But the rub is this -- Ron Santo played on a team that by all accounts should have won something during that era. He was the CAPTAIN of that team. Obviously, his skills wilted in September with everyone else's (save Billy Williams, it would appear). Ron was the player all the others looked to for guidance. He was the inspiration. He was the liason with Durocher. And he couldn't make it happen. He did, indeed, "choke" with the rest of the team.

Had Santo had 500 HRs, or 3000 hits, or some other milestone statistic that would place him in the company of the likes of the HOF's elite, then that wouldn't matter. But his statistics are borderline. You then need to look to the qualities that make a ballplayer a HOFer. Many of these qualities are not measured by statistics.

In my opinon, Santo's inability to handle his emotions (remember the Don Young incident from 1969, or the many times he and Durocher were at each other's throats?), his inability to inspire or lead, and his inability to set an example by coming through at the plate or in the field when his team needed him reveal Ronnie to be a much more ordinary ballplayer than many of the other 3rd basemen enshrined in the hall.

Of course, Ron couldn't have single handedly gotten the Cubs back into first in 69 and 70. But by his performance, he helped guarantee thier failure. Combine that with his less than super human life time statistics, he does not measure up.

Is that overly harsh? I don't think so. I will admit that I am prejudiced to a degree by my hatred for all that is "Cubbish," yes. So I probably wouldn't give Santo the benefit of the doubt. But in the pantheon of baseball immortals, Santo's inability to succeed under the pressure of those key pennant races lowers his value. And to me, it lowers him enough to leave him out of the HOF. Santo is not to blame for the Cubs failures in the era. But he is complicit enough by his contribution to those failures to be included in the indictment.

Santo simply can't shake his reputation.

Nellie_Fox
03-03-2007, 01:03 AM
Speaking of guys who toot their own horns too much, what about Bert Blyleven? That guy put up some of the best numbers by a pitcher ever, and he still isn't in. 3,701 career strikeouts, 287 career wins! Yeah, he does toot his own horn, but I believe his numbers are WAY more convincing than Santo's, and Blyleven should have been in the hall A LONG time ago.All of Blyleven's big numbers are career numbers, because he pitched for a long, long time. 287 wins in 22 years is not as big of a deal as it seems. He had only one 20 win season. He never won a Cy Young, and only had two All-Star appearances (and if I remember correctly, he was his team's "mandatory" on at least one of those.) He was a guy you'd want on your team; solid and reliable, but not a HOFer IMHO. And he's another one who uses his baseball announcer job to constantly campaign for it. He is vastly superior to Santo as an announcer, but that's not hard.

jamokes
03-03-2007, 11:08 AM
Man, while I started this thread on Santo last week I never thought there would be a response like this.
I'm a huge Sox fan and hate the cub and cub fans but all that aside I thought Ron would get in the HOF with this vote.
After the voting from this week I'm sure Santo hurt himself complaining about not getting in. He was a good player and probably should be in and someday he will be in.............but he is the poster child for whinning cub fans.
I LOVE TELLING CUB FANS THAT WHEN SANTO DOES GET INTO THE HALL, THERE WAS A TEAM WITH four HALL OF FAMERS AND no POSTSEASON GAMES!!!

soxfan13
03-03-2007, 11:53 AM
Again, I don't want my arguments to be misconstrued.

I don't blame Santo alone for the demise of the Cubs in `69, `70, and `71. Most of the regulars of the day to day lineup for those Cubs teams has similar fall offs in production during the September stretch drives. In fact, Santo's drop in offensive production probably wasn't as stark as some of this teammates, at least in 1969 --

For the 1969 season, the Cubs starters had the following stats. First column is for games through September 2, second column are for the last 26 games of the season: (The stats are avg., HR, & RBI)

Kessinger: .287 4-53 .171 0-0
Beckert .293 1-33 .200 0-4
Williams .293 15-81 .294 6-14
Santo .293 27-110 .262 2-13
Banks .262 21-92 .209 2-14
Hundley .273 16-60 .157 2-4
Hickman .240 17-47 .226 4-7

Defensively, the team went from an average of .39 earned runs per game, to a .69 earned runs per game, and in the 18 losses during the September stretch, it went to .72 a a game.

(All of these stats are from David Claerbaut's book "Durocher's Cubs")

In 1970, the Cubs had an even better chance to win the division than 1969. On Sept. 19, the Pirates led the Cubs by 1.5 games, the Mets by 3.5, with 11 games to go.

Here are the stats for the key players for 1970 -- 1st column is for games up to the all star break, 2nd column is games from all star break to Sept. 19, last column is the last 11 games (stats are batting avg/slugging pct.)

Kessinger .281-.394 .259-.318 .200-.200
Beckert .261-328 .335-.392 .156-.200
Williams .317-.607 .341-.584 .250-.425
Hickman .335-.622 .317-.597 .162 -.297
Santo .246-.416 .302-.578 .200-.280
Callison .250-.400 .286-.500 .143-.143
Hundley .227-.227 .255-.385 .179-.179

(Durocher was fired in mid `72, so there are no stats from Claebault's book for the end of that season).

So there it is -- Ron had a lot of accomplices. (This doesn't take into account the pitching collapse).

But my point is this -- I think most knowledgable baseball fans can accept that fact that while Ron Santo had a great career both offensively and defensively as a third baseman, his lifetime statistics are "on the bubble" for hall of fame inclusion. There are arguments to be made to exclude him and for enshrinement.

My argument for thumbs down is simple. Many of the arguments for Santos enshrinement end up with this kind of argument -- "had the Cubs won the pennant in 1969 or 1970, or had Ron played for another team that had won the world series, there would be no doubt he would be in the hall of fame."

But the rub is this -- Ron Santo played on a team that by all accounts should have won something during that era. He was the CAPTAIN of that team. Obviously, his skills wilted in September with everyone else's (save Billy Williams, it would appear). Ron was the player all the others looked to for guidance. He was the inspiration. He was the liason with Durocher. And he couldn't make it happen. He did, indeed, "choke" with the rest of the team.

Had Santo had 500 HRs, or 3000 hits, or some other milestone statistic that would place him in the company of the likes of the HOF's elite, then that wouldn't matter. But his statistics are borderline. You then need to look to the qualities that make a ballplayer a HOFer. Many of these qualities are not measured by statistics.

In my opinon, Santo's inability to handle his emotions (remember the Don Young incident from 1969, or the many times he and Durocher were at each other's throats?), his inability to inspire or lead, and his inability to set an example by coming through at the plate or in the field when his team needed him reveal Ronnie to be a much more ordinary ballplayer than many of the other 3rd basemen enshrined in the hall.

Of course, Ron couldn't have single handedly gotten the Cubs back into first in 69 and 70. But by his performance, he helped guarantee thier failure. Combine that with his less than super human life time statistics, he does not measure up.

Is that overly harsh? I don't think so. I will admit that I am prejudiced to a degree by my hatred for all that is "Cubbish," yes. So I probably wouldn't give Santo the benefit of the doubt. But in the pantheon of baseball immortals, Santo's inability to succeed under the pressure of those key pennant races lowers his value. And to me, it lowers him enough to leave him out of the HOF. Santo is not to blame for the Cubs failures in the era. But he is complicit enough by his contribution to those failures to be included in the indictment.

Santo simply can't shake his reputation.

Very nicely written. The only disagreement I have with it is you say Santos numbers are borderline. I dont think they are borderline when compared with other 3rd basemen all ready inducted. In fact ,like stated earlier, he is top 5 in most categories, for that position.

Soxfan13 giggling that he is still defending a cub:tongue:

PKalltheway
03-03-2007, 09:20 PM
All of Blyleven's big numbers are career numbers, because he pitched for a long, long time. 287 wins in 22 years is not as big of a deal as it seems. He had only one 20 win season. He never won a Cy Young, and only had two All-Star appearances (and if I remember correctly, he was his team's "mandatory" on at least one of those.) He was a guy you'd want on your team; solid and reliable, but not a HOFer IMHO. And he's another one who uses his baseball announcer job to constantly campaign for it. He is vastly superior to Santo as an announcer, but that's not hard.
Ok I see now...he was one of those type of players who was really good for a long time, but not one of the legends of the game. Kind of reminds me of Fred McGriff. I'm too young to remember when Blyleven played (He retired in 1992, whe I was 4), so I'm just looking purely at numbers.

TommyJohn
03-04-2007, 12:12 AM
All of Blyleven's big numbers are career numbers, because he pitched for a long, long time. 287 wins in 22 years is not as big of a deal as it seems. He had only one 20 win season. He never won a Cy Young, and only had two All-Star appearances (and if I remember correctly, he was his team's "mandatory" on at least one of those.) He was a guy you'd want on your team; solid and reliable, but not a HOFer IMHO. And he's another one who uses his baseball announcer job to constantly campaign for it. He is vastly superior to Santo as an announcer, but that's not hard.

I feel the same way about the candidacy of Tommy John. He was a very good
pitcher for a number of years, and made a comeback that for its time was
revolutionary, but is he a Hall of Famer? I say no.

IndianWhiteSox
03-04-2007, 01:12 PM
I was banned last week and this thread is almost at 200 posts!
:o:

So much for people not being flubsessed.

johnr1note
03-05-2007, 09:33 AM
Very nicely written. The only disagreement I have with it is you say Santos numbers are borderline. I dont think they are borderline when compared with other 3rd basemen all ready inducted. In fact ,like stated earlier, he is top 5 in most categories, for that position.

Soxfan13 giggling that he is still defending a cub:tongue:

Well, if you realize that there are only 9 other third baseman in the HOF to compare statistics with (3 of the HOF thirdbaseman were Negro Leaguers), then this does not stand out as such an awsome critera.

We also should differentiate between the 3rd baseman who entered the hall via the writer's vote (6 players) and the Veteran's Committee (3 non negro leauge players).

Overall, Santo rates as follows compared to other HOF third baseman (figures in parentheses are his rank against the HOF players voted in by the writers)

Hits: 7th of 10 (6th of 7)
HRs: 3rd of 10 (3rd of 7)
RBI: 6th of 10 (6th of 7)
BA: 7th of 10 (4th of 7)
OBP: 7th of 10 (7th of 7)
SLG: 4th of 10 (4th of 7)

As for Bill James' HOF career gauges, the HOF Standards (which takes certain statistical achievements and gives points for them) and the HOF Monitor (which does the same thing, but factors in some more "intangible" standards), Santo ranks as follows:

HOF Standards 7th of 10 (6th of 7)
HOF Monitor 8th of 10 (7th of 7)

I do not think this gives us a picture of a player of a player who obviously deserves enshrinement because he statistically is as good or better than the others at his position already in the HOF. Again, it is a borderline case.

The only real area where Santo compares favorably is his power numbers. Only Mike Schmidt and Eddie Matthews have better power stats for third baseman in the hall, but they both eclipsed the ususal HOF standard of 500 homers. Santo is NOT in thier orbit as a power hitter. Santo is good, yes, but strictly on power, he can't hold a candle here. The one third baseman in the Hall with similar power stats to Santo is George Brett, but he was a better overall hitter (a lifetime average nearly 50 points higher, about 200 more RBI, and a career longer by 3 years -- plus Brett has 3000 hits, a usual "slam dunk" HOF milestone).

The other 6 HOF thirdbasemen were not power hitters at all. Comparing Santo's offensive statistics to them is like comparing Babe Ruth to Ty Cobb. All save 2 have significantly higher BAs and OBPs. Boggs, of course, has 3000 hits as well. Traynor has significantly more hits, a much higher lifetime BA, and despite only hitting 58 homeruns, his slugging percentage is only 30 points less than Santo's.

If you go down the list of HOF third basemen for who we have stats to analyze, Santo compares poorly to most:

Boggs vs Santo: 3010 hits vs 2254, BA of .328 vs .277

Brett vs Santo: Brett had 3000 hits, a .305 average -- only Santo's HR totals exceed Brett's

Matthews vs. Santo: Similar in every way, except Eddie had about 150 more HRs, 120 more RBI, and 50 points on the SLG percentage.

Schmidt: 548 HRs. Nuff said.

Traynor vs. Santo: Pie had a .320 lifetime average, 200 more hits, and has SLG numbers similar to Ronnies.

The 4 HOF third basemen that Santo compares favorably with are the 3 selected by the Veteran's Committe, and Brooks Robinson.

Frank Baker played in far fewer games than Santo, and has a higher lifetime average (.307). Intangibles favor Baker, as he was a proven team leader and proved himself in the postseason for Connie Mack's A's and then again later for the Yankees late in his career.

George Kell has a higher lifetime average (.306), and also played in fewer games. Kell also won a batting title (besting the great Ted Williams).

Jimmy Collins is the most apples/oranges comparison on the list. He played most of his career in the 19th century. He also had a higher BA, and played in fewer games. Also, he was a player manager for 5 years, winning two pennants and a WS title as a manager.

The single third baseman who Santo compares closest with and comes out looking better as far as offensive stats is Brooks Robinson. Santo beats Brooks in every offensive category except hits and RBIs, but Robinson played 8 more seasons. (Ron even has more Stolen bases!). Santo was of course an excellent defensive 3rd baseman. But Brooks was the gold standard. In raw stats, Brook is hands down the better defensive player. Santo had a lifetime .954 fielding pct, Robinson had .971. Rons lifetime Range factor was 3.07 (very good), Robinson was 3.10 (better!). Ronnie was a 9 time all star, and finished in the top 25 for MVP 7 times, once coming in 4th, oncer in 5th. Robinson was a 15 time all star, and finished top 25 for MVP 12 times, winning the AL MVP in 1964, and finishing 2nd once, third twice, and 4th once. This was all going on at exactly the same time Ron was playing, so Ron wasn't even the best third baseman of his own era.

And, interestingly enough, the quality I cited as the biggest "failure" for Ron, being his team Captain and letting them down in the clutch, is not present in the other HOF third baseman. Except for George Kell, to a man, all of them served as vital parts of winning ball clubs.

So I stand by my conclusions. Even when compared to his peers in the HOF, he doesn't come out as being so stellar. Being in the "top 5" in statistics? Well, first you have to consider that there's only 9 guys to compare him to, "top 5" doesn't sound so great. The only categories he rates higher in is power stats, and when you consider that 7 of the 9 are not true power hitters, that statistic becomes a lot more hollow. If he is a giant, he is a giant among lesser men.

Now, compare Santos stats to the average HOFer. By Bill James' own criteria, he falls short.

Ron Santo is average compared to the other HOF third baseman, especially when you factor out the 3 selected by the Veterans Comittee.

Ron Santo does NOT belong in the HOF.

DrCrawdad
03-05-2007, 09:51 AM
Well, if you realize that there are only 9 other third baseman in the HOF to compare statistics with (3 of the HOF thirdbaseman were Negro Leaguers), then this does not stand out as such an awsome critera.

We also should differentiate between the 3rd baseman who entered the hall via the writer's vote (6 players) and the Veteran's Committee (3 non negro leauge players).

Overall, Santo rates as follows compared to other HOF third baseman (figures in parentheses are his rank against the HOF players voted in by the writers)

Hits: 7th of 10 (6th of 7)
HRs: 3rd of 10 (3rd of 7)
RBI: 6th of 10 (6th of 7)
BA: 7th of 10 (4th of 7)
OBP: 7th of 10 (7th of 7)
SLG: 4th of 10 (4th of 7)

As for Bill James' HOF career gauges, the HOF Standards (which takes certain statistical achievements and gives points for them) and the HOF Monitor (which does the same thing, but factors in some more "intangible" standards), Santo ranks as follows:

HOF Standards 7th of 10 (6th of 7)
HOF Monitor 8th of 10 (7th of 7)

I do not think this gives us a picture of a player of a player who obviously deserves enshrinement because he statistically is as good or better than the others at his position already in the HOF. Again, it is a borderline case.

The only real area where Santo compares favorably is his power numbers. Only Mike Schmidt and Eddie Matthews have better power stats for third baseman in the hall, but they both eclipsed the ususal HOF standard of 500 homers. Santo is NOT in thier orbit as a power hitter. Santo is good, yes, but strictly on power, he can't hold a candle here. The one third baseman in the Hall with similar power stats to Santo is George Brett, but he was a better overall hitter (a lifetime average nearly 50 points higher, about 200 more RBI, and a career longer by 3 years -- plus Brett has 3000 hits, a usual "slam dunk" HOF milestone).

The other 6 HOF thirdbasemen were not power hitters at all. Comparing Santo's offensive statistics to them is like comparing Babe Ruth to Ty Cobb. All save 2 have significantly higher BAs and OBPs. Boggs, of course, has 3000 hits as well. Traynor has significantly more hits, a much higher lifetime BA, and despite only hitting 58 homeruns, his slugging percentage is only 30 points less than Santo's.

If you go down the list of HOF third basemen for who we have stats to analyze, Santo compares poorly to most:

Boggs vs Santo: 3010 hits vs 2254, BA of .328 vs .277

Brett vs Santo: Brett had 3000 hits, a .305 average -- only Santo's HR totals exceed Brett's

Matthews vs. Santo: Similar in every way, except Eddie had about 150 more HRs, 120 more RBI, and 50 points on the SLG percentage.

Schmidt: 548 HRs. Nuff said.

Traynor vs. Santo: Pie had a .320 lifetime average, 200 more hits, and has SLG numbers similar to Ronnies.

The 4 HOF third basemen that Santo compares favorably with are the 3 selected by the Veteran's Committe, and Brooks Robinson.

Frank Baker played in far fewer games than Santo, and has a higher lifetime average (.307). Intangibles favor Baker, as he was a proven team leader and proved himself in the postseason for Connie Mack's A's and then again later for the Yankees late in his career.

George Kell has a higher lifetime average (.306), and also played in fewer games. Kell also won a batting title (besting the great Ted Williams).

Jimmy Collins is the most apples/oranges comparison on the list. He played most of his career in the 19th century. He also had a higher BA, and played in fewer games. Also, he was a player manager for 5 years, winning two pennants and a WS title as a manager.

The single third baseman who Santo compares closest with and comes out looking better as far as offensive stats is Brooks Robinson. Santo beats Brooks in every offensive category except hits and RBIs, but Robinson played 8 more seasons. (Ron even has more Stolen bases!). Santo was of course an excellent defensive 3rd baseman. But Brooks was the gold standard. In raw stats, Brook is hands down the better defensive player. Santo had a lifetime .954 fielding pct, Robinson had .971. Rons lifetime Range factor was 3.07 (very good), Robinson was 3.10 (better!). Ronnie was a 9 time all star, and finished in the top 25 for MVP 7 times, once coming in 4th, oncer in 5th. Robinson was a 15 time all star, and finished top 25 for MVP 12 times, winning the AL MVP in 1964, and finishing 2nd once, third twice, and 4th once. This was all going on at exactly the same time Ron was playing, so Ron wasn't even the best third baseman of his own era.

And, interestingly enough, the quality I cited as the biggest "failure" for Ron, being his team Captain and letting them down in the clutch, is not present in the other HOF third baseman. Except for George Kell, to a man, all of them served as vital parts of winning ball clubs.

So I stand by my conclusions. Even when compared to his peers in the HOF, he doesn't come out as being so stellar. Being in the "top 5" in statistics? Well, first you have to consider that there's only 9 guys to compare him to, "top 5" doesn't sound so great. The only categories he rates higher in is power stats, and when you consider that 7 of the 9 are not true power hitters, that statistic becomes a lot more hollow. If he is a giant, he is a giant among lesser men.

Now, compare Santos stats to the average HOFer. By Bill James' own criteria, he falls short.

Ron Santo is average compared to the other HOF third baseman, especially when you factor out the 3 selected by the Veterans Comittee.

Ron Santo does NOT belong in the HOF.

Maybe I missed it in your very through analysis, but in the Brooks/Santo comparison that Brooks has 16 Gold Gloves to Santo's 5. IMHO that's a HUGE difference!!!

After reading your analysis and considering those in Santo's favor, my view is that Santo does NOT belong in the HOF.

johnr1note
03-05-2007, 12:33 PM
Maybe I missed it in your very through analysis, but in the Brooks/Santo comparison that Brooks has 16 Gold Gloves to Santo's 5. IMHO that's a HUGE difference!!!

After reading your analysis and considering those in Santo's favor, my view is that Santo does NOT belong in the HOF.

Thanks -- you are right about the GG. I don't put a lot of stock in GG awards, because factors other than fielding somehow seem to play a part.

I realized on my way in to work that I left one HOF third baseman out of my analysis -- there was a 4th 3rd sacker added to the hall by the veterans committee that I forgot, Freddie Lindstrom.

In the Freddie vs Ronnie debate, its a similar argument to Frank Baker and Jimmy Collins. Lindstrom was a lifetime .311 hitter, and played in about 800 fewer games than Santo. Like Traynor, Lindstrom doesn't have near the power stats Santo has in HR and RBI, Freddie's OB is only 11 points behind Santo, his SLG pct. is only 15 points behind.

Lindstrom's intangibles include leading the lead in hits once, finishing 2nd in the MVP voting once, and playing for a lot of very good NY Giants teams, making it to the WS twice -- once as a Giant, and later, in the last year of his career, Lindstrom has the one thing Santo never had -- making it to the WS as a member of the Chicago Cubs!!

Santo STILL doesn't belong in the HOF.