Santo elected to HOF

[Kenny Cole]

According to the article on ESPN, he got 15 out of 16 votes. Amazing how much better he got after he died.

[sayhey24]

Actually what's really amazing is how poorly he was evaluated by HOF voters for so many years.

Greg

[Peter_Spaeth]

Great guy, excellent player, but not a HOFer in my opinion.

[Chris Counts]

It's great to see Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame, where he unquestionably belongs. There's no doubt he was a Top 10 all-time third baseman — just look at his stats and consider that pitching dominated the era he played in. Now if the Hall of Fame voters can just wrap their minds around Minnie Minoso's statistics and realize he's also a Hall of Famer ...

[fkw]

he hit over .275, had over 300 HRs and over 2000 hits... plus led the league in WALKS 4 times .....obvious HOFer

NOW you got to let in Garvey, Oliva, Mattingly, Munson, Kluszewski, Colovito, Cash, Minoso, Sain, Hodges, Madlock, Maris, FHoward, Tiant, Staub, RSmith, Kaat, Blue, Foster, Cedeno, Parker, TSimmons, and dozens of other just as good (not great).....

[alanu]

Glad to see Santo got in. As a fairly newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic, I can only imagine what he went thru as a player with the technology available at the time.

[kmac32]

Awesome. Have met him and his family many times. This is way past due with his career in baseball, announcing and all he did for JDRF. Cubs nation will have a bitter sweet moment as this comes a year too late. Go Cubs go!

[TT40391]

I don't mind Santo getting in. There are a ton of others I would put into the hall though. As we have all talked about many time before on the board.

Tony

[Runscott]

I don't mind Santo getting in. There are a ton of others I would put into the hall though. As we have all talked about many time before on the board.

Tony

Tony, it's interesting how many people are adamant about who should and shouldn't be in the HOF, but even more interesting that none of these 'definitive' lists are in agreement.

I remember as a child, having a paperback book that had images of the HOF plaques, and short bios/stats on every HOF'er at that time. Since I was too young to have heard of many of them, it was the 'definitive' list for me - all players listed within became icons, more so each time I read the book. Wish I still had it.

[kmac32]

Just read that Ralph Kiner was the only person on the committee that didn't vote for Santo. He said that he chose to vote that way because he didn't like some of the things Santo said about the 1969 Mets. If this is true, Kiner should never be allowed on another Hall of Fame committee. Votes need to be based on the stats of the player, not political posturing. Grow up Mr. Kiner!!! Leave your personal politics outside of the room!!! At least Ronny was elected in the end.

[Chris Counts]

I'd take Santo any day over Kiner. What a chump!

[Robextend]

Although arguable, I think Santo is deserving of the election. It is pretty clear he was just about the most dominating 3B in the National League for about a decade both offensively and defensively. His overall numbers don't stack up to some other HOFers, but still deserving. It is a shame he isn't around to see it happen.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Most similar players statistically, according to baseball-reference.com.

There may be a reason he didn't get in on his first 15 or however many tries.

Dale Murphy (875)
Gary Gaetti (875)
Ken Boyer (874)
Ruben Sierra (865)
Chili Davis (865)
Bobby Bonilla (863)
Brian Downing (862)
Graig Nettles (860)
Scott Rolen (857)
Adrian Beltre (855)

[Anthony S.]

Lifetime road splits:

126 HRs
588 RBIs
.257 BA
.406 SLG

[bcbgcbrcb]

Wow, didn't realize that the home/road splits were that diverse, still think that Santo was the most deserving in this group but those stats certainly shed a different light on it. I'm not sure historically, if Wrigley Field was as skewed a hitter's park as it was during the era that I grew up in the 1970's & 1980's.

[kcohen]

I remember Santo as being regarded as the top 3rd sacker in the NL over many years. Induction thoroughly warranted IMHO.

Would love to have seen Hodges and Reynolds get in. Hodges based on his many years as one of the NL most feared sluggers and Reynolds for a period of years of dominance and excellence. Not a big advocate of the guys who amassed gaudy stats in part due to longevity.

[calvindog]

What Frank and Peter said above -- agree completely. No way is he a HOFer.

[packs]

I don't understand how Jim Kaat gets more votes than Gil Hodges. Didn't Allie Reynolds come within one vote of getting in the last time the Veterans Committee voted? Now he only gets 3 votes?

[novakjr]

I don't understand how Jim Kaat gets more votes than Gil Hodges. Didn't Allie Reynolds come within one vote of getting in the last time the Veterans Committee voted? Now he only gets 3 votes?

I think these guys are afraid to put more that 1 player in at a time, so they sandbag a player or two.. First off, If they put all the deserving(or somewhat deserving) guys in, then there'll be nothing for them to vote on next time...Secondly, some of people don't think any of these guys belong, so if they were to elect too many at a time, people would start claiming that they opened the floodgates of mediocrity. Which many believe they've already done anyway, so why reinforce their suspicions....

I'm still kinda shocked that Hodges only got 9 votes though..

[Chris Counts]

For all those who think Santo wasn't worthy, can you name 10 third baseman who were better? Curiously, there are roughly half as many third basemen in the Hall of Fame than any other position. The problem here isn't that Santo and Boyer aren't worthy — the problem is that the Hall of Fame voters don't know what a Hall of Fame third baseman looks like. If he's not a batting champ like Wade Boggs or a slugger like Mike Schmidt, they think he isn't worthy. They expect third baseman to hit like outfielders. But somehow, they overlook such offensive limitations in shortstops, second baseman and catchers ...

[FrankWakefield]

I agree with fkw above...


Chris, yes I can. Frank Baker, Pie Traynor, Jimmy Collins, George Brett, George Kell, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson, Wade Boggs, Mike Schmidt, Tony Perez, Darrell Evans and Freddie Lindstrom. There's a dozen. Didn't even have to use Eddie Yost. I'm kinda glad/ok that Santo got in... but then go back up there and read what fkw said, put those guys in, too. Along with Ed Reulbach. Then take a few guys out... that recently got in.

[Big Ben]

It's great to see Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame, where he unquestionably belongs. There's no doubt he was a Top 10 all-time third baseman — just look at his stats and consider that pitching dominated the era he played in. Now if the Hall of Fame voters can just wrap their minds around Minnie Minoso's statistics and realize he's also a Hall of Famer ...

+1 well said!

[Runscott]

I agree with fkw above...


Chris, yes I can. Frank Baker, Pie Traynor, Jimmy Collins, George Brett, George Kell, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson, Wade Boggs, Mike Schmidt, Tony Perez, Darrell Evans and Freddie Lindstrom. There's a dozen. Didn't even have to use Eddie Yost. I'm kinda glad/ok that Santo got in... but then go back up there and read what fkw said, put those guys in, too. Along with Ed Reulbach. Then take a few guys out... that recently got in.

Frank, I realize that you were just answering Chris' question, but now we're getting into the game of comparing not-greats with other not-greats: Perez, Evans and Lindstrom - I wouldn't have voted Evans or Lindstrom in, and possibly not Perez. Plus, I completely disagree with you regarding Brett, Robinson and Schmidt - it baffles me that anyone could consider Santo better than these three, but everyone has good reasons for thinking the way they do.

It's interesting to hear all the 3rd-basemen comparisons, but most of the arguments are simply based on that position - not on what HOF standards overall should be.

[refz]

Just read that Ralph Kiner was the only person on the committee that didn't vote for Santo. He said that he chose to vote that way because he didn't like some of the things Santo said about the 1969 Mets. If this is true, Kiner should never be allowed on another Hall of Fame committee. Votes need to be based on the stats of the player, not political posturing. Grow up Mr. Kiner!!! Leave your personal politics outside of the room!!! At least Ronny was elected in the end.


kiner himself doesnt belong, schmuck

[refz]

he hit over .275, had over 300 HRs and over 2000 hits... plus led the league in WALKS 4 times .....obvious HOFer

NOW you got to let in Garvey, Oliva, Mattingly, Munson, Kluszewski, Colovito, Cash, Minoso, Sain, Hodges, Madlock, Maris, FHoward, Tiant, Staub, RSmith, Kaat, Blue, Foster, Cedeno, Parker, TSimmons, and dozens of other just as good (not great).....

sorry i love this this thread kaat should be playing for crappy teams at that giving time period, Maris should be in via mazeroskis' resume. cmon lets feud people :)

[FrankWakefield]

Runscott... Chris asked if anyone could name 10 better third basemen. I said yes I could, and named 12. I was saying that Brett, Robinson, and Schmidt were better than Santo... and they were better.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Deck the Hall with average players
Colavito, Kaat, fa la la la
Vote em in ignore naysayers
Hodges, Tiant, Blue, la la la la
Don we now Mattingly and Baylor
Oliva, Kluszewski, la la la
Deck the Hall with average players
Santo, Reynolds, Staub, la la la la

[zljones]

Glad I bought his rookie card last year. I just wish he was never a Cub, GO SOX!:D

[molen]

As lifelong Cubs fan and a big Santo fan, I teared up a little when I read the news this morning. There are definitely arguments for and against him being in the HOF. Part of me hoped he wouldn't ever get in, so people will continue to talk about him every year when the HOF debates start. I just wish he could have gotten in while he was still with us. Because as Ron himself said, he didn't want to be inducted "post-humorously." Classic Santo. Either way, I'll always remember him saying when the Cubs retired his number that having his number up there with Banks and Williams meant more to him than being in the HOF.

[Runscott]

Runscott... Chris asked if anyone could name 10 better third basemen. I said yes I could, and named 12. I was saying that Brett, Robinson, and Schmidt were better than Santo... and they were better.

I totally misread your response. Dohhhh!

I've posted too many times today and must go entertain the woman - I'll talk with you guys tomorrow!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I agree with fkw above...


Chris, yes I can. Frank Baker, Pie Traynor, Jimmy Collins, George Brett, George Kell, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson, Wade Boggs, Mike Schmidt, Tony Perez, Darrell Evans and Freddie Lindstrom. There's a dozen. Didn't even have to use Eddie Yost. I'm kinda glad/ok that Santo got in... but then go back up there and read what fkw said, put those guys in, too. Along with Ed Reulbach. Then take a few guys out... that recently got in.

Tony Perez only played a few seasons at 3B. If you count him you have to count ARoid.

[kmac32]

Peter obviously has never met Mr. Santo. And also we need to remember that players are supposed to be compared to players in their own era.

[HercDriver]

I agree - Brooks Robinson and Ron Santo were the best at their position in the AL and NL for at least a decade. Who was better than those two in that time frame? I'll take gamers like Ron Santo and Mark Grace in my HOF any day...

Take Care,
Geno

[fkw]

add Bill Madlock to the list of better 3rd basemen...

4 BATTING titles in 15 years is a bit more impressive than 4 Walk titles in 15 years...

and he also may be the reason Ron retired... IMO
(edited to say I didnt know Ron changed leagues the last year, but still may have because of Madlock taking his position with the Cubs)

[joeadcock]

I hope that Kiner story aint correct. My opinion has gone down.

[2dueces]

Although arguable, I think Santo is deserving of the election. It is pretty clear he was just about the most dominating 3B in the National League for about a decade both offensively and defensively. His overall numbers don't stack up to some other HOFers, but still deserving. It is a shame he isn't around to see it happen.

I have to disagree. Just because he was the best there was at that time doesn't mean he was the best there was at his position. So his peers were weak during his playing days makes him a HOFer? It shouldnt work that way. He should stack up to the top tier players of all time to merit the hall. The Hall is too watered down to be called the Hall of Fame any more. Should be called the Baseball Museum. It diminishes the careers of the truly great player to let Above Average players in. But Santo isn't the first and won't be the last to be elected with less than impressive numbers. Election to the Hall shouldn't have anything to do with sentiment, it should have everything to do with how he stacks up to Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt. JMO.

[Robextend]

I have to disagree. Just because he was the best there was at that time doesn't mean he was the best there was at his position. So his peers were weak during his playing days makes him a HOFer? It shouldnt work that way. He should stack up to the top tier players of all time to merit the hall. The Hall is too watered down to be called the Hall of Fame any more. Should be called the Baseball Museum. It diminishes the careers of the truly great player to let Above Average players in. But Santo isn't the first and won't be the last to be elected with less than impressive numbers. Election to the Hall shouldn't have anything to do with sentiment, it should have everything to do with how he stacks up to Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt. JMO.

It is a great argument, and I can't blame anyone for saying he shouldn't be in. I am usually as tough as anyone on keeping guys out. I didn't agree with Dawson, if Larkin gets in I don't agree with that either. And there are a ton of other guys already in that I don't agree with.

With that said, take the average Brooks Robinson offensive year against the average Ron Santo offensive year. Brooks was a great player, but offensively he was a compiler. Defensively he might have been the best ever, but Santo was hands down a better offensive player than Brooks.

[2dueces]

Rob, I know that everyone has a right to their opinions but you can't tell me you believe Santo was better that Robinson? There has to be a bar that everyone is measured by. .250 career road hitters do not belong in the HOF. Unless that's where we set the bar? Baseball Museum where everyone with 5 years service gets in. Open the door and let the Kaat in. :)

[kmac32]

Frank, your comment about Madlock and batting titles is true. Major difference is Madlock is really a negative person. Had breakfast with him at Cubs camp one year and he was just not pleasant to be around. He was pissed at his team who were 0 and 4 at the time and he seemed to forget these guys were paying to play that week. Lost the fun of the whole fantasy camp thing. He was also sour on MLB and life in general. Now Santo, different story. Always positive.

Kmac

[Robextend]

Nah, I am definitely not saying that. Overall Brooks is better and no question belongs where he is. I am just trying to show that you can dominate your era at your position and still have shortcomings. .250 hitter on the road isn't good, but look at some of the years Brooks had offensively...not pretty at all.

[novakjr]

I have to disagree. Just because he was the best there was at that time doesn't mean he was the best there was at his position. So his peers were weak during his playing days makes him a HOFer? It shouldnt work that way. He should stack up to the top tier players of all time to merit the hall. The Hall is too watered down to be called the Hall of Fame any more. Should be called the Baseball Museum. It diminishes the careers of the truly great player to let Above Average players in. But Santo isn't the first and won't be the last to be elected with less than impressive numbers. Election to the Hall shouldn't have anything to do with sentiment, it should have everything to do with how he stacks up to Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt. JMO.

Santo had 74 more HR's, 26 less RBI's, 248 more walks in 8 less seasons than Brooks.. He also Batted 10 points higher, 40 points higher in OBP.. Sure he wasn't anywhere near his equal defensively, but hell, the guy did win 5 straight GG's, and made 9 all star games in a span of 11 years..Dude definitely compares well to Brooksie... If I were looking for a 3B and had to choose one, I'd take Santo, in his prime. He was great for 11 years(some just very good), vs Brooks' prime, having consisted of 12 really good seasons(some great), with a bunch of mediocre ones at the end, while they still just kept handing him the GG's and All Stars.

I'm not trying to diminish Brooks, he's honestly one of my all time faves, while I was never much of a fan of Santo, but the numbers don't lie..Santo might've been better overall when comparing their primes..

Schmidt however, was a beast. It's almost unfair to compare any 3B to him..

[Robextend]

Wish I could have articulated as well as you David! :)

[Chris Counts]

"Chris, yes I can. Frank Baker, Pie Traynor, Jimmy Collins, George Brett, George Kell, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson, Wade Boggs, Mike Schmidt, Tony Perez, Darrell Evans and Freddie Lindstrom ..."

Frank, while I usually agree with you on these things, I consider Santo to be the superior player to Traynor, Lindstrom, Kell and Collins. Traynor and Linstrom's stats were inflated by playing their peak years during a time of obscenely inflated batting averages (see 1929 and 1930 — there's a reason Hack Wilson had so many RBIs). Kell might have been a better place hitter than Santo, but he had little power and couldn't have been any better as a fielder. If you placed him in the 1960s, you would have to dock at least 10 points from his batting average. And I see nothing in Collins' record to show he was any better than any of the above. It's my belief Collins and Traynor are overrated because at one point, each was known as "the greatest third baseman ever," which dramatically illustrates why there are so few Hall of Fame third baseman.

I'd also take Santo over Perez, who may have been a slightly better hitter, but didn't have nearly the glove. It's my belief gloves are underrated and bats are overrated in the Hall of Fame, particularly at such a key position like third base. Perez was better suited for first base.

As for Evans, he's one of the most underrated of all players and I applaud you for putting him on the list.

Santo had a great glove, outstanding power, a keen batting eye and one of the best averages of any third baseman who played during an era that was absolutely dominated by pitching ...

[Chris Counts]

Rob, I'm curious what you're argument against Barry Larkin is. Bill James has him at number six on his list of the greatest shortstops ever, which puts him ahead of most Hall of Fame shortstops. I think Larkin gets shorted because his career peaked just before A-Rod, Nomar and Jeter burst on the scene. Check out his numbers ...

[Runscott]

I'm not trying to diminish Brooks, he's honestly one of my all time faves, while I was never much of a fan of Santo, but the numbers don't lie..Santo might've been better overall when comparing their primes..

Schmidt however, was a beast. It's almost unfair to compare any 3B to him..

From '67 - '72 I was constantly immersed in baseball, listening to games, watching games, reading SI and every other sports mag I could get hold of, and of course buying the cards. Santo and Brooks were in their prime and Santo was never mentioned in the same breath among me or my friends. I would say that part of the problem was that Santo was overshadowed by Billy Williams, Ernie Banks and Fergie Jenkins. Over in Baltimore, it was Brooks and Frank Robinson in the same breath, maybe Palmer as well, then Boog Powell, Dave Mcnally, etc.

Brooks just had way higher status than Santo among everyone outside of Chicago. Maybe it wasn't fair, but that's how it was.

[kmac32]

This is a pic of Ron at the Cubs Fantasy Camp in Mesa, AZ January 2008

[Robextend]

Hey Chris, I know we have both argued before nobly regarding the Larkin debate.

The first thing I try to think of when I start debating whether or not someone should be in the HOF is do I consider this player "great". Then I research and look for arguments against whatever my initial thoughts were. To me, Larkin wasn't a great player. It could very well be the fact that he didn't stay on the field long enough in his career, but his numbers don't sway me in the other direction.

I am sure you can come up with as many reasons that he should be in, which makes this argument interesting, but I don't believe he should be in regardless of what Bill James stated.

295AVG 198HR 960RBI, no seasons above 100rbi, only 2 above 100 runs scored. Never had more than 185 hits, and only more than 170 hits three times. And only finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice (won once in strike shortened year).

That doesn't do it for me.

[Chris Counts]

Rob, I agree his stats aren't Hall of Fame worthy — if he was an outfielder. But how many shortstops have better stats? How many shortstops hit .295 lifetime with nearly 200 home runs and nearly 400 steals? Plus a championship and an MVP? His stats completely obliterate those of most Hall of Fame shortstops.

And if a comparative statistical analysis isn't enough, what is better? "Greatness" seems like a very subjective term.

Again, I think many people, including voters, don't consider the position or the era when evaluating a player for the Hall of Fame. All eras and positions aren't created equal ...

[Runscott]

"Greatness" seems like a very subjective term.

You nailed it. It IS more than just stats, which is why the steroid boys won't get in until public opinion changes, and why Rizzuto and Reese are in, and why Albert Belle will never get in yet Kirby Puckett DID get in. Human beings do the voting, and just like us, they don't always agree on what constitutes HOF credentials, some (like the Kiner example) hold grudges, others (like the guys who voted in Rizzuto) owed favors, etc., etc.

[bh3443]

Hi Peter and all !
We set up at the first Cooperstown card show in 1980 or 1981, and on the ride back to Boston, my employees and I had started a "traveling game" that we still use today, over 30 years later!
One person says a name of a BB great that's not in the Hall of Fame. Then we (the others) take turns saying should be in or out with our reasons. We agree on a few, agree to dis-agree on others, and then there's the category that cvan only be described as " The viscious Fight", lol!
Some of the players that we argue, scream, taunt each other, and o everything short of a fist fight include:
Pee Wee Reese, Gil Hodges, Jim Rice, Bobby Doerr, Gary Carter, and many more! The 4 of us grew up together and we are BB maniacs! We are like 4 brothers, and our HOF game is awesome!
We were horrified about Jim Rice, and didn't understand Bob Doerr.
One weekend at a Randy Thyberg show in Philly, a customer bought a Schmidt Rookie and a Boone rookie from a 1973 set I had broken up. He was talking about the investment potentioal, and was very convinced on a huge pay day on this deal. He then told us that Bob Boobe was the most under-rated catcher in BB and the HOF are idiots for leaving him out. Well, we did not see it his way and told him he was insane!
The point is who gets in and why is a political thing in some cases.
As for Ron Santo, you probably won't find a bigger Santo fan in Boston than me! I loved the guy as a player and announcer and I prayed for him when he got so sick. I love the guy, and for me, I say sure he should go in. I'm biased on the subject.
Sorry for the long thread, but I'm up late in lots of pain and NET 54's my therapy.
The big news is that a fellow board member is traveling near me and is stopping at my house for a visit tomorrow! I am beyond excited!
Have a great week every one!
Your Fiend,
Bill HedinGreat guy, excellent player, but not a HOFer in my opinion.

[Runscott]

...He then told us that Bob Boobe was the most under-rated catcher in BB and the HOF are idiots for leaving him out. Well, we did not see it his way and told him he was insane!

lol - Bob Boone is the Phil Niekro/Don Sutton of catchers! Hell, put him in.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Which Santo items are the BB HOF collectors going after (besides the obvious 1961 Topps RC)?

I jumped the gun a little bit this time and got lucky as Santo was the only one that I pre-bought before this election. I picked up a 1961 Manny's Baseball Land premium on e-bay about a month ago. Not a high dollar item but probably one of Santo's more obscure early pieces.

[Touch'EmAll]

Is it called "the Hall of Fame if you played long enough"?

Or is it called simply "the Hall of Fame"?

Seems like the first and foremost criteria is FAME, no?

I still don't get the longevity deal - either you were great or not - longevity should just add to your prowess.

Poor Roger Maris - multiple MVP award winner - World Series winner - Owner of the most hallowed single season record in all of sports. Maris just oozes FAME - cannot deny.

Bo Jackson - probably the most famous athlete of his day - TV ads galore, posters galore, every kid wanted his cards. Experts call him the greatest athlete of the past 50 years, maybe greatest ever.

Jim Thorpe got into Football Hall with less of a career than Bo.

Somebody please recognize true FAME and let in these 2 guys.

Who was more famous? Ron Santo, or Maris and Bo?

[triwak]

Which Santo items are the BB HOF collectors going after (besides the obvious 1961 Topps RC)?

I just picked up his 1964 Topps Giants card. Not valuable of course, but I've never had one of those, and I believe that to be Santo's best season.

[howard38]

-------------------------------------------------------------