"Don't blame the player, blame the inept and biased baseball writers who did not vote for him. Santo was a better player than most of the third basemen already in the HOF ..."
Big Ben, that's music to my ears. There are by far fewer third basemen in Cooperstown than any other position. That's not because there aren't any great third basemen — instead, it's because most casual baseball fans — as well as the baseball writers who vote — don't know what a great third basemen looks like. When you take into consideration Santo's glove, batting eye, power and the fact that he played during an era when pitchers dominated (unlike Pie Traynor, for instance), he's a slam dunk for the Hall of Fame. But unfortunately, the misguided voters think they are the gatekeepers of an exclusive club of superhuman ballplayers ("Max, did you ever play the game?"). They also seem blissfully ignorant of arguably the most important aspect of comparative statistical analysis: that all eras are not created equal. It's as if they believe Hack Wilson (a genuine stretch of a Hall of Famer, by the way) would have knocked in 191 runs in 1968. I doubt few even know what OPS stands for. I've corresponded with several voters over the years and I've yet to find one who can prove, simply by comparing the numbers, why Minoso or Santo is undeserving. Instead, they simply repeat outdated cliches ("he didn't play long enough," "he didn't hit enough home runs") that simply prove they are not students of baseball history ...
http://minnieminoso.blogspot.com