Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dueces
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..