Baseball Hall of Fame Golden Era vote set for Dec. 5 ...

[Chris Counts]

I guess it's time for that semi-annual ritual, the Net54 Hall of Fame debate. I'll start things off with my rallying cry, "Go Minnie!" Actually, I'll be happy if any of the players listed get in. But I'm one of those "open the flood gates" guys ...

Eight Players, Two Executives from 1947-’72 Era to Be Considered at Winter Meetings

November 03, 2011

COOPERSTOWN, NY – Eight former major league players and two former executives comprise the 10-name Golden Era ballot to be reviewed and voted upon Dec. 5 at the Baseball Winter Meetings, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum announced today.

Buzzie Bavasi, Ken Boyer, Charlie Finley, Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Minnie Minoso, Tony Oliva, Allie Reynolds, Ron Santo and Luis Tiant are the candidates for Golden Era Committee consideration for Hall of Fame election for the class of 2012. Bavasi and Finley are included for their contributions as executives, while the other eight are inclusions for their on-field careers. Kaat, Minoso, Oliva and Tiant are living; all other candidates are deceased.

Any candidate to receive votes on 75 percent of the ballots cast by the 16-member Golden Era Committee will earn election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and will be inducted in Cooperstown on July 22, 2012, along with any electees who emerge from the 2012 Baseball Writers' Association of America election, to be announced on Jan. 9.

The 10 Golden Era finalists were selected by the BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee from all eligible candidates among Managers, Umpires, Executives and Long-Retired Players whose most significant career impact was realized during the 1947-72 time period. Eligible candidates include: Players who played in at least 10 major league seasons, who are not on Major League Baseball's ineligible list, and have been retired for 21 or more seasons; and Managers, Umpires and Executives with 10 or more years in baseball.

The Golden Era ballot was determined this fall by the Historical Overview Committee, comprised of 11 veteran historians: Dave Van Dyck (Chicago Tribune); Bob Elliott (Toronto Sun); Rick Hummel (St. Louis Post-Dispatch); Steve Hirdt (Elias Sports Bureau); Bill Madden (New York Daily News); Ken Nigro, (formerly Baltimore Sun); Jack O'Connell (BBWAA secretary/treasurer); Tracy Ringolsby (FSN Rocky Mountain); Glenn Schwarz (formerly San Francisco Chronicle); Claire Smith (ESPN); and Mark Whicker (Orange County Register).

The 16-member Hall of Fame Board-appointed electorate charged with the review of the Golden Era ballot features Hall of Fame members Hank Aaron, Al Kaline, Ralph Kiner, Tommy Lasorda, Juan Marichal, Brooks Robinson, Don Sutton and Billy Williams; major league executives Paul Beeston (Blue Jays), Bill DeWitt (Cardinals), Roland Hemond (Diamondbacks), Gene Michael (Yankees), and Al Rosen (retired); along with veteran media members Dick Kaegel, Jack O'Connell and Dave Van Dyck.

[paulcarek]

Go, Gil! One of only two players (with Snider, if memory serves) to have 300 HR and 1000 RBI in the decade of the 50's.

[mets41]

Is anyone here planning or considering going to the induction ceremony?

[bcbgcbrcb]

My guess is that Santo gets in, with a small chance for Hodges and/or Boyer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wouldn't vote for any of them, but if I had to vote for one, it would be Hodges. Santo is more likely to get in though.

[sportscardpete]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I wouldn't vote for any of them, but if I had to vote for one, it would be Hodges. Santo is more likely to get in though.

Santo came oh-so close too many times, that he probably gets in. Not sure if I would vote for him either.

[KenBoyerCollector]

Obviously, you can tell who I want in I'm not sure if he does though, but it would be nice for the Captain to make it!

If he did, I would be there at Cooperstown. I live in Syracuse -- only an hour and half away from Cooperstown I was just there two weeks ago for my annual pilgrimage

[Runscott]

I would combine Tony Oliva and Gil Hodges into one player, and put that guy in.

There needs to be a "Hall of Really Good"

[David W]

I've wondered about Minnie Minoso also, but I'm not sure the stats are there even if he had made the majors earlier than age 25 in 1951 (most likely due to his race). Even giving him 500 more hits only gets him to around 2500.

He's Vada Pinson, with less stats.

[Boomer]

Santo and Boyer are equals. If one gets in the other should as well

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by sportscardpete

Santo came oh-so close too many times, that he probably gets in. Not sure if I would vote for him either.

If he couldn't get in in the first 35 +- years of his eligibility, I would say he is not deserving. As I recall he had almost no support when he was eligible by the conventional route. My test for a HOFer is like the Supreme Ct. test for obscenity, you know one when you see one.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If he couldn't get in in the first 35 +- years of his eligibility, I would say he is not deserving. As I recall he had almost no support when he was eligible by the conventional route. My test for a HOFer is like the Supreme Ct. test for obscenity, you know one when you see one.

Santo most definitely belongs in the HOF. 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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If he couldn't get in in the first 35 +- years of his eligibility, I would say he is not deserving. As I recall he had almost no support when he was eligible by the conventional route. My test for a HOFer is like the Supreme Ct. test for obscenity, you know one when you see one.

Also, he fails the 'baseball card' rule. As a kid during the Santo era, while his card was desirable, it was no Ernie Banks or Fergie Jenkins. More like a Ken Holtzman. Same for Oliva and Kaat. Hodges was a Mets manager card, so that was a disaster

[Anthony S.]

I always check a player's career road splits to get a better idea of what they really accomplished. It's a low tech, convenient way of balancing out home field hitting advantages (Coors field, especially pre-humidors being an extreme example) due to short porches, clever groundskeepers, prevailing winds, etc. These are Santo's career road numbers:

4375 PA, 171 2B, 126 HR, 588 RBI, .257 BA, .406 SLG, .747 OPS

Compare that to Ron Cey's - for whom nobody is demanding hall of Fame consideration - road splits:

4135 PA, 184 2B, 150 HR, 556 RBI, .261 BA, .445 SLG, .797 OPS


Incidentally, Santo's lifetime fielding percentage was .954. Cey's was .961

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

I always check a players career road splits to get a better idea of what they really accomplished. It's a low tech, convenient way of balancing out home field hitting advantages (Coors field, especially pre-humidors being an extreme example) due to short porches, clever groundskeepers, prevailing winds, etc. These are Santo's career road numbers:

4375 PA, 171 2B, 126 HR, 588 RBI, .257 BA, .406 SLG, .747 OPS

Compare that to Ron Cey's - for whom nobody is demanding hall of Fame consideration - road splits:

4135 PA, 184 2B, 150 HR, 556 RBI, .261 BA, .445 SLG, .797 OPS


Incidentally, Santo's lifetime fielding percentage was .954. Cey's was .961

Very interesting comparing those stats. IMO, Hodges is overdue.

[Peter_Spaeth]

1980 bbwaa ( 3.9%)
1985 bbwaa (13.4%)
1986 bbwaa (15.1%)
1987 bbwaa (18.9%)
1988 bbwaa (25.3%)
1989 bbwaa (16.8%)
1990 bbwaa (21.6%)
1991 bbwaa (26.2%)
1992 bbwaa (31.6%)
1993 bbwaa (36.6%)
1994 bbwaa (32.9%)
1995 bbwaa (30.2%)
1996 bbwaa (37.0%)
1997 bbwaa (39.3%)
1998 bbwaa (43.1%)

15 tries and never above 43 percent. What happened in 1981 through 1984 btw? Enough is enough, I say.

[Chris Counts]

"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

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

"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 ..."

So, because someone who wasn't worthy was voted in by an inept or biased writer, that below-average person is now the yardstick by which future writers should cast their votes?

[bigtrain]

I am a Yankee fan but I because my grandfather was a Mets fan, I watched a lot of National League games in the 1960s. Ken Boyer was very good, but Ron Santo was the best third baseman in the league in that decade. That is the reason than he was a perennial all-star at a time when the players, not fans, made those selections. It is a fact that there are fewer third basemen in the HOF than any other position and Ron Santo is better than most of those enshrined. Was he as good a fielder as Brooks Robinson? Of course not. If he was in the same league, Santo doesn't win any of his five gold gloves. But he was a very, very good defensive player and a better hitter than Brooks. He was a better player than Kell, Lindstrom, Jimmy Collins, and I would argue better than Pie Traynor, who was generally considered the best third baseman of the 20th century until Brooks, Brett, and Schmidt came along.

[GasHouseGang]

Chris mentioned that there are far fewer 3rd basemen in the Hall of Fame than any other position. That got me to wondering, so I looked it up. According to the list in Wikipedia, there are:

1B - 21
2B - 20
3B - 14
C - 16
CF - 24
LF - 21
RF - 22
SS - 23
P - 72

Then there is Andre Dawson who is just listed as OF.

Boy do the writers love pitchers or what! Maybe they should elect players by position to even things up.

[Bill Stone]

Selfish I know but I like to vote for a player I have actually seen in person so Gil Hodges gets my vote.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

I always check a player's career road splits to get a better idea of what they really accomplished. It's a low tech, convenient way of balancing out home field hitting advantages (Coors field, especially pre-humidors being an extreme example) due to short porches, clever groundskeepers, prevailing winds, etc. These are Santo's career road numbers:

4375 PA, 171 2B, 126 HR, 588 RBI, .257 BA, .406 SLG, .747 OPS

Compare that to Ron Cey's - for whom nobody is demanding hall of Fame consideration - road splits:

4135 PA, 184 2B, 150 HR, 556 RBI, .261 BA, .445 SLG, .797 OPS


Incidentally, Santo's lifetime fielding percentage was .954. Cey's was .961

Ron Cey was certainly a better than average player and is very often overlooked for just how good he really was. His career OPS+ (which takes home park, era played in, etc into account) was 121. That is quite a bit above average. Santo's career OPS+ was 125. That's even better. What's more, Santo had FAR mo range in the field than did Cey, as can be seen by chances per inning.

Also, don't forget that Santo was just 34 when he retired, and he played his entire career with diabetis. I've been on the Santo For The Hall crusade for years.

Tom C

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

"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

Well said! I could not agree with you more. I also loved your Minoso blog. Very well written!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

Boy do the writers love pitchers or what! Maybe they should elect players by position to even things up.

Well, pitchers do make up 40% or more of every roster, so it stands to reason there would be a lot of them in the HOF

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Also, don't forget that Santo was just 34 when he retired, and he played his entire career with diabetis.

IMHO, neither of these items bears any relevance to whether Santo was a HOF'er. IMHO, he's a HOF'er but his early retirement and diabetes are a non-factor.

Other than Santo, I don't think any of the 8 players deserves to be in. I won't scream if Ken Boyer makes it but the rest definitely don't belong.

Tabe

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Well, pitchers do make up 40% or more of every roster, so it stands to reason there would be a lot of them in the HOF


IMHO, neither of these items bears any relevance to whether Santo was a HOF'er. IMHO, he's a HOF'er but his early retirement and diabetes are a non-factor.

Other than Santo, I don't think any of the 8 players deserves to be in. I won't scream if Ken Boyer makes it but the rest definitely don't belong.

Tabe

For those to whom "counting" stats are important, Santo's early retirement should be taken into consideration. He did not have a chance to pad his stats. Most likely would have reached 400 homers. The diabetis is more a feel good interesting side note.

During the 1960's only Aaron and Frank Robinson had more RBI I belive...there may have been one other but he was right up there.

Tom C

[novakjr]

I'm not against any of the candidates getting in, if that means anything.. But honestly, if I had to choose whether or not to back these guys, Hodges and Santo are really the only two that I feel would be worth any sort of effort...

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

During the 1960's only Aaron and Frank Robinson had more RBI I belive...there may have been one other but he was right up there.

Tom C

Mays and Killebrew also had more RBI's during the 1960's than Santo.

[howard38]

...Pie Traynor, who was generally considered the best third baseman of the 20th century until Brooks, Brett, and Schmidt came along.
__________________________________________________ ___________

How anybody thought that Pie Traynor was better than Eddie Mathews is beyond me. Even as a little kid I was befuddled as to why Traynor was the third baseman in the Topps 1976 all-time greats subset.

[kmac32]

Santo, Hodges, and Finley would be my choices. Santo was the best 3rd baseman of his era, and combined with his WGN announcing days, he became the second " Mr. Cub" no offense meant to Ernie Banks. I have met Santo many times in person and he was top notch. It's a crime they didn't elect him before he died. Hopefully his son Jeff and Ronny jr can be there in his place along with his wife Vicki. Santo was also great for the community with his work in JDRF.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

Mays and Killebrew also had more RBI's during the 1960's than Santo.

Fifth behind Aaron, Mays, Killebrew and Frank Robinson is not a bad place to be. Santo may have been the greatest offensive third baseman the National League had ever seen before Mike Schmidt came along. That to go along with record setting defense...

I've been riding the Santo-For-The-Hall train for the past decade plus. So join me dammit!

Tom C

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Fifth behind Aaron, Mays, Killebrew and Frank Robinson is not a bad place to be. Santo may have been the greatest offensive third baseman the National League had ever seen before Mike Schmidt came along. That to go along with record setting defense...

I've been riding the Santo-For-The-Hall train for the past decade plus. So join me dammit!

Tom C

I'm with you if you'll join me on the Cocoa Laboy-For-The-Hall train. If we keep saying we should vote in guys who are just a hair below a guy whose already in the hall, we'll eventually get to Cocoa. Whoohoo!!!!

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm with you if you'll join me on the Cocoa Laboy-For-The-Hall train. If we keep saying we should vote in guys who are just a hair below a guy whose already in the hall, we'll eventually get to Cocoa. Whoohoo!!!!

Problem is Santo is probably a better overall player than 30-40% of those who are already in. It's statistically not a question of him being a hair below. In fact...I would venture that he is one of the ten best all around third basemen in history. Probably closer to 5 than 10.

Tom C

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm with you if you'll join me on the Cocoa Laboy-For-The-Hall train. If we keep saying we should vote in guys who are just a hair below a guy whose already in the hall, we'll eventually get to Cocoa. Whoohoo!!!!

He's not saying Santo is a hair below "a guy who's already in the Hall", he's saying Santo is a hair below the greatest third baseman of all time. If we didn't give guys credit for being a hair below the greatest at their position, there would be only nine players in the Hall (actually some people might like that!)

Living through the 60s, I thought Santo was the best third baseman in his league, the NL counterpart to Brooks Robinson. I was surprised that a couple of people dismissed his diabetes when considering his case -- I would think overcoming a huge physical challenge is most certainly part of what helps define a Hall of Famer in any field.

I also believe Hodges should be a definite -- I think he belongs on his playing career alone, but I've never understood how when you throw in the fact that he was the manager of one of the most miraculous WS winning teams of all time, he still gets no love.

Greg

p.s. I always liked Coco Laboy -- I got his autograph in Cooperstown when the Expos played the White Sox in the HOF game in 1970 ( I think that was the year).

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

He's not saying Santo is a hair below "a guy who's already in the Hall", he's saying Santo is a hair below the greatest third baseman of all time. If we didn't give guys credit for being a hair below the greatest at their position, there would be only nine players in the Hall (actually some people might like that!)

Living through the 60s, I thought Santo was the best third baseman in his league, the NL counterpart to Brooks Robinson. I was surprised that a couple of people dismissed his diabetes when considering his case -- I would think overcoming a huge physical challenge is most certainly part of what helps define a Hall of Famer in any field.

I also believe Hodges should be a definite -- I think he belongs on his playing career alone, but I've never understood how when you throw in the fact that he was the manager of one of the most miraculous WS winning teams of all time, he still gets no love.

Greg

p.s. I always liked Coco Laboy -- I got his autograph in Cooperstown when the Expos played the White Sox in the HOF game in 1970 ( I think that was the year).

No, I know - I am the one saying it But it is the logic that is frequently used here, especially by Minnesota Twins fans. It's really amazing how many Twins are almost HOF caliber.

You might be right about Santo being the best 3rd baseman during the '60s. We didn't have a lot to chose from, though, and I wouldn't consider that enough of a criteria to vote him in.

But your logic about having only nine in the HOF is tough for me to follow. The only way that holds up is if the first nine at their positions are never surpassed. Besides, if memory serves me, I don't think the initial HOF class was nine different positions, but I might be wrong (too lazy to look it up). Also, if you think nine is a good total number for the HOF, that's certainly your right - I wouldn't be against giving it a numerical limit, and then replacing people every now and then. Kind of like dropping off the top twenty list in total home runs - no disgrace in that.

The HOF is always going to a source of conflict, as everyone has their own ideas about what the quality level should be, and also longevity requirements. I'm one of those who thinks Koufax is a no-brainer by anyone's standards, but I also think Maris should be in, simply because of what he meant to the game. By the same token, I couldn't argue against Curt Flood (but I would anyway). And I despise the 'longevity' argument that got Niekro and Sutton in.

Fun discussions, in any event.

Scott <=== average for so long that he should be considered great

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No, I know - I am the one saying it But it is the logic that is frequently used here, especially by Minnesota Twins fans. It's really amazing how many Twins are almost HOF caliber.

You might be right about Santo being the best 3rd baseman during the '60s. We didn't have a lot to chose from, though, and I wouldn't consider that enough of a criteria to vote him in.

But your logic about having only nine in the HOF is tough for me to follow. The only way that holds up is if the first nine at their positions are never surpassed. Besides, if memory serves me, I don't think the initial HOF class was nine different positions, but I might be wrong (too lazy to look it up). Also, if you think nine is a good total number for the HOF, that's certainly your right - I wouldn't be against giving it a numerical limit, and then replacing people every now and then. Kind of like dropping off the top twenty list in total home runs - no disgrace in that.

The HOF is always going to a source of conflict, as everyone has their own ideas about what the quality level should be, and also longevity requirements. I'm one of those who thinks Koufax is a no-brainer by anyone's standards, but I also think Maris should be in, simply because of what he meant to the game. By the same token, I couldn't argue against Curt Flood (but I would anyway). And I despise the 'longevity' argument that got Niekro and Sutton in.

Fun discussions, in any event.

Scott <=== average for so long that he should be considered great

Scott -- you missed my point about only having nine players in the Hall (or maybe I just didn't make the point well). In no way do I think there should only be nine players (one from each position) in the Hall. I was using that statement to counter what you said to another poster about how we shouldn't put Santo in just because he's a hair below Mike Schmidt (arguably the greatest third baseman). If you follow that logic, only the best player at each position could be in the Hall.

Strongly agree with you Scott on Koufax and the disdain for the longevity factor (athough Sutton was actually a very good pitcher). I love Maris, and he should be considered the true single season HR champ, but he just doesn't rise to Hall of Fame standards.
Agreed that this is probably the most entertaining baseball topic to discuss, especially in the off season.

Greg

[Batter67up]

Go to Wikipedia and look at Gil Hodges stats. He has belonged in the Hall for a long time with his Dodger teammates. Not even considering his World Series title with the Mets in 69.

[vintagehofrookies]

I am all for Minnie getting in!

[btcarfagno]

Off the top of my head I can think of six third baseman that I would put ahead of Santo (A-Rod doesn't count). Frank Baker, Ed Mathews, Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt, Chipper Jones and George Brett.

That puts Santo ahead of the following Hall of Fame third basemen:

Wade Boggs
Jimmy Collins
George Kell
Fred Lindstrom
Pie Traynor

Tom C

[howard38]

/

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by howard38

I'd vote for Santo but it has nothing to do with who is in and who is not. IMO of the guys you list Santo ahead of two clearly don't belong (Lindstrom and Kell), two are borderline (Collins and Traynor) and one (Boggs) is considered better than Santo by most people. My point is that he should get in on his own merits not because four less deserving players slipped in.

I put Santo ahead of Boggs because the small difference offensively is much bigger in tge defensive side. Boggs was steadily above average defensivelybut his range was average at best. Santo was well above average defensively and his range was also well above average. I definately agree he should go in on his own merits. From 1962-1973 he was one of the best all around players in baseball.

To that point....when does Dick Allen get the call?

Tom C

[bosoxfan]

He doesn't have longevity going for him, but ask any player who had played with him or against him, and to a man they will say what a GREAT player Tony Oliva was. It's really ashame how his knee problems encumbered his career.

With that said, my vote for a player on the list is Minoso. No longevity problem there.

Someone not on the list and yet belongs in the hall is Vern Stephens. Stephens getting hardly any recognition when he originally was eligible was and is a joke.

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by Batter67up

Go to Wikipedia and look at Gil Hodges stats. He has belonged in the Hall for a long time with his Dodger teammates. Not even considering his World Series title with the Mets in 69.

Hodges is 70th all-time in Homers (370). By the end of next year, he'll be more like 73rd or 74th.

He's 115th in RBI's (1274).

He's 306th in hits (1921).

.273 lifetime batting average.

So we know it's not his cumulative stats that would get him into the Hall of Fame.

He had a very strong run between 1949 and 1957 that included seven 100 rbi seasons and six 30 homerun seasons. 1958 and 1959 were decent. He did nothing after that (and nothing before 1949).

However, during that very strong run (or during his entire career for that matter) he never led the National League in a single statistical category other than games played (twice) and strikeouts (once).

His highest MVP finish was 7th (1957). He finished 8th another year (1950), and 10th in 1954. So he had three top 10 MVP voting years over his entire career in what was at the time an 8 team National League. That's pretty underwhelming for a guy trying to rely on the short, but great peak method of getting into the Hall of Fame.

By comparison, his HOF teammate Pee Wee Reese finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 8 times. HOF teammate Duke Snider never won it, but finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th. HOF teammate Jackie Robinson won the MVP twice. HOF teammate Roy Campanella won the MVP three times. Non-HOF teammate Don Newcombe won it once. Non-HOF teammate Carl Furillo finished higher in the MVP balloting (6th in 1949) than Hodges ever did.

[btcarfagno]

Also...

How in heck Dick Allen isn't even being considered is an absolute travesty. Allen was a better hitter than 75% of the non-pitchers in the Hall currently. He was a malcontent, he moved from team to team, and he was nothing much in the field. But offensively the guy is easily the best player not in the Hall, and he was better than most Hall of Famers with the bat.

Tom C

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Scott -- you missed my point about only having nine players in the Hall (or maybe I just didn't make the point well). In no way do I think there should only be nine players (one from each position) in the Hall. I was using that statement to counter what you said to another poster about how we shouldn't put Santo in just because he's a hair below Mike Schmidt (arguably the greatest third baseman). If you follow that logic, only the best player at each position could be in the Hall.

Strongly agree with you Scott on Koufax and the disdain for the longevity factor (athough Sutton was actually a very good pitcher). I love Maris, and he should be considered the true single season HR champ, but he just doesn't rise to Hall of Fame standards.
Agreed that this is probably the most entertaining baseball topic to discuss, especially in the off season.

Greg

Greg, I got your point, but in the first place, I don't even agree that Santo is just a hair below Schmidt. I just don't think measuring new guys against existing members always works - I've stated this as best I can (using the Laboy example). The problem is that as soon as you let one sub-HOF-caliber player in, guys who want their sub-HOF-caliber guy to be added will have an obvious argument, and that's what we see happening consistently. Yes, Santo fielded better than some of the guys who are in there, and yes, he batted better than some of them. Was he great? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. I won't compare it to that of the baseball writers, as I disagree with them quite often.

Some of you have Santo ranked right in the middle of existing HOF 3rd basemen, and since that's how you feel, I completely understand how you would like him in the hall. Personally, I'd rather take a few out than add more less-than-great players.

[CubsFanCurt]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

Santo most definitely belongs in the HOF. 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.

Ain't that the truth! If he's in my dad and I are going to the induction

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Greg, I got your point, but in the first place, I don't even agree that Santo is just a hair below Schmidt. I just don't think measuring new guys against existing members always works - I've stated this as best I can (using the Laboy example). The problem is that as soon as you let one sub-HOF-caliber player in, guys who want their sub-HOF-caliber guy to be added will have an obvious argument, and that's what we see happening consistently. Yes, Santo fielded better than some of the guys who are in there, and yes, he batted better than some of them. Was he great? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. I won't compare it to that of the baseball writers, as I disagree with them quite often.

Some of you have Santo ranked right in the middle of existing HOF 3rd basemen, and since that's how you feel, I completely understand how you would like him in the hall. Personally, I'd rather take a few out than add more less-than-great players.

Sorry Scott -- I thought you were referring to the Schmidt - Santo comparison. I totally agree that's it's a terrible idea to say that anyone comparable to the lowest caliber HOFers also belongs in.

I've always been a big Oliva fan -- he was such a great hitter, but had such terrible knees.

Greg

[packs]

Wasn't Allie Reynolds only one vote away from getting in last vote?

[mr2686]

I'm with you if you'll join me on the Cocoa Laboy-For-The-Hall train.

Runscott, don't be silly. Now, if you're talkin' Boots Day I'm with ya!

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by variousmembers

Go to Wikipedia and look at ____________ stats.

Really? Wikipedia? At least two different members have mentioned wikipedia.

With the many high quality baseball websites out there (my favorite is retrosheet) are we really getting our baseball stat info from wikipedia?

Sorry, I just had to ask.

Now, returning to the conversation, in regards to pitchers having so many more spots, there is a certain logic to a position which rotates 4 (or more) players, having more entries than positions which use the same player all the time.

Doug