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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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

[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

[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.

[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!!!!