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

[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 Instead, they simply repeat outdated cliches ("he didn't play long enough," "he didn't hit enough home runs") that simply prove they are not students of baseball history ...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.

[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.

[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!