Ron Santo!

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by murphusa

but I am more of a puriest and I don't believe half of those in belong. The reason we have a HOF was so the town could attracked visitors and make money. Over the years baseball has helped them do just that by putting in marginal players

Santo joins, Doerr, Phil R, Richie and a bunch of others who were good but not the best.

I can even say Ripkin is also in that group. Yeah I know a million AllStar games etc except he was the best player on a bad team most years and his streak hurt the team

This post is wrong on so many levels. A purist would actually want Santo in -- the definition of a purist is one who adheres strictly and often excessively to tradition; the HOF right from its early decades, established a tradition of not just electing the greatest of the great, but also that second tier of players who are below Ruth and Gehrig and Cobb (some of them far below). Santo by the way, lands squarely in the middle when ranking HOF third basemen.

The idea that Ripken doesn't belong in the Hall is just plain silly, but then again people who can't spell Ripken probably shouldn't be offering opinions on Cal.

Greg

[alanu]

The idea of Cal not in is comical. His streak might have cost the Orioles a few games in the later years, but finishing 15 games back instead of 12 isn't really a big difference.

As for Santo, imho he belongs just as much as Brooks Robinson.

[murphusa]

Originally Posted by alanu

As for Santo, imho he belongs just as much as Brooks Robinson.

Brooks ave'd 11 errors per season while Santo ave was 21. Even Schmidt and Matthews who ave'd 17 errors a season were in the Hall more for their HR's than fielding

The only 3rd baseman who had more errors per season was Pie Traynor but he hit .320 not .277

The Hall should be for the exceptional player, the best of the best.

This is also a perfect example of a team now having 3 hall of fame players on it who could not win. Santo's time they were 1064-1175


Hey I'm in Philly and I will tell you the Ashburn in no way shape or form is equal to Mays as a CF'er Sure he was the best player on a sh**y team but that doesn't make him a HOF'er

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

This post is wrong on so many levels. A purist would actually want Santo in -- the definition of a purist is one who adheres strictly and often excessively to tradition; the HOF right from its early decades, established a tradition of not just electing the greatest of the great, but also that second tier of players who are below Ruth and Gehrig and Cobb (some of them far below). Santo by the way, lands squarely in the middle when ranking HOF third basemen.

The idea that Ripken doesn't belong in the Hall is just plain silly, but then again people who can't spell Ripken probably shouldn't be offering opinions on Cal.

Greg

Greg, I have never understood why opinions on who belongs in the HOF generate these types of comments. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Obviously the HOF voters disagreed with you for many years, so saying that anyone who's against Santo is wrong, is in my opinion, wrong.

[murphusa]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

This post is wrong on so many levels. A purist would actually want Santo in -- the definition of a purist is one who adheres strictly and often excessively to tradition; the HOF right from its early decades, established a tradition of not just electing the greatest of the great, but also that second tier of players who are below Ruth and Gehrig and Cobb (some of them far below). Santo by the way, lands squarely in the middle when ranking HOF third basemen.

The idea that Ripken doesn't belong in the Hall is just plain silly, but then again people who can't spell Ripken probably shouldn't be offering opinions on Cal.

Greg

The baseball writters did an excellent job in only placing the best of the best in the Hall until about 1975 when Kiner then Lemon went in. The majority of the lesser talented players went in by the committees who voted for their friends. Those getting less than 80% of the vote should not be there.

take all of those players out and the committee ones and you would have a real HOF.

[sylbry]

The nice thing about Santo finally getting in is now people can stop voting for him. How many elections did it take, 20 perhaps? (Last appeared on BBWAA in 1998.) IMO if it takes 20 elections to get someone elected then he shouldn't be elected.

After 20 or so attemps it seems like he was elected out of pity. Either than or Santo became significantly better after he retired.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sylbry

The nice thing about Santo finally getting in is now people can stop voting for him. How many elections did it take, 20 perhaps? (Last appeared on BBWAA in 1998.) IMO if it takes 20 elections to get someone elected then he shouldn't be elected.

After 20 or so attemps it seems like he was elected out of pity. Either than or Santo became significantly better after he retired.

I can already hear the conversations when trying to determine who to vote for: "okay, now who's the next best player after Santo?"

[murphusa]

Santo never got above 48% in the writers vote. There is a reason for that

[Jewish-collector]

I agree with Jim Murphy 100 percent. Half of the guys in the HOF should NOT be in. I love Santo, but no way in hell he belongs.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

I agree with Jim Murphy 100 percent. Half of the guys in the HOF should NOT be in. I love Santo, but no way in hell he belongs.

In Ron Santo's HOF, Norm Cash would be playing 1B, Sam McDowell pitching, Frank Howard in the outfield....not bad.