Santo elected to HOF

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by Robextend

Although arguable, I think Santo is deserving of the election. It is pretty clear he was just about the most dominating 3B in the National League for about a decade both offensively and defensively. His overall numbers don't stack up to some other HOFers, but still deserving. It is a shame he isn't around to see it happen.

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.

[Robextend]

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.

It is a great argument, and I can't blame anyone for saying he shouldn't be in. I am usually as tough as anyone on keeping guys out. I didn't agree with Dawson, if Larkin gets in I don't agree with that either. And there are a ton of other guys already in that I don't agree with.

With that said, take the average Brooks Robinson offensive year against the average Ron Santo offensive year. Brooks was a great player, but offensively he was a compiler. Defensively he might have been the best ever, but Santo was hands down a better offensive player than Brooks.

[2dueces]

Rob, I know that everyone has a right to their opinions but you can't tell me you believe Santo was better that Robinson? There has to be a bar that everyone is measured by. .250 career road hitters do not belong in the HOF. Unless that's where we set the bar? Baseball Museum where everyone with 5 years service gets in. Open the door and let the Kaat in.

[Robextend]

Nah, I am definitely not saying that. Overall Brooks is better and no question belongs where he is. I am just trying to show that you can dominate your era at your position and still have shortcomings. .250 hitter on the road isn't good, but look at some of the years Brooks had offensively...not pretty at all.

[kmac32]

Frank, your comment about Madlock and batting titles is true. Major difference is Madlock is really a negative person. Had breakfast with him at Cubs camp one year and he was just not pleasant to be around. He was pissed at his team who were 0 and 4 at the time and he seemed to forget these guys were paying to play that week. Lost the fun of the whole fantasy camp thing. He was also sour on MLB and life in general. Now Santo, different story. Always positive.

Kmac

[novakjr]

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..

[Robextend]

Wish I could have articulated as well as you David!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

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..

From '67 - '72 I was constantly immersed in baseball, listening to games, watching games, reading SI and every other sports mag I could get hold of, and of course buying the cards. Santo and Brooks were in their prime and Santo was never mentioned in the same breath among me or my friends. I would say that part of the problem was that Santo was overshadowed by Billy Williams, Ernie Banks and Fergie Jenkins. Over in Baltimore, it was Brooks and Frank Robinson in the same breath, maybe Palmer as well, then Boog Powell, Dave Mcnally, etc.

Brooks just had way higher status than Santo among everyone outside of Chicago. Maybe it wasn't fair, but that's how it was.

[Chris-Counts]

"Chris, yes I can. Frank Baker, Pie Traynor, Jimmy Collins, George Brett, George Kell, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson, Wade Boggs, Mike Schmidt, Tony Perez, Darrell Evans and Freddie Lindstrom ..."

Frank, while I usually agree with you on these things, I consider Santo to be the superior player to Traynor, Lindstrom, Kell and Collins. Traynor and Linstrom's stats were inflated by playing their peak years during a time of obscenely inflated batting averages (see 1929 and 1930 — there's a reason Hack Wilson had so many RBIs). Kell might have been a better place hitter than Santo, but he had little power and couldn't have been any better as a fielder. If you placed him in the 1960s, you would have to dock at least 10 points from his batting average. And I see nothing in Collins' record to show he was any better than any of the above. It's my belief Collins and Traynor are overrated because at one point, each was known as "the greatest third baseman ever," which dramatically illustrates why there are so few Hall of Fame third baseman.

I'd also take Santo over Perez, who may have been a slightly better hitter, but didn't have nearly the glove. It's my belief gloves are underrated and bats are overrated in the Hall of Fame, particularly at such a key position like third base. Perez was better suited for first base.

As for Evans, he's one of the most underrated of all players and I applaud you for putting him on the list.

Santo had a great glove, outstanding power, a keen batting eye and one of the best averages of any third baseman who played during an era that was absolutely dominated by pitching ...

[Chris-Counts]

Rob, I'm curious what you're argument against Barry Larkin is. Bill James has him at number six on his list of the greatest shortstops ever, which puts him ahead of most Hall of Fame shortstops. I think Larkin gets shorted because his career peaked just before A-Rod, Nomar and Jeter burst on the scene. Check out his numbers ...

[kmac32]

This is a pic of Ron at the Cubs Fantasy Camp in Mesa, AZ January 2008

[Robextend]

Hey Chris, I know we have both argued before nobly regarding the Larkin debate.

The first thing I try to think of when I start debating whether or not someone should be in the HOF is do I consider this player "great". Then I research and look for arguments against whatever my initial thoughts were. To me, Larkin wasn't a great player. It could very well be the fact that he didn't stay on the field long enough in his career, but his numbers don't sway me in the other direction.

I am sure you can come up with as many reasons that he should be in, which makes this argument interesting, but I don't believe he should be in regardless of what Bill James stated.

295AVG 198HR 960RBI, no seasons above 100rbi, only 2 above 100 runs scored. Never had more than 185 hits, and only more than 170 hits three times. And only finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice (won once in strike shortened year).

That doesn't do it for me.

[Chris-Counts]

Rob, I agree his stats aren't Hall of Fame worthy — if he was an outfielder. But how many shortstops have better stats? How many shortstops hit .295 lifetime with nearly 200 home runs and nearly 400 steals? Plus a championship and an MVP? His stats completely obliterate those of most Hall of Fame shortstops.

And if a comparative statistical analysis isn't enough, what is better? "Greatness" seems like a very subjective term.

Again, I think many people, including voters, don't consider the position or the era when evaluating a player for the Hall of Fame. All eras and positions aren't created equal ...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

"Greatness" seems like a very subjective term.

You nailed it. It IS more than just stats, which is why the steroid boys won't get in until public opinion changes, and why Rizzuto and Reese are in, and why Albert Belle will never get in yet Kirby Puckett DID get in. Human beings do the voting, and just like us, they don't always agree on what constitutes HOF credentials, some (like the Kiner example) hold grudges, others (like the guys who voted in Rizzuto) owed favors, etc., etc.