Ron Santo

[Indiana COBB]

What's everyones take on Ron Santo? Should he be in the Hall of Fame? I feel he should and is long overdue, I hope the veterans committe allows Ron in this year. The poor guy has been suffering from diabetis his whole life, and yet he never let it get him down or affect his playing. Santo is one of the best third basemen ever, (how many 3B are in the hall?)and plus he won a handfull of gold gloves to go along with over 350 HR, he along with Ernie Banks was the heart and soul of the Cubs in the 1960's. It's time Santo gets his due.

[RuthMayBond]

What's everyones take on Ron Santo? Should he be in the Hall of Fame? I feel he should and is long overdue, I hope the veterans committe allows Ron in this year. The poor guy has been suffering from diabetis his whole life, and yet he never let it get him down or affect his playing. Santo is one of the best third basemen ever, (how many 3B are in the hall?)and plus he won a handfull of gold glovesHe won five, and I have him rated as he should have won at least seven :eek:

[DoubleX]

I believe Santo to be most definitely among the 10 best ever to play his position, and arguably as high as the 5th or 6th best. Being that I am too young to have seen Santo play, I would love it to hear some theories as to why Santo hasn't gotten his due? He was a superior all-around player to Brooks Robinson, yet Robinson seems to be held in much higher regard (he was selected to the All-Century squad, though I don't know how much stock to put in that). I guess Robinson's dazzling defense and postseason exposure is what's made the difference.

[KHenry14]

I think the comparison to Brooks is valid. They were exact contemporaries, and based on that, It's clear to me that Santo was the overall superior player. Brooks was clearly flashier, and did perform well in the post season, but lets face it, a number of Brook's GG's were won on reputation not merit.

With that said, I believe that Santo was the pre-eminant 3B of the NL during his time in MLB, and over all he's easily in the top 10 of 3B's all time, and to me that makes it easy to put him into the HOF.

KH14

[BillyF29]

I think Robinson is considered a better player because he was one of the leaders of those World Champion Orioles teams of the 1970's. He has an MVP and two Rings. Santo has none of those. There's where the difference lies.

I do believe Santo is a top ten 3B and definately belongs in the hall. He had a very good career as a solid all around player. It wasn't his fault he was stuck on the Cubbies and never won a ring.

[Indiana COBB]

One reason why I beleive that Santo is not in the Hall is because during his playing days he never really seemed to care to talk to reporters, or would make snide remarks towards them. Perhaps his shunning from the Hall, is the sports writers way to get back at him, If this is the case this shows a bad part on their reputation, and they should let personal issues aside when deciding who belongs in the Hall of Fame and who doesn't.

[mac195]

I have rarely ever seen people on serious baseball discussion sites make the case that Brooks Robinson was better than Santo. The Cub third baseman was clearly superior by the stats. The fact that the Cubs never won a pennant in the '60s despite having Banks (although he was quite a mediocre 1st baseman during that decade), Williams, and Jenkins (HOFers with longer careers but not spectacular peaks) has been held against Santo. BBWAA writers probably thought of him as only the 3rd best position player on those teams, when he was actually the best most years.

[west coast orange and black]

... but lets face it, a number of Brook's GG's were won on reputation not merit.
amen to that. nettles was another who was passed over from time to time when the trophies were being handed out.

[RuthMayBond]

I think the comparison to Brooks is valid. They were exact contemporaries, and based on that, It's clear to me that Santo was the overall superior player. Brooks was clearly flashier, and did perform well in the post season, but lets face it, a number of Brook's GG's were won on reputation not merit. Sounds like Kaat. I have Brooksie as deserving at least four but there are several I haven't decided on yet.

[RuthMayBond]

amen to that. nettles was another who was passed over from time to time when the trophies were being handed out.I have him deserving at least three, but again, I have some undecided. Maybe some other things working against Santo are that people think his offense was helped by Wrigley. But they didn't hold it against Billy Williams

[J W]

If I had one vote off the VC list it would go to Santo.

Schmidt/Mathews/Brett/Baker/Boggs/Santo/Robinson. With a shout-out to Molitor.

Then Traynor/Collins/Hack/Boyer/Nettles/Leach/Evans. That's 15 right? I'm not sure where to draw the HOF line but I'm certain Santo is above it.

I still can't understand how he slipped through the BBWAA.

[Cougar]

Santo is a no-brainer.

Any system that isn't enshrining him is sending a signal that someone needs to change the rules.

[catcher24]

If you vote at the Baseball Fever Hall of Fame, you know that I have been pushing for Santo's election to our own HOF for several months. I have posted three or four (and have PM'ed another couple) posts showing why Santo, at his peak, was very clearly the superior player - and this is during the period Brooks won his MVP award. I certainly feel the fact he was not elected to Cooperstown by the BBWAA is one of, if not the most, egregious omissions they ever made. He definitely belongs. I think Brooks' post season exposure and his much longer career helped get him elected. Unfortunately, if you look at the record, Brooks should have retired at least three years before he did, and in those last few years was actually hurting his team by continueing to play. Santo knew better when to quit, but in doing so shortened his career and, IMHO, hurt his election chances.

[RuthMayBond]

Unfortunately, if you look at the record, Brooks should have retired at least three years before he did, and in those last few years was actually hurting his team by continueing to play. Must be something about Oriole 3B :laugh

[J W]

Must be something about Oriole 3B :laugh

Trust me RMB, we wouldn't have wanted to see Ryan Minor out there instead of Ripken ;) .

I've relented and yes, I'd have to put Santo ahead of Robinson as well. One spot ahead of him anyway. The difference in offensive output, Wrigley Field or not, outweighs the difference in defense/postseason performance.

[catcher24]

HOORAY, another convert! :gt Now only a few dozen more to go, and maybe Santo will get elected to the BBFHOF!!

[Clemente21]

If anyone doubts Santo's HOF status Watch the movie 'THIS OLD CUB'

[J W]

C24: I'm no convert! I'm voting for Santo and Robinson. I'm also voting for Baker, Molitor, and Traynor.

:cool:

[catcher24]

JW: WHOA, me too! I didn't realize I had them all on my ballot until I read your post and saw that I did.

[uthminsta]

He's in our HOF now, isn't he? This was the first month I voted for him, so you could say I was sort of a recent convert. It seemed he had enough votes at the end, but I haven't actually tallied up the ballots... So I guess...

Congratulations, Santo!

[wogdoggy]

being a big cards fan back in santos era.i can honestly say i hated santo cause he used to come up with either the big play or the home run to beat my team...problem is there were alot of other great greats from that team and its tuff being a third baseman trying to get into the hall.

[chisoxrule]

Do you think Ron Santo deserves to be in the HOF? Do you think Ron Santo will ever get into the HOF?

[ADunn44]

Do you think Ron Santo deserves to be in the HOF? Do you think Ron Santo will ever get into the HOF?



yes and no



people on the committe are morons

[64Cards]

Yes.

And if he doesn't get it, I can't see any other Veterans Commitee guy making it either.

[dgarza]

y & y ...

[rockin500]

yes and he damned well better! :mad:

[westsidegrounds]

Here's one thing, though -

The Cubs of that era have Ernie Banks, Ferguson Jenkins, and Billy Williams already represented in the Hall.

Maybe the voters, when they come to Ronnie, think, "You're telling me this team had four guys on it who belong in the Hall of Fame - even though they never won anything, not one single pennant? No. No way."

I think he's good enough to be in. And yet ...

[rainout]

^ Yeah, that's the best arguement against it. But as they stand his numbers make him borderline and if diabetes hadn't forced him to retire at 34 he would have been a no doubter. He was a better hitter than Brooks Robinson and nearly as good defensively.

[cubs_rock]

Yes and If he doesnt....... :mad:

[DoubleX]

^ Yeah, that's the best arguement against it. But as they stand his numbers make him borderline and if diabetes hadn't forced him to retire at 34 he would have been a no doubter. He was a better hitter than Brooks Robinson and nearly as good defensively.

I don't think there is anything borderline about his numbers, he should definitely be in. I have him ranked as the 5th best all-time at 3B, one spot ahead of Robinson (though there is a huge drop in my opinion between 4, Wade Boggs, and 5, Ron Santo). Anyone who after 130 years of baseball can reasonably be considered among the 5-10 best ever of his position should by all rights be in the Hall.

[yankeesfan8926]

My apologies if this has been discussed before, but what do you guys think of Ron Santo?

[Fuzzy Bear]

My apologies if this has been discussed before, but what do you guys think of Ron Santo?

I think he's been discussed before. Yes, of course, he's a HOFer, but he's certainly been discussed before.

[The Cobb]

I'm a diehard Cards fan, but listening in to Ron Santo on the local Cubs station on the radio is some of the most entertaining baseball I've ever encountered.

[Skin & Bones]

He may very well be the best player not in. Close between him, Allen, and Dahlen.

[tearforamariner]

Santo is quite possibly the 4th best third baseman of all-time. Without a doubt in my mind he should be in.

[willshad]

I think a lot of this decision has to do with whether you believe that there 'should' be a certain number of players at each position elected. For whatever reason., third base has had a very low amount of players who have had true 'hall of fame' careers...sure there are TRUE hall of fame third basemen..Schmidt, Mathews, Brett..guys whod go in even if they were first baseman. Obviously, guys like Santo, Nettles, Boyer, etc are at least 2 notches below these guys in both peak value and career value..so the real question is: do you lower the standard just to let in more third basemen? If Santo was a first basemen or outfielder he wouldnt even be considered as a hall of famer..and THATS the problem I have with his selection. His ENTIRE case rests on the fact that hes 'one of the 5 or 10 best third basemen in history'. But what does this really mean..that he was that good, or just that there werent many great third basemen? If it was a position like catcher or maybe shortstop, positions known traditionally for guys who could field their positions first, and handicapping people offensively, then Id be willing to let his subpar numbers slide. But the fact is that third base IS an offensive posision, its just a matter of coincidence that most of the good ones havent had the long careers, or dominance, necessary to be true hall of famers. So no I dont think he should be in, and if you can state a good case other than his comparison to other third basemen then Id listen to it.

[ChrisLDuncan]

He may very well be the best player not in. Close between him, Allen, and Dahlen.

Sorry, and with all due respect to Dick Allen, but Bert Blyleven is the best eligible player not in.

[tearforamariner]

I think a lot of this decision has to do with whether you believe that there 'should' be a certain number of players at each position elected. For whatever reason., third base has had a very low amount of players who have had true 'hall of fame' careers...sure there are TRUE hall of fame third basemen..Schmidt, Mathews, Brett..guys whod go in even if they were first baseman. Obviously, guys like Santo, Nettles, Boyer, etc are at least 2 notches below these guys in both peak value and career value..so the real question is: do you lower the standard just to let in more third basemen? If Santo was a first basemen or outfielder he wouldnt even be considered as a hall of famer..and THATS the problem I have with his selection. His ENTIRE case rests on the fact that hes 'one of the 5 or 10 best third basemen in history'. But what does this really mean..that he was that good, or just that there werent many great third basemen? If it was a position like catcher or maybe shortstop, positions known traditionally for guys who could field their positions first, and handicapping people offensively, then Id be willing to let his subpar numbers slide. But the fact is that third base IS an offensive posision, its just a matter of coincidence that most of the good ones havent had the long careers, or dominance, necessary to be true hall of famers. So no I dont think he should be in, and if you can state a good case other than his comparison to other third basemen then Id listen to it.


So a shortstop has to have Hall of Fame offensive numbers for a First Baseman as well? Your hall must have what, 10 or 15 people in it.

[willshad]

No Im not saying that..Third base and shortstop are totally different positions...third base is known as an offensive position (like first base and corner outfielders), thus I think the standards should be similiar for that position (maybe with a slight more emphasis on defense) as for first basemen and outfielders. And if Santo was a First basemen or outfieler then he wouldnt even be in talks a s a possible hall of famer. Maybe you disagree.

[Skin & Bones]

Sorry, and with all due respect to Dick Allen, but Bert Blyleven is the best eligible player not in.

Well, I was just naming position players, but yeah, Bert should clearly be in the hall.

[tearforamariner]

No Im not saying that..Third base and shortstop are totally different positions...third base is known as an offensive position (like first base and corner outfielders), thus I think the standards should be similiar for that position (maybe with a slight more emphasis on defense) as for first basemen and outfielders. And if Santo was a First basemen or outfieler then he wouldnt even be in talks a s a possible hall of famer. Maybe you disagree.

Third Base is much more difficult than Corner OF or First Base. As for it being known as "offensive position", I disagree. It's often called a "power position", but only two third basemen with 300+ HR are even in the Hall.

You must give credit for defense, and when you do, Santo, who was a top notch defender, is a Hall of Famer.

[Yankwood]

Santo was an All Star. Not every All Star is a Hall of Famer. But then again this is very subjective. Your HOFer is not mine and vice versa. Same for everyone here. Makes for great conversation, but if he was CLEARLY a HOFer, he would BE a HOFer. Same with Blyleven. If he was really as great as most of the regular posters here seem to think he is, he would in too. The fact is though, that he is NOT a clear cut Hall of Famer. There are enough fringe members now. We need to bring a wide broom to Cooperstown and sweep half that place out. Letting more marginal candidates in is not the answer, in my opinion. :baseball:

[Yankwood]

So a shortstop has to have Hall of Fame offensive numbers for a First Baseman as well? Your hall must have what, 10 or 15 people in it.
Who knows what the exact number should be? It's all subjective and we all have our opinions and that's great. I have read and heard people I consider knowledgeable, campaign for players that I would not even consider for induction. Doesn't make either one of us right or wrong, just our opinions.

[tearforamariner]

Santo was an All Star. Not every All Star is a Hall of Famer. But then again this is very subjective. Your HOFer is not mine and vice versa. Same for everyone here. Makes for great conversation, but if he was CLEARLY a HOFer, he would BE a HOFer. Same with Blyleven. If he was really as great as most of the regular posters here seem to think he is, he would in too. The fact is though, that he is NOT a clear cut Hall of Famer. There are enough fringe members now. We need to bring a wide broom to Cooperstown and sweep half that place out. Letting more marginal candidates in is not the answer, in my opinion. :baseball:

Fine Yank, tell me then: What 3rd basemen would you keep in the Hall? Who really belongs?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well, I was just naming position players, but yeah, Bert should clearly be in the hall.

Oh then in that case it then it's either Allen or Santo.

[Yankwood]

Fine Yank, tell me then: What 3rd basemen would you keep in the Hall? Who really belongs?
Pie, Brooks, Schmidt, Matthews, Killebrew (if you consider him a third baseman), Brett, and that's about it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No Im not saying that..Third base and shortstop are totally different positions...third base is known as an offensive position (like first base and corner outfielders), thus I think the standards should be similiar for that position (maybe with a slight more emphasis on defense) as for first basemen and outfielders. And if Santo was a First basemen or outfieler then he wouldnt even be in talks as a possible hall of famer. Maybe you disagree.

Well, of course we wouldn't be talking about Santo as a HOFer if he were a first baseman or an outfielder. No kidding!

But he wasn't a first baseman or an outfielder; he was a 5 time Gold Glove third baseman.

Third base is NOT known as an offensive position in the sense that first base and corner outfield are. Very few outfielders successfully convert to third base; the rate of success on outfield-to-third base position switches is poor. Many of the "successes" are guys like Graig Nettles or Buddy Bell, who were third basemen to begin with, but who were parked in the OF for a year or two early in their careers because they had to get into the lineup, but were blocked by an established incumbent at third.

Third base requires a COMBINATION of defense and offense unique to the position. A no-glove guy will be moved off the position. Wade Boggs, for example, was a TERRIBLE fielder at third when he first came up. I believe it was The Scouting Report 1983 that said "Wade Boggs cannot field." He worked at it to where he became an above average fielder, but had he not done so, he wouldn't have lasted at the position. Santo was a top fielder who also hit well. His diabetes prematurely ended his career; he was on pace for almost 500 HRs if he had been healthier.

[nerfan]

Pie, Brooks, Schmidt, Matthews, Killebrew (if you consider him a third baseman), Brett, and that's about it.

Pie TRAYNOR?????? Santo eats Pie Traynor alive! Traynor accumulated a lot of RBI (1273). He also batted .320 over his career, a fine total. But keep in mind that Traynor played in one of the most inflated (offense-wise) eras in history. When Traynor batted .366 (a number that today would easily win the batting title), the league batted .312. When Santo batted .312 in 1966, the league batted .266. It's all about era adjustments. Plus Santo had more discipline and power.

[Yankwood]

Pie TRAYNOR?????? Santo eats Pie Traynor alive! Traynor accumulated a lot of RBI (1273). He also batted .320 over his career, a fine total. But keep in mind that Traynor played in one of the most inflated (offense-wise) eras in history. When Traynor batted .366 (a number that today would easily win the batting title), the league batted .312. When Santo batted .312 in 1966, the league batted .266. It's all about era adjustments. Plus Santo had more discipline and power.Thank you. You made my point. Everything here is subjective and almost no one is a CLEAR CUT Hall of Famer. Babe Ruth is not even a clear cut Hall of Famer. While the numbers are indisputable, some think he falls short in the other departments. Not as bad as Ty Cobb but some see moral flaws and that is even a category for the Hall of Fame. The subjectivity is proven by the fact that many saw fit to put Traynor in and not Santo. You are not the be all and end all who decides. It is done by committees so that we get an idea of the consensus of opinion.

[Brad Harris]

Most deserving player on last year's Veterans Committee ballot. Probably the 5th or 6th best third baseman in history.

[Yankwood]

Most deserving player on last year's Veterans Committee ballot. Probably the 5th or 6th best third baseman in history.
Thank you for the opinion. Again, very subjective as to who gets in. 5th or 6th shows some doubt. Maybe he's 5th, maybe he's 6th. Maybe he's 3rd or 4th. Or maybe 7th or 8th. Maybe it's splitting hairs. Perhaps 4th or 5th is not good enough to some. Maybe 7th or 8th is to others. Once again, all very subjective. Everyone is making my point for me.

[538280]

No Im not saying that..Third base and shortstop are totally different positions...third base is known as an offensive position (like first base and corner outfielders), thus I think the standards should be similiar for that position (maybe with a slight more emphasis on defense) as for first basemen and outfielders. And if Santo was a First basemen or outfieler then he wouldnt even be in talks a s a possible hall of famer. Maybe you disagree.


Not understanding exactly what you mean. You are correct that Santo wouldn't be an outstanding hitter from 1B or corner OF with a 124 career OPS+ for example (though his best seasons still would hold up to a 1B/corner OF standard if he had a really long career around it-his best hitting seasons are about of the same caliber of Eddie Murray). But Santo was actually a 3Bman-and an excellent fielding one at that. For a 3Bman that is an excellent caliber hitter and more than worthy of the HOF. The standards of hitting for 3Bmen and 1B/corner OF are totally different.

[KCGHOST]

I'd prefer to see Santo in the HoF, but can live if he doesn't make it. I am not sure he is even the best 3B not in the HoF (see Stan Hack).

[Chisox]

I'd prefer to see Santo in the HoF, but can live if he doesn't make it. I am not sure he is even the best 3B not in the HoF (see Stan Hack).
I'm not sure how Hack is better than Santo. Hack might have a very slight fielding edge, but I'm fairly sure Santo's bat beats out Hacks thin fielding edge. Santo's OPS+ is 125, Hack's is 117. Considering the FAR better league Santo was facing, I've got to think Santo was better. I wouldn't mind if Hack made it, either.

[Chisox]

Thank you for the opinion. Again, very subjective as to who gets in. 5th or 6th shows some doubt. Maybe he's 5th, maybe he's 6th. Maybe he's 3rd or 4th. Or maybe 7th or 8th. Maybe it's splitting hairs. Perhaps 4th or 5th is not good enough to some. Maybe 7th or 8th is to others. Once again, all very subjective. Everyone is making my point for me.
And you're making it so much easier for us. Santo is better than 70% of the players who are in the HOF, and that may be a conservative estimate. If Santo is not HOF worthy, not many are. When he retired, he was the second best player of his position of all-time, trailing only Eddie Mathews, whose production fell off just as Santo was starting. Santo was clearly the best player at his position while he was playing. I've got him 4th, and closer to 3rd than 5th. There's currently 9 3B in the HOF. That's quite a large problem.

[willshad]

I dont know...seems to me that you can look at it 2 ways: that the only third basemen who deserve to be in the hall of fame are the TRUE, no question about it ones ( Schmidt, Brett, Mathews, and Boggs), or that you can lower the standards a couple of notches, and let in Santo. The problem I have with this is that you are then opening the door to a bunch of OTHER guys who were similiar, but maybe slightly worse than Santo, who would then have the same argument that Santo has now. Players like Matt Williams, Robin Ventura, Graig Nettles, heck even Scott Rolen...all even better fielders than Santo, and only slightly less quailified offensively.

[Yankwood]

Thi is just more of what I was talking about. Subjectivity. You could argue all day, and maybe even accurately, that Santo is as good or better than "so and so", who is already in the Hall, but who's to say that "so and so" deserves to be in. Again, there are very few players past or present, who are members or yu may think belong in and get NO arguments from anybody.

[Captain Cold Nose]

And you're making it so much easier for us. Santo is better than 70% of the players who are in the HOF, and that may be a conservative estimate. If Santo is not HOF worthy, not many are. When he retired, he was the second best player of his position of all-time, trailing only Eddie Mathews, whose production fell off just as Santo was starting. Santo was clearly the best player at his position while he was playing. I've got him 4th, and closer to 3rd than 5th. There's currently 9 3B in the HOF. That's quite a large problem.

When you say 70%, are you talking about third basemen or all players in the HOF? If it's the former, fine, a good argument can be made. If it's the latter, then, I'm sorry. There's no way I can agree with that.

[538280]

Thi is just more of what I was talking about. Subjectivity. You could argue all day, and maybe even accurately, that Santo is as good or better than "so and so", who is already in the Hall, but who's to say that "so and so" deserves to be in. Again, there are very few players past or present, who are members or yu may think belong in and get NO arguments from anybody.

You're to say "so and so" deserves in based on the previously set standards of the HOF. To say that all that belongs in are Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, and all the other very top guys isn't accurately representing the current standard of the HOF. We can't hold third base to a different standard than all the other positions.

I dont know...seems to me that you can look at it 2 ways: that the only third basemen who deserve to be in the hall of fame are the TRUE, no question about it ones ( Schmidt, Brett, Mathews, and Boggs), or that you can lower the standards a couple of notches, and let in Santo. The problem I have with this is that you are then opening the door to a bunch of OTHER guys who were similiar, but maybe slightly worse than Santo, who would then have the same argument that Santo has now. Players like Matt Williams, Robin Ventura, Graig Nettles, heck even Scott Rolen...all even better fielders than Santo, and only slightly less quailified offensively.

The thing is that opening that door does not lower any standard that has ever existed. It lowers an idealistic image of the HOF that some people have as only including the very top notch guys like Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, etc. After Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, and Boggs IMO Santo is the best of the rest 3Bmen-and that group includes quite a few guys who are clearly qualified for the HOF given its current standard.

[Yankwood]

Forget about the previously set standards. Those too are opinions of the past that we not necessarily are bound to forever. If those now in charge deem the standards differently than in the past, players like Ron Santo and Dick Allen will continue to be ignored by those voters. Perhaps the next set will be more lenient and allow entry to those that this group feels is unworthy. Again, it's all subjective. How else would you explain how some get in and some don't?

[jalbright]

Yankwood,

While the actual selections are, as you note, subjective, I think there's one point you're missing. There are objective measures that should guide us for the HOF. One of those is the number of selections. The voters have set a de facto standard by saying these are the top 227 (or whatever it is right now) players of all time. I'm not going to say they've nailed the top 227, but if we change the standards such that a player isn't arguably among the top 250 or isn't arguably below the top 200, we're varying the standards greatly from that de facto standard. I don't think we should do that. Also, while I wouldn't adhere to this concept in a strict manner, there are 8 position players (9 if you include DH, which I'm sure from your profile you wouldn't do) and 3-5 pitchers who qualify as starters. The HOF should at least come close to mimicking that distribution of players. That would mean we should have 12-18 third basemen. Santo is clearly in that company IMHO, and therefore belongs.

Jim Albright

[Yankwood]

Yankwood,

While the actual selections are, as you note, subjective, I think there's one point you're missing. There are objective measures that should guide us for the HOF. One of those is the number of selections. The voters have set a de facto standard by saying these are the top 227 (or whatever it is right now) players of all time. I'm not going to say they've nailed the top 227, but if we change the standards such that a player isn't arguably among the top 250 or isn't arguably below the top 200, we're varying the standards greatly from that de facto standard. I don't think we should do that. Also, while I wouldn't adhere to this concept in a strict manner, there are 8 position players (9 if you include DH, which I'm sure from your profile you wouldn't do) and 3-5 pitchers who qualify as starters. The HOF should at least come close to mimicking that distribution of players. That would mean we should have 12-18 third basemen. Santo is clearly in that company IMHO, and therefore belongs.

Jim Albright
I do understand, but what I think is lost here is that when you say "measures that SHOULD guide us", you are not saying "measures that MUST guide us". The standards will ALWAYS change just as the voters change. What one group adhered to regarding standards is not what the next group will adhere to. This is obvious to me, as under the standards that have been set, Santo should be in as you have pointed out. But yet, Santo is NOT in making my point that subjectivity, for better or worse, will ALWAYS be a VERY, VERY important factor.

[Chisox]

When you say 70%, are you talking about third basemen or all players in the HOF? If it's the former, fine, a good argument can be made. If it's the latter, then, I'm sorry. There's no way I can agree with that.
I'm saying that Santo is better than 70% of players currently in the HOF. Think of it this way, there are 198 MLB players currently in, more than a few whose selection is questionable. Add to that the number of current and recently retired players who are not yet eligible, and the ones who should be in, and that number reaches I'm guessing somewhere in the 230-250 range. 30% of that would be about 70th all-time. I'm fine putting him in that category.

[538280]

I do understand, but what I think is lost here is that when you say "measures that SHOULD guide us", you are not saying "measures that MUST guide us". The standards will ALWAYS change just as the voters change. What one group adhered to regarding standards is not what the next group will adhere to. This is obvious to me, as under the standards that have been set, Santo should be in as you have pointed out. But yet, Santo is NOT in making my point that subjectivity, for better or worse, will ALWAYS be a VERY, VERY important factor.

So you are saying it is right for the standards to change for no reason? That's totally unfair; the HOF standard should be a constant that holds the same against all groups of players that come through. It doesn't make any sense to arbitrarily change that standard when you're trying to determine who is HOF worthy.

[AstrosFan]

So you are saying it is right for the standards to change for no reason? That's totally unfair; the HOF standard should be a constant that holds the same against all groups of players that come through. It doesn't make any sense to arbitrarily change that standard when you're trying to determine who is HOF worthy.

There is no rigidly defined Hall of Fame standard, it's pretty vague. The reason the standard changes is that, as new voters come along, the interpretation of the standards of the Hall changes. Santo's best chances of election seem to ride on sabermetrically inclined voters making up a high percentage of the BBWAA. Or he could simply gradually improve until he gets the required 75%.

[538280]

There is no rigidly defined Hall of Fame standard, it's pretty vague. The reason the standard changes is that, as new voters come along, the interpretation of the standards of the Hall changes. Santo's best chances of election seem to ride on sabermetrically inclined voters making up a high percentage of the BBWAA. Or he could simply gradually improve until he gets the required 75%.

Of course it's vague, but when you're looking yourself to determine whether a player is a HOFer, you should do your best to try to make it not vauge and best represent reality, mostly based on what Jim said about the number of players selected. I, too, when determining whether a player is HOF worthy, always keep the number of players actually selected in mind.

[AstrosFan]

Of course it's vague, but when you're looking yourself to determine whether a player is a HOFer, you should do your best to try to make it not vauge and best represent reality, mostly based on what Jim said about the number of players selected. I, too, when determining whether a player is HOF worthy, always keep the number of players actually selected in mind.

We can make good selections for the Hall, but as long as the voters change, the standards change. One can not define a Hall of Fame player precisely, he or she can only create a definition that seems to fit the standard that has been gradually created over the years.

[Yankwood]

So you are saying it is right for the standards to change for no reason? That's totally unfair; the HOF standard should be a constant that holds the same against all groups of players that come through. It doesn't make any sense to arbitrarily change that standard when you're trying to determine who is HOF worthy.Who made the previous standards the be all and end all? Just because those who sat in judgement sat there first does not make them judge and jury for all eternity. And likewise, just because a
Dave Bancroft, for example was put into the HOF, does this mean that now all players who are comparable deserve enshrinement as well? Of course not. Different voters with differing views on who a HOFer should be now sit in judgement. It may not be what you want but it sure is the way it is. And this particular group, most of whom probably saw Santo play, have voiced their opinion time and again in the form of no vote.

[willshad]

The thing is that opening that door does not lower any standard that has ever existed. It lowers an idealistic image of the HOF that some people have as only including the very top notch guys like Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, etc. After Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, and Boggs IMO Santo is the best of the rest 3Bmen-and that group includes quite a few guys who are clearly qualified for the HOF given its current standard.


Ok so let me ask you...you seem to be saying that the hall of fame is treating third base differently than other positions...only allowing the very top guys in, and not the ones a couple of notches below that. Fair enough. But lets take first base for example.. the counterparts to Schmidt and Mathews would be Gerhig and Foxx..then at third you have the next rung... Brett and Boggs. Agreed? Here is where there is a problem...basically ALL of the hall of fame first basemen would be on the 'next rung', right below the very best. Santo would be the third rung for third basemen..his first base counterparts would be guys who were very good fielders, but whos career and/or peak numbers fell short. Guys like Mattingly, Garvey, Clark, Hernandez. The 'close but no cigar' guys. It appears to me that the only difference between first and third is the AMOUNT of players on that 'second tier' of hall qualified players. If there were only 6 first basemen on the first 2 'rungs', then youd probably argue for Mattingly, Garvey etc the same way you do for Santo. Yeah you have a few guys like Tony Perez who would be on the same level as Santo, but he probabaly was a mistake. You could probably do the same at the other positions too. The counterparts to Santo at each position would all be mistakes. Just because he is the 4th or 5th best third baseman ever doesnt mean that he is the equal to the 4th or 5th best first baseman ever, or shortstiop, or left fielder. Its just that there arent that many truly qualified third basemen in the hall. Do you see what Im saying?

[OleMissCub]

I watched "This Old Cub" last night and even though I consider myself a pretty hard guy, it made me cry. How this guy isn't in the HOF is beyond me. It's an absolute disgrace. There is a scene in the movie where it shows him waiting for the call, then getting A call, but it's a call telling him that he didn't get elected. Heartbreaking.

Here's the trailer for "This Old Cub"...worth a watch (some good footage of him in it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf3uTJ1k-h0

[Paul Wendt]

. . . There are objective measures that should guide us for the HOF. One of those is the number of selections. The voters have set a de facto standard by saying these are the top 227 (or whatever it is right now) players of all time. I'm not going to say they've nailed the top 227, but if we change the standards such that a player isn't arguably among the top 250 or isn't arguably below the top 200, we're varying the standards greatly from that de facto standard. . .
I am not so optimistic as Jim Albright about anyone's, any group's, or any system's reliability in ranking so finely, but if he would say 350 and 150 rather than 250 and 200, I would happily agree. Few voters have fine rankings of players but I think they should all support everyone they would rank in the top 150 and vote for no one they would leave outside the top 350. That is, 150 and 350 including the voter's consideration of character and extras (first black League President, etc).

Just because those who sat in judgement sat there first does not make them judge and jury for all eternity. And likewise, just because a Dave Bancroft, for example was put into the HOF, does this mean that now all players who are comparable deserve enshrinement as well? Of course not. . .

I agree in principle. I mean 150 and 350 to provide for disagreement about how to handle a broad grey area. Let me focus on different time periods for example, but the same pertains to fielding positions, roles (relief pitcher), and institutions (Negro Leagues, pre-National League). If non-pitchers from the 1920s-30s are heavily represented, from the 1900s-10s and 1940s-50s moderately represented, pre-1900 and post-1960 lightly represented, there is scope between 150 and 350 to use a lot of judgment in reacting to the inconsistencies.

Perhaps Jim Albright means 200 and 250 in the same way, if he believes that almost everyone can distinguish #200 and #250 from #227 on some personal scale.

I disagree in particular. I don't think Dave Bancroft stands out as a poor selection. How could he, with Freddie Lindstrom, Travis Jackson, and George Kelly on the rolls? Bancroft and Bill Terry must be somewhere between 150 and 350, better than those three but not so good as Frank Frisch (these are six 1920s New York Giants, not quite contemporary). That is my judgment. My point above is that no one who would rank Bancroft #400 should vote for everyone "better than Bancroft"; no one who would rank Terry #100 should vote only for everyone "better than Terry".


Ok so let me ask you...you seem to be saying that the hall of fame is treating third base differently than other positions...only allowing the very top guys in, and not the ones a couple of notches below that. Fair enough. But lets take first base for example.. the counterparts to Schmidt and Mathews would be Gerhig and Foxx..then at third you have the next rung... Brett and Boggs. Agreed? Here is where there is a problem...basically ALL of the hall of fame first basemen would be on the 'next rung', right below the very best. Santo would be the third rung for third basemen..his first base counterparts would be guys who were very good fielders, but whos career and/or peak numbers fell short. Guys like Mattingly, Garvey, Clark, Hernandez. The 'close but no cigar' guys. It appears to me that the only difference between first and third is the AMOUNT of players on that 'second tier' of hall qualified players. If there were only 6 first basemen on the first 2 'rungs', then youd probably argue for Mattingly, Garvey etc the same way you do for Santo. Yeah you have a few guys like Tony Perez who would be on the same level as Santo, but he probabaly was a mistake. You could probably do the same at the other positions too. The counterparts to Santo at each position would all be mistakes. Just because he is the 4th or 5th best third baseman ever doesnt mean that he is the equal to the 4th or 5th best first baseman ever, or shortstiop, or left fielder. Its just that there arent that many truly qualified third basemen in the hall. Do you see what Im saying?

I see the principle and agree, but the application is ridiculous, unless you see a long list of first base mistakes: not only Perez, Bottomley, and Kelly but Cepeda, Terry, and Chance. Even then I don't personally agree that Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Leonard, McCovey, and Killebrew are indistinguishable in a context where Boggs clearly beats Santo.

[Brooklyn]

Santo was a top fielder who also hit well. His diabetes prematurely ended his career; he was on pace for almost 500 HRs if he had been healthier.

I think 500 HRs is a stretch. His last 6 full years he hit 20, 17, 21, 26, 29, 26, or about 23 per year, tredning down. He would have had to hit 23 HRs per year until he was 40 to get to 500. I don't know enough about him to know if his production was hurt in his early 30's due to his health. If you argue that it was, maybe you can get him to 500, but that is still a stretch. Only one player ever got to 500 without a 40 homerun season, so it is very tough to do. Santo's best year was 33 (like Muarry), it would have been tough, even if healthy. In fact, only 5 guys got to 400 without a 40 homerun season (Murray, Ripken, McGriff, Winfield, Musial). It take a lot of plugging along at a consistent pace without that big season or two

[jalbright]

I am not so optimistic as Jim Albright about anyone's, any group's, or any system's reliability in ranking so finely, but if he would say 350 and 150 rather than 250 and 200, I would happily agree. Few voters have fine rankings of players but I think they should all support everyone they would rank in the top 150 and vote for no one they would leave outside the top 350. That is, 150 and 350 including the voter's consideration of character and extras (first black League President, etc).



I agree in principle. I mean 150 and 350 to provide for disagreement about how to handle a broad grey area. Let me focus on different time periods for example, but the same pertains to fielding positions, roles (relief pitcher), and institutions (Negro Leagues, pre-National League). If non-pitchers from the 1920s-30s are heavily represented, from the 1900s-10s and 1940s-50s moderately represented, pre-1900 and post-1960 lightly represented, there is scope between 150 and 350 to use a lot of judgment in reacting to the inconsistencies.

Perhaps Jim Albright means 200 and 250 in the same way, if he believes that almost everyone can distinguish #200 and #250 from #227 on some personal scale.

I think that in the gray area of 50 or so players, it can be hard to distinguish, and it often comes down to how each individual handles a series of issues. However, I think that there's a general consensus that if we look at most serious attempts at answering the question, the closest we'd come to a top 200 are folks who belong in. Similarly, if we continued the ranking to 250 and beyond, few if any outside the top 250 would belong, at least in terms of consensus. In the middle is where the debate rages. Two hundred players is too many for the true gray area. If you want to quibble about making it 190 to 260, I really don't care--but 70 players is a heck of a lot of folks for people to take seriously. Also, watch that you center around 228 (now) or maybe 225 or 230 as a rounding-off, not 250. It isn't the difference between 200 and 227 or 227 and 250 that I think is easy, rather I think the difference between 200 and 250 should be reasonably noticeable.

[plask_stirlac]

Ron Santo was one of the five best players in the 1960s behind guys like Aaron and Mays and still isn't in. It boggles the mind.

[NineWorldSeries]

I definitely think he belongs, but it certainly seems possible that Santo's constant, shameless self-promotion rubs some voters the wrong way.

[mtortolero]

Why the issue of the huge difference between Home/Road splits is never mentioned in Santo for HOF threads but always in Rice for HOF ?
I understand that Rice had not defensive value and Santo was a GG infielder but both were benefited by their parks in a out of a normal range way:

Rice
Home 1048 G 208 Hr 320 Avg 920 OPS 115 tOPS+
Away 1041 G 174 Hr 277 Avg 789 OPS 85 tOPS+

Santo
Home 1136 G 216 Hr 296 Avg 905 OPS 118 tOPS+
Away 1107 G 126 Hr 257 Avg 748 OPS 82 tOPS+

[Paul Wendt]

. . . watch that you center around 228 (now) or maybe 225 or 230 as a rounding-off, not 250. It isn't the difference between 200 and 227 or 227 and 250 that I think is easy, rather I think the difference between 200 and 250 should be reasonably noticeable.

The differences are intended to be roughly equal ratios. 175 to 230 is about 30%; so is 230 to 300. 150 to 230 is just over 50%; so is 230 to 350. (I revised 175::300 to 150::350 at the last moment.)
Why equal ratios rather than equal differences? The difference between 150 and 250 should be perceptibly greater than that between 250 and 350.

[OleMissCub]

shameless self-promotion rubs some voters the wrong way.

Examples?

He's in the public spotlight much more than most retired players because he's one of the broadcasters of one of the most popular sports teams in the world and he's very involved in diabetes research and fundraisers, etc.

[plask_stirlac]

Why the issue of the huge difference between Home/Road splits is never mentioned in Santo for HOF threads but always in Rice for HOF ?
I understand that Rice had not defensive value and Santo was a GG infielder but both were benefited by their parks in a out of a normal range way:

Rice
Home 1048 G 208 Hr 320 Avg 920 OPS 115 tOPS+
Away 1041 G 174 Hr 277 Avg 789 OPS 85 tOPS+

Santo
Home 1136 G 216 Hr 296 Avg 905 OPS 118 tOPS+
Away 1107 G 126 Hr 257 Avg 748 OPS 82 tOPS+

If Rice were even a good 1B after LF, he'd be in (and is close anyway). You said it, Santo gave more defensively.

Also, a .748 OPS in a neutral park playing from 1960 to 1974 with good health and defense is an excellent player and maybe a HOFer

[Fuzzy Bear]

I dont know...seems to me that you can look at it 2 ways: that the only third basemen who deserve to be in the hall of fame are the TRUE, no question about it ones ( Schmidt, Brett, Mathews, and Boggs), or that you can lower the standards a couple of notches, and let in Santo. The problem I have with this is that you are then opening the door to a bunch of OTHER guys who were similiar, but maybe slightly worse than Santo, who would then have the same argument that Santo has now. Players like Matt Williams, Robin Ventura, Graig Nettles, heck even Scott Rolen...all even better fielders than Santo, and only slightly less quailified offensively.

Santo was a LOT better, offensively, than the guys you mention. Williams, Nettles, and Ventura all have Offensive Winning Percentages between .550 and .560 for their careers. Even if you give them credit for having longer careers than Santo, you still have them under .600 for their career. Santo posted OWPs over .700 four times, plus a .690 year. The only one of the group listed that ever topped .700 was Matt Williams, and he did it only once (.781 in 1995).

By the way, Williams' 1994 season where he was en route to topping Maris' 61 HR record at the time of the strike was NOT his best offensive season. Despite the HRs, Williams' OWP that year was only .627; a good season, but not a HOF season.

Granting that Brooks Robinson was a better fielder, Santo's ROAD norms are almost as good as Robby's CAREER norms in BA, OBP, and SLG. (I wish I had the breakdown for Santo's home vs. road OWP.)

[jalbright]

The differences are intended to be roughly equal ratios. 175 to 230 is about 30%; so is 230 to 300. 150 to 230 is just over 50%; so is 230 to 350. (I revised 175::300 to 150::350 at the last moment.)
Why equal ratios rather than equal differences? The difference between 150 and 250 should be perceptibly greater than that between 250 and 350.

Frankly, I think there's more than enough to tell the difference in about 50 places at the extreme end of the bell curve (which is where HOFers should come from, after all), and if you need 100 spots to see significant differences, IMO you've either 1) gone too far, or 2) you should work on refining your ability to figure out the differences. Remember, too, that it's not only your ability to make the distinction, but your ability to convince others that your view of it is correct. If someone thinks Mario Mendoza is in the top 250, they're not going to garner much support. I understand that garnering support for 19th century guys or Negro Leaguers or Japanese players, etc is difficult, but if you've got the argument, you can at least assemble a dedicated base of support. I've seen plenty of polls and projects on this site, and I doubt there's more than 45-50 guys not in the Hall who can claim any serious base of support--and there's 10-20 actual HOFers who can't muster much support at all. To me, the guys who can garner serious support but may not have enough to reach 75% are the most significant part of the gray area. There probably are a few gray area types who can muster 75%, but the mere ability to muster that much support tends to indicate there's enough consensus to say otherwise.

[Paul Wendt]

There are a couple of related issues here that I would like to cover if I have time in the next few days (semester begins in earnest Monday and some of these demand research). "Ron Santo" is not the best place for it but here is some indication.

Perhaps most informative,
- for someone's complete ranking --such as Pete Palmer's sabrmetric rating in the Baseball Encyclopedia?-- what is the density of Hall of Fame members in the top 50, next 50, etc through the top 300 or 350? I will need to remove all the not-yet eligible players and maybe make other adjustments. eg, Can I find a ranking down to at least 300 that includes the "Negro Leagues" "players"? Do players with pro debuts before 1876 have a serious ranking? If not, then I must remove those classes from the HOF count.

- the Hall of Merit project, without about 50 voters in each of more than 100 "annual" elections did not officially rank anyone but it did generate
2008 Election Results, Hall of Merit (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/2008_results), which cover 104 players named on 50 ballots. Three were elected leaving 101. The bottom of the list is idiosyncratic but the first 50 in the backlog (#4-53 on the list) may reasonably? be interpreted as one serious ranking of the best players not in the HOM. How many are in the HOF?
McGraw (manager), Puckett, Rizzuto, Duffy, Perez, Dean, Willis, Grimes, Brock , Welch #27 --that is 10 of the first 25 by my hasty count
Traynor, Taylor, Bancroft, Lombardi, Klein #53-54tie --that is 5 of the next 26, total 15 of 51
Gomez, Sutter, Chance, Joss, Maranville, Aparicio, Sam Rice #78 --that is 7 of the next 24, total 22 of 75

The HOM elected 58 players not in the HOF. Gossage is now in, Rose & Jackson are ineligible --leaving 55 whom the group is currently trying to rank.
Some early players are ineligible today (1850s/60s, fewer than 10 seasons beginning 1876) but they were eligible for the first twenty years. Precision may be impossible. Anyway more than 50 HOF "players" are outside; agreement/disagreement is about 80:20 with only a few disagreements explicable on these partly technical grounds. About 35 HOF "players" are outside the top 300 according to the HOM group (on this shaky interpretation of election results as a collective ranking).

The BBF HOF elections generate something similar in the tri-weekly election results, but the interpretation of election results as a ranking of players outside that Hall cannot be extended to 50 or 75, maybe 25.

Do you have a personal complete ranking, Jim? If so, how many players not in the Hall of Fame (as players or otherwise) are in your top 50, next 50, etc?
(before or after Gossage?) including Pete Rose and Joe Jackson.

[brett]

I think the comparison to Brooks is valid. They were exact contemporaries, and based on that, It's clear to me that Santo was the overall superior player. Brooks was clearly flashier, and did perform well in the post season, but lets face it, a number of Brook's GG's were won on reputation not merit.

With that said, I believe that Santo was the pre-eminant 3B of the NL during his time in MLB, and over all he's easily in the top 10 of 3B's all time, and to me that makes it easy to put him into the HOF.

KH14

It's complex, but here is part of it.

first off, look at the all star third basemen from the first all star game in '33 all the way up to the 70s. Few were great, and very very few hit AT ALL. They were average hitters.

Third base was an absolutely primo defensive position until the 70s, very close to second base and center field. I would argue that a third baseman had a unique skill-set as far as charging bunts, and making throws.

Suddenly in the mid 70s mostly, some real good offensive third basemen appeared. Santo got compared to them.

He also got his late '60s deflated stats compared to the stats of hitters from more offensive periods.

Lastly, third base tends to shorted careers.

The era deflated stats combined with the positionally deflated longevity conspire to make his stats look like they are a level lower than they are.

[Paul Wendt]

Frankly, I think there's more than enough to tell the difference in about 50 places at the extreme end of the bell curve (which is where HOFers should come from, after all), and if you need 100 spots to see significant differences, IMO you've either 1) gone too far, or 2) you should work on refining your ability to figure out the differences.

I was thinking suppose you give me a list of 20 players whom you rank somewhere #150-400. My job is to put them in my own top 200, 201-250, or outside 250. One year later we repeat the exercise and I don't look at my notes. Perhaps I put 5 players in #201-250 and the other 15 above or below that range. One year later, is there any one of the 15 who moves from above #201 to below #250 or vice versa? I expect yes. In revising 175:300 to 150:350 at the last moment, I was feeling doubt that I would be entirely consistent even with the middle range /grey area defined as 176-300.

Do you agree with this thought-experiment, Jim, and believe that you would be consistent regarding #201-250?

I'm not sure about the value of the thought-experiment myself. It doesn't pertain clearly to convincing others --or even to voting in the main BBWAA election. Maybe not the old Veterans Committee elections, either, because they convened with discussion that should have helped people catch their latent inconsistencies.

[jalbright]

I was thinking suppose you give me a list of 20 players whom you rank somewhere #150-400. My job is to put them in my own top 200, 201-250, or outside 250. One year later we repeat the exercise and I don't look at my notes. Perhaps I put 5 players in #201-250 and the other 15 above or below that range. One year later, is there any one of the 15 who moves from above #201 to below #250 or vice versa? I expect yes. In revising 175:300 to 150:350 at the last moment, I was feeling doubt that I would be entirely consistent even with the middle range /grey area defined as 176-300.

Do you agree with this thought-experiment, Jim, and believe that you would be consistent regarding #201-250?

I'm not sure about the value of the thought-experiment myself. It doesn't pertain clearly to convincing others --or even to voting in the main BBWAA election. Maybe not the old Veterans Committee elections, either, because they convened with discussion that should have helped people catch their latent inconsistencies.

I don't buy the thought experiment for several reasons. 0ne is the guys in the top 200 wouldn't often drop below the top 250, and the guys below the top 250 wouldn't often migrate up into the top 200.

A second reason is that when I look at in/out decisions, I look at the same categories each time. I wouldn't do it without them. That's a major issue I have with the thought experiment: it doesn't come close to how I approach the issue. Those categories are: All-Star appearances, MVP award shares, Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF standards met, career win shares, the top three seasons in win shares, and the best five consecutive seasons in win shares. Then there's the issue of military service/color line/other reasons the player Maybe Negro Leaguers would bounce a little since the data isn't as readily available, and if there was new research, I might change my mind there. Even then, I wouldn't do it without my sources.

I have a ranking system, though I take it a good deal less seriously than I used to, as I've decided that while it comes rather close to mirroring my opinions, it still not quite there, and probably never can be made to do so. It's in the musings thread, the first page if you care.

Then when you carry one's personal thoughts into the arena of discussion, certainly one may learn things that cause some adjustments, but if you've got a convincing case, you should in time at least get close to a majority of the voters (say maybe 30-40% of the BBF HOF group), if not higher. If the group was as knowledgeable but larger, I'd go with 40% for the gray area. I mean, if you cannot convince at least 40% of a knowledgeable group that a guy is HOF worthy, the odds are he's not a great candidate. The 19th century guys, especially those before 1870, have critical issues to overcome, but even then, if you can't over time get 40% to buy the player as a worthy candidate, the odds are you are overreaching. When you get through the process, I simply don't see 100+ viable gray area candidates.

[jalbright]

Another thought: when I talk about a 50 player gray area, that allows guys to bounce 20-25 spots and either stay in the gray area or remain on the side of the fence I'd already put them on. Would your rankings bounce that much or more very often even in your thought experiment? If so, maybe what is needed are some anchor points for you to work off of.

[leecemark]

--Well there isn't much difference between the 50th best guy not in and the 60th and then the 60th and 70th. So if you can sell somebody on 60 over 70 then 70 over 60 can also be done. I see the grey area as very large - maybe a couple hundred players. There are various shades of grey though. Some players I would agree are borderline, but still definately support. Others I'd agree are borderline, but don't support them - although I can see some hope of my mind being changed on them. Others I might agree are interesting enough to discuss in a Hall of fame context, but am sure I'd never support. I suspect Jim is refering to just the first group or maybe the first two, while Paul is including the third.
--An additional complication is that being Hall worthy is not exclusively about who was a better player than whom. Some players have some accomplishments that aren't part of their statisical record that add to their worthiness. Others may have some issues that detract from whether they look qualified in the record books. They are issues that directly affect the borderliners. The true legends of the game can survive alot of demerits. Players who aren't at least close to Hall of Fame standards probably can't get their on the basis of extra credit.

[Paul Wendt]

I don't buy the thought experiment for several reasons. 0ne is the guys in the top 200 wouldn't often drop below the top 250, and the guys below the top 250 wouldn't often migrate up into the top 200.

My thought was that it should be "almost never". If I ranked the players through #251-265 this weekend, and repeated the exercise a year later without reference to notes from the process, would I put any one of the fifteen (or anyone outside the 265) in the top 200? Would I be surprised to learn from my noteskeeper ;) that two players #197 and #200 had been #255 and #264 one year earlier. My thought was that I wouldn't be surprised at two and one would be more likely than zero.

The thought experiment may be no good. Even if successfully executed to define a grey range, that range might be insignificant. Your point is valid, why do it without references? And references would enforce a certain stability. On the other hand, one might "convert" through conversation or study to a very different position on black players from before 1950, which would move ten players from the high 200s to the high 100s. That wouldn't be a flaw in the system. Even conscientious voters will not come to settled positions on all the big questions before they vote for the first time.

[jalbright]

On the other hand, one might "convert" through conversation or study to a very different position on black players from before 1950, which would move ten players from the high 200s to the high 100s. That wouldn't be a flaw in the system. Even conscientious voters will not come to settled positions on all the big questions before they vote for the first time.

There's no question that there are cases that could change. I could easily see myself converted to supporting Will Jackman or Castro-era Cubans, maybe some other Negro Leaguers, etc. I don't mean to even imply that things shouldn't change. Of course, active players are always going to alter the rankings. I agree the discussion should always remain open, so that we can absorb new information if and when it becomes available. That said, I don't think it changes the so-called gray area much.

[jalbright]

There are various shades of grey though. Some players I would agree are borderline, but still definately support. Others I'd agree are borderline, but don't support them - although I can see some hope of my mind being changed on them. Others I might agree are interesting enough to discuss in a Hall of fame context, but am sure I'd never support. I suspect Jim is refering to just the first group or maybe the first two, while Paul is including the third.

I'm certainly not going beyond the second category in how I'm looking at the "gray area". If you want to call cases that are interesting but you cannot see how you could possibly be convinced to support part of the gray area, that is certainly a prerogative anyone can choose for themselves. But it isn't what I'm talking about.

[Paul Wendt]

I have a ranking system, though I take it a good deal less seriously than I used to, as I've decided that while it comes rather close to mirroring my opinions, it still not quite there, and probably never can be made to do so. It's in the musings thread, the first page if you care.
Does 100 have any meaning?
How many players are there above 100, Babe Ruth to Hardy Richardson?

[jalbright]

Does 100 have any meaning?
How many players are there above 100, Babe Ruth to Hardy Richardson?

Paul, all I'm going to say is the information is in the musings thread if you really care to dig it out. At this point, I only use it when I have to rank players--and in the HOF discussion, the issue can be reduced to in/out without ever using that ranking. I use benchmarks to see if a guy is close and go from there.

[plask_stirlac]

Is there any question Ron Santo is a Top 10 third baseman? That shouldn't be the criteria for induction, but that's one every 7 years... not exactly clogging things up.

[OleMissCub]

Is there any question Ron Santo is a Top 10 third baseman? That shouldn't be the criteria for induction, but that's one every 7 years... not exactly clogging things up.

Let's compare Santo to the other modern HOF third sackers:

Player AVG OBP SLG OPS+ AB R H HR RBI WARP3 FLD%

Mike Schmidt .267 .380 .527 147 8352 1506 2234 548 1595 157.3 .955
Eddie Mathews .271 .376 .509 143 8537 1509 2315 512 1453 145.0 .956
Ron Santo .277 .362 .464 125 8143 1138 2254 342 1331 119.9 .954
George Brett .305 .369 .487 135 10349 1583 3154 317 1595 135.7 .951
Bro. Robinson .267 .322 .401 104 10654 1232 2848 268 1357 114.9 .971
Wade Boggs .328 .415 .443 130 9180 1513 3010 118 1014 150.6 .962




He certainly looks HOF worthy for a 3rd baseman.

[RuthMayBond]

Let's compare Santo to the other modern HOF third sackers:

Player AVG OBP SLG OPS+ AB R H HR RBI WARP3 FLD%

Mike Schmidt .267 .380 .527 147 8352 1506 2234 548 1595 157.3 .955
Eddie Mathews .271 .376 .509 143 8537 1509 2315 512 1453 145.0 .956
Ron Santo .277 .362 .464 125 8143 1138 2254 342 1331 119.9 .954
George Brett .305 .369 .487 135 10349 1583 3154 317 1595 135.7 .951
Bro. Robinson .267 .322 .401 104 10654 1232 2848 268 1357 114.9 .971
Wade Boggs .328 .415 .443 130 9180 1513 3010 118 1014 150.6 .962




He certainly looks HOF worthy for a 3rd baseman.But let's look at his road stats. Home park REALLY helped

[OleMissCub]

But let's look at his road stats. Home park REALLY helped

Traveling probably sucked for someone with diabetes in the 60's. :noidea

[OleMissCub]

Just wanted to share some Santo gifs that I made recently:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1695/ronnieswing2ue0.gif


http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/rond.gif



http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/ronpick3.gif



http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/ronthrow.gif


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9922/santofield3pb9.gif

[Brad Harris]

Is there any question Ron Santo is a Top 10 third baseman? That shouldn't be the criteria for induction, but that's one every 7 years... not exactly clogging things up.
I think it's pretty fair to say that a player who is the best candidate at his position, as Santo is at third base, deserves election.

[OleMissCub]

I think it's pretty fair to say that a player who is the best candidate at his position, as Santo is at third base, deserves election.

Considering the utterly mediocre players that litter the HOF walls, I think it is pretty astonishing that someone can be considered in the top 10 at their position all-time (James has him at #6) and not be in the HOF.

I REALLY hope the numbskulls don't wait until he has passed away to put him in.

[OleMissCub]

I posted this is a thread in the History forum, but thought it should be posted here.

3rd Base Career WARP3 top 10:

Mike Schmidt: 157.3
Wade Boggs: 150.6
Eddie Mathews: 145.0
George Brett: 135.7
Brooks Robinson: 119.3
Ron Santo: 112.8
Darrell Evans: 110.0
Robin Ventura: 108.8
Graig Nettles: 104.6
Chipper Jones: 102.1

3rd Base Career OPS+ top 10:

Mike Schmidt: 147
Chipper Jones: 145
Eddie Mathews: 143
George Brett: 135
Frank Baker: 135
Wade Boggs: 130
Ron Santo: 125
Scott Rolen: 125
Bob Elliot: 124
Troy Glaus: 122

Also, top Win Shares of the 1960's:

Hank Aaron - 340
Willie Mays - 337
Frank Robinson - 307
Roberto Clemente - 260
Harmon Killebrew - 257
Ron Santo - 247
Mickey Mantle - 247
Willie McCovey - 237
Brooks Robinson - 233
Carl Yastrzemski - 230

[Captain Cold Nose]

Considering the utterly mediocre players that litter the HOF walls, I think it is pretty astonishing that someone can be considered in the top 10 at their position all-time (James has him at #6) and not be in the HOF.

I REALLY hope the numbskulls don't wait until he has passed away to put him in.

Exactly who is mediocre? Even Bill James says the worst players in were very good at worst.

[OleMissCub]

Exactly who is mediocre? Even Bill James says the worst players in were very good at worst.

I should have rephrased, what I meant were mediocre players compared to the rest of the Hall of Famers. I think everyone in the HOF, even the Frisch/Terry cronies were good players, although I don't know if I'd say "very good at worst" for some of them.

George Kelly....that .297/.342/.452, 109+ line for a HOF first baseman is pretty awesome.

or Dave Bancroft....279/.355/.358, 98+

or Jesse Haines.... 210-158, 3.64, 1.350 WHIP, 108 ERA+

[Captain Cold Nose]

I should have rephrased, what I meant were mediocre players compared to the rest of the Hall of Famers. I think everyone in the HOF, even the Frisch/Terry cronies were good players, although I don't know if I'd say "very good at worst" for some of them.

George Kelly....that .297/.342/.452, 109+ line for a HOF first baseman is pretty awesome.

or Dave Bancroft....279/.355/.358, 98+

or Jesse Haines.... 210-158, 3.64, 1.350 WHIP, 108 ERA+

Bancroft is in for his fielding.

Kelly was a big time slugger at his best. Yes, a mistake, but he's hardly a bad player.

Haines was an excellent post-season pitcher. And I'd still say that's very good comparatively.

[Brad Harris]

Bancroft is in for his fielding.

Kelly was a big time slugger at his best. Yes, a mistake, but he's hardly a bad player.

Haines was an excellent post-season pitcher. And I'd still say that's very good comparatively.

I'd compare Bancroft to Omar Vizquel, Kelly to Don Mattingly and Haines to Jack Morris. I draw the line above all these guys, but as a manager, I'd be thrilled to have any of them on my team. Bancroft, Kelly and Haines were no more "mediocre" than Vizquel, Mattingly and Morris.

[highpockets]

I'd compare Bancroft to Omar Vizquel, Kelly to Don Mattingly and Haines to Jack Morris. I draw the line above all these guys, but as a manager, I'd be thrilled to have any of them on my team. Bancroft, Kelly and Haines were no more "mediocre" than Vizquel, Mattingly and Morris.
I think George Scott is a good value comp for Kelly. Both had good gloves, some pop, a couple of very good seasons, relatively short productive careers. Mattingly was a good bit better, I believe.

[henrich]

I'd compare Bancroft to Omar Vizquel, Kelly to Don Mattingly and Haines to Jack Morris. I draw the line above all these guys, but as a manager, I'd be thrilled to have any of them on my team. Bancroft, Kelly and Haines were no more "mediocre" than Vizquel, Mattingly and Morris.


I would rather have Vizquel (9663) than Bancroft (7373), Mattingly (9516) over George Kelly (8650), and Morris (11,678) over Jesse Haines (8061)

I have Santo 11th best all-time and 3rd within his era. The ten before him are Schmidt (15,114), Brett (13,028), Robinson B. 13,012, Matthews E. (11,514), Chipper Jones (10,922), Boggs (10,725), Nettles (10,208), Baker Frank (9927), Ken Boyer (9758), Matt Williams (9678), Ron Santo (9198) with the following coming very close to him Darrell Evans (9072), Gary Gaetti (9033), Edgar Martinez (9017), and Lave Cross (8890) rounding out the top 15.

[OleMissCub]

FWIW, Bill James' top 10 from Baseball Abstract:

1) Schmidt
2) Brett
3) Mathews
4) Boggs
5) Baker
6) Santo
7) Robinson
8) Molitor
9) Hack
10) Evans

I'm not sure I like putting Molitor on an all time 3rd base list considering he only started at 3B six of his 21 seasons....I guess James had to put him somewhere in his positional rankings.

[Paul Wendt]

I'm not sure I like putting Molitor on an all time 3rd base list considering he only started at 3B six of his 21 seasons....I guess James had to put him somewhere in his positional rankings.
On the other hand, the real Ron Santo had Harmon Killebrew or Dick Allen to contend with more often than not. They are out of the picture here (Bill James) because they played a few more career games at first. I suppose they are out of the picture also for most people like henrich who rank players by position in their own time.

In the first BJ Historical Abstract, BJ put four players in their own "multi-division stars" category: Tommy Leach, Killebrew, Allen, and Rose. Rose moved to third in 1975 when Santo retired. Every one of them spent a big part of his career at third unless you deny that Rose spent a big part of his career anywhere.

[henrich]

On the other hand, the real Ron Santo had Harmon Killebrew or Dick Allen to contend with more often than not. They are out of the picture here (Bill James) because they played a few more career games at first. I suppose they are out of the picture also for most people like henrich who rank players by position in their own time.

In the first BJ Historical Abstract, BJ put four players in their own "multi-division stars" category: Tommy Leach, Killebrew, Allen, and Rose. Rose moved to third in 1975 when Santo retired. Every one of them spent a big part of his career at third unless you deny that Rose spent a big part of his career anywhere.

One can move a prominent position if necessary for comparison, but I only placed a player at his dominant position (most games played). I didn't feel right about Ernie Banks position, but the records I had called for him to be labeled at 1B, but in my heart he was a SS, so I had to take my heart out of it, and just deal with the objective data. I also have them sorted beyond era, if one desires- still by position, by H-Factor, but not just within the era, though that may be strongest power under the microscope.

[OleMissCub]

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/0630_large.jpg
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/51455515.jpg
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/52548689.jpghttp://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/73448922.jpg
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/81371465.jpghttp://www.digitalcinemareport.com/images/images_04_15_04/ronsanto_300.jpg
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-02/35450429.jpghttp://www.skylinepictures.com/Chicago_Cubs_Ron_Santo_ch66_large.jpg
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3176/491833106a896eb30eoku2.jpghttp://cubshalloffame.com/images/santo1.jpg

[Solrac]

Hopefully by this time next year we would be congratulating Santo on finally making the HoF.

[Paul Wendt]

I hope so. I don't rank him first as a player but he is alive and not so well.
Under the old system scrapped last summer, Santo o'erpassed Gil Hodges and picked up enough votes to seem possible for 2009.

But Marvin Miller and Doug Harvey also seemed possible, with owners and commissioners trailing badly. Surely the board of directors could see an embarrassment for baseball on the horizon, in 2011 if not 2009. It was time to re-juggle the electors again.

My understanding is that the honored writers and broadcasters no longer vote on the recent players and my guess is that those groups support Santo &c a little more than Hall of Fame players do. If I'm right and I'm right, Santo &c have some ground to make up under the newest arrangements.

[Brad Harris]

I would love to know what the opinions of the living Hall of Famer third basemen are about Santo. Anyone have any sources where Wade Boggs, George Brett, George Kell, Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt have spoken publicly on the subject?

[OleMissCub]

I would love to know what the opinions of the living Hall of Famer third basemen are about Santo. Anyone have any sources where Wade Boggs, George Brett, George Kell, Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt have spoken publicly on the subject?

Brooks Robinson speaking in This Old Cub:

"Well, Ron was a player who could do everything, he drove in runs, he hit home runs...he dominated his position for a good decade and a half...and you can take Ron's statistics and put 'em up against any other third baseman in the Hall of Fame. He's the first guy I voted for....if anyone deserves the Hall of Fame it's Ron."

Other quotes from players/broadcasters from This Old Cub:

"I always enjoyed playing against him, and he's still underrated in that he did things day in and day out, and year in and year out...and I will say this, he will get my vote!" - Joe Morgan

"Ron belongs in the Hall of Fame with all the rest of us. Ya know, I played against him all of his career and most of my career, and, Ron Santo was as good a third baseman as we've ever had in the National League." - Willie McCovey

"He was truly, truly, a fine competitor, he was the kind of player that any manager would have loved to have had playing for him...I'll tell you one thing..he belongs in the Hall of Fame...I voted for him!" - Tommy Lasorda.

"He was a true competitor, and you talk about Ronnie, and you are talking about a guy who plays everyday for you, and I think he should be in the Hall of Fame because I myself know what kind of player he was. I think he should be in." - Willie Mays


"When you look at Ron Santo's stats, it's almost unconscionable to me that he has not yet been called upon to be in baseball's Hall of Fame....It's hard for me to understand...and I agree with the new process to make a little more difficult to get in, but I cannot imagine anyone that is more deserving than Ron Santo." - Marty Brennaman

"Ron was pretty much the whole package at third base. You know, OK..the greatest fielding third baseman ever was Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt hit over 500 HR's, George Brett flirted with .400....so it's hard for anybody to be compared with them, um, especially since they played around the same time Ron did, either early or late....but outside of that you start looking around at third basde and the name Ron Santo comes up...seems to rise up pretty high to me." - Chris Berman

"I've said this for fifteen years, that Ron Santo is the best player not in the Hall of Fame." - Peter Gammons

[Paul Wendt]

I would love to know what the opinions of the living Hall of Famer third basemen are about Santo. Anyone have any sources where Wade Boggs, George Brett, George Kell, Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt have spoken publicly on the subject?
Not I. Schmidt speaks out in his book but not about player evaluation. He was young then, too, probably developing his baseball schools full time while I was watching the majors on TV or listening on the radio.

Anyway I doubt that fellow 3Bmen are likely to hold many or crucial opinions about Santo. Mathews rests in peace. Brooks was in the other league --did they watch many afternoon Cubs games in major league clubhouses? George Kell - was he doing radio in the other league?

There is a boatload of pitchers from Santo's time in the Hall of Fame, enough from the National League alone to fill a couple of rowboats. Jenkins didn't face him and Drysdale rests in peace. But we have all or most of
Spahn, Roberts, Bunning, Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, Perry, Niekro, Sutton, Seaver, Carlton, Ryan.

Roberts is one of the NBHOFM directors; I presume he is well known especially to HOF players and other honorees, and much respected.
Seaver has been one of the outspoken veterans voters and many consider him the greatest pitcher in a span of two to four generations.
Their opinions, all twelve of them, might be more weighty than opinions of a few other 3Bmen, who were Santo's competitors in a different way, mainly as spectators.
Maybe you have an oral history project here.

[OleMissCub]

From a statement Joe Morgan made last month:

'I played against him, and when you look at third basemen, he was the best third baseman of his era, I thought that's the way you judged it. Every year I voted for Maury Wills and Ron Santo. Those are my first two guys. To me, they were both a no-brainer.'

[BlueBlood]

From a statement Joe Morgan made last month:

'I played against him, and when you look at third basemen, he was the best third baseman of his era, I thought that's the way you judged it. Every year I voted for Maury Wills and Ron Santo. Those are my first two guys. To me, they were both a no-brainer.'

It was a great acknowledgment until he threw in Wills' name. Wills isn't too far behind the bottom line of HOF shortstops (excluding a few mistakes that he's clearly better then) but he's definitely #100 at best of those outside, looking in.

[OleMissCub]

http://nationalsportsreview.com/2005/03/02/ron-santo-hall-worthy-2/

Using TPR, Santo was the best player in baseball from 1964-1968, with a TPR of about 32.5. That is an average of about 6.5 a season and there were only three other seasons in this span that reached 6.5 or more. Santo went a little above 7 a couple of times, which no one else did. Aaron is probably second in this time period with about 22. Santo was in the top 5 in the NL each of these years and first three times. In WS, Santo had 164. Only Allen (170), Mays (169) and Aaron (167) had more in MLB over the years 1964-68. Santo was 6th in WS (with 249) for the whole decade despite not playing in 1960 and getting off to a somewhat slow start in 1961-3. The top six in the decade were

Aaron 340
Mays 337
Robinson 307
Clemente 262
Killebrew 257
Santo 249

James says that 15 WS is an average season, 20 is an all-star season and 30 is an MVP type season. Santo averaged 32.8 over this period.

Pete Palmer has Santo as the 4th best player in TPR in all of MLB from 1961-72:

1- Mays (84.6)
2 - Aaron (81.3)
3 - Robinson (64.3)
4 - Santo (45.3)

[henrich]

It was a great acknowledgment until he threw in Wills' name. Wills isn't too far behind the bottom line of HOF shortstops (excluding a few mistakes that he's clearly better then) but he's definitely #100 at best of those outside, looking in.

I think Morgan had it right. Wills deserves enshrinement as well as Santo.

[mandrake]

I grew up as a Mets fan in 1969, and disliked Santo. But you learn to dislike the guys that can hurt your team. There is no doubt that Santo desrves to be in the Hall of Fame. If so many HOFers think so, why the heck is he not in? Santo now has his fill of physical problems. Let's get him in while he can enjoy it !!!

[GaryL]

I've been a Cub fan since 1956 and I think I either saw or listened to on my transitor radio (that I still use today!) virtually every game that Santo played. I even remember listening to his very first game in 1960 when I was 10 years old. It's very gratifying to see him getting the recognition he so justly deserves from serious students of the game here on Baseball Fever, many of whom, I'm sure, never saw him play.

I've often thought that the reason he's not in the HOF is that he was hated by the New York/East coast sportswriters (and believe me, the feeling was - and is - mutual: Santo never tries to hide his dislike of NY). He's the type of guy who wears his emotions on his sleeve, and to the NY sportswriters and fans, he came to represent everything they hated about Leo Durocher's Cubs. Also, were he to get in, he'd be the 4th HOF'er from a team that never won anything (5th if you count manager Durocher).

As a color announcer...well, that's another story! But we love the guy anyway.

[OleMissCub]

I've often thought that the reason he's not in the HOF is that he was hated by the New York/East coast sportswriters

Well, it really does make you wonder how someone who, when he retired, ranked second in most offensive categories EVER among third baseman, only got 15 VOTES his first ballot, and then was subsequently dropped. It is almost as if there was some collusion against him or something.

15 VOTES!!

[Paul Wendt]

One can move a prominent position if necessary for comparison, but I only placed a player at his dominant position (most games played). I didn't feel right about Ernie Banks position, but the records I had called for him to be labeled at 1B, but in my heart he was a SS, so I had to take my heart out of it, and just deal with the objective data.
H,
You might list a player at the fielding position where he scored the most points in your rating system. The rating is additive so that is easy enough, right?


From Chicago on Ron Santo :
>>
I've often thought that the reason he's not in the HOF is that he was hated by the New York/East coast sportswriters (and believe me, the feeling was - and is - mutual: Santo never tries to hide his dislike of NY). He's the type of guy who wears his emotions on his sleeve, and to the NY sportswriters and fans, he came to represent everything they hated about Leo Durocher's Cubs. Also, were he to get in, he'd be the 4th HOF'er from a team that never won anything (5th if you count manager Durocher).
<<
If there were some informal quota related to winning, why elect Billy Williams?
Why not elect Gil Hodges?

--
There is some New York/East Coast confusion here. Did Santo hate New York? or the Mets? or the "East Coast"? That is, what did he wear on his sleeve?

I don't know what the East Coast is, but I know it includes Boston, Philly, and Baltimore. Out there in Chicago do you detect a regional alliance here? Do we have knee-jerk reaction to stick by the Gotham City, and hate anyone who hates New York? ;)

When Boston swept St Louis in World Series 2004, did you Chicagans feel the regional insult deeply, console their brethren, defend their honor, or did you twist the knife?

--
Durocher=Chicago? I don't think so.
If there were New York City bias or East Coast solidarity in operation, it would have operated for rather than against Leo Durocher.

"to the NY sportswriters and fans, [Santo] came to represent everything they hated about Leo Durocher's Cubs."

Were Leo Durocher's Cubs important enough for NYC to hate? I doubt it.
In far western New York state (not the East Coast) my impression was that people considered the Cubs and Mets equally lovable losers who were finally making good. It happened so suddenly. The Dodgers, Giants, and Cardinals had been winners. The Pirates and Reds had been good teams, always much better than the Cubs and Mets --as they would soon be again. The Braves and Phillies had been OK without putting it together. The Cubs and Mets were both lovable, right? and the Astros weren't.

[philkid3]

http://nationalsportsreview.com/2005/03/02/ron-santo-hall-worthy-2/

Someone at BP (I think Silver) came to the same conclusion using a weighted formula based on WARP: that Santo was the best player in baseball from 64-68.

Not many players had a run like that, the list is very short.