Sal Bando

[Cowtipper]

Sal Bando played from 1966 to 1981, hitting .254 with 242 home runs and 1039 RBI. He had a good eye at the plate, walking 1031 times and striking out 923 times.

A four-time All-Star, Bando led the league in games played four times, in plate appearances once, in total bases once, in doubles once and in sacrifice flies once.

None of the ten players he is most similar to statistically are in the Hall of Fame. The players he is similar to are Todd Zeile, Ron Cey, Bobby Murcer, Robin Ventura, Bobby Grich, Dusty Baker, Ken Caminiti, Ron Fairly, Tim Wallach and Larry Parrish.

He is ranked the 21st best third baseman of all time by The Baseball Page. He received three votes for the Hall of Fame in 1987.

So, should Mr. Bando be in the Hall of Fame?

[SABR Matt]

I know iIm going to be in the minority here giving the lingering obsession with batting average, but given the weakness of the third base position, I have Bando high enough to be deserving...albeit barely.

[jjpm74]

No. Sal Bando is the most overrated player at BBF. C+ Defense, mediocre peak, 1 30+ win share season, average counting stats, not the best player on his own team. A Bill James pet project.

[jjpm74]

I know iIm going to be in the minority here giving the lingering obsession with batting average, but given the weakness of the third base position, I have Bando high enough to be deserving...albeit barely.

Batting Average has nothing to do with it. Bando was an average to slightly above average offensive player and an average to slightly below average defensive player. How does that qualify him for the NBHoFM?

[SABR Matt]

Slightly above average offensively?
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1973 AL 13.48 0.56 22.6 -0.8 14.04
1969 AL 11.38 1.71 18.1 1.4 13.09
1970 AL 7.21 2.33 10.4 2.8 9.54
1976 AL 7.54 1.85 11.0 1.9 9.39
1971 AL 7.79 1.58 11.5 1.3 9.37
1968 AL 5.32 3.10 6.4 4.3 8.42
1978 AL 6.73 1.57 9.5 1.5 8.30
1972 AL 5.95 2.15 7.9 2.4 8.10
1974 AL 6.69 0.78 9.6 -0.1 7.47
1975 AL 5.10 1.35 6.0 0.8 6.45
1977 AL 5.00 0.97 5.8 0.3 5.97
1979 AL 1.10 0.84 -1.2 0.4 2.09
1967 AL 0.56 0.56 0.2 0.6 1.12

Mediocre peak? Neither criticism really holds when you compare him to other third basemen. That may not look all that amazing, but it's certainly not "slightly above average" for a third baseman. He's on the margin of my HOF...so I'm not losing sleep about him not being in...but let's look at him for what he actually was...a significant offensive asset based on his on base skills and solid power for the time. As a fielder he was below average, which is what kills his chances at being more of a certainty.

[jjpm74]

Slightly above average offensively?
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1973 AL 13.48 0.56 22.6 -0.8 14.04
1969 AL 11.38 1.71 18.1 1.4 13.09
1970 AL 7.21 2.33 10.4 2.8 9.54
1976 AL 7.54 1.85 11.0 1.9 9.39
1971 AL 7.79 1.58 11.5 1.3 9.37
1968 AL 5.32 3.10 6.4 4.3 8.42
1978 AL 6.73 1.57 9.5 1.5 8.30
1972 AL 5.95 2.15 7.9 2.4 8.10
1974 AL 6.69 0.78 9.6 -0.1 7.47
1975 AL 5.10 1.35 6.0 0.8 6.45
1977 AL 5.00 0.97 5.8 0.3 5.97
1979 AL 1.10 0.84 -1.2 0.4 2.09
1967 AL 0.56 0.56 0.2 0.6 1.12

Mediocre peak? Neither criticism really holds when you compare him to other third basemen. That may not look all that amazing, but it's certainly not "slightly above average" for a third baseman. He's on the margin of my HOF...so I'm not losing sleep about him not being in...but let's look at him for what he actually was...a significant offensive asset based on his on base skills and solid power for the time. As a fielder he was below average, which is what kills his chances at being more of a certainty.

While that is a good analysis, it puts him borderline at best. Certainly not the definite yes you logged for him in the poll.

[SABR Matt]

I voted yes...but my first post described it as "barely" a yes. I don't believe in saying "maybe"...either a player is good enough for the hall or he's not.

[jjpm74]

I voted yes...but my first post described it as "barely" a yes.

I'm not interested in arguing semantics, but to me, barely a yes means maybe. Not yes if a maybe is available in a poll.

[SABR Matt]

Fair enough...feel free to think of my yes vote as a maybe. :) But it's staying a yes...I don't like maybes. :)

[jalbright]

I'm with Matt on this one. He's not an overwhelming candidates, but he clears the bar for me. I'm not big on "maybe"--in my book, one either votes for the guy or one doesn't if the opportunity presents itself. An analogy might be the high jumpers or pole vaulters: some clear heights by a lot, some just squeak over--but either one counts as a successful jump.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm with Matt on this one. He's not an overwhelming candidates, but he clears the bar for me. I'm not big on "maybe"--in my book, one either votes for the guy or one doesn't if the opportunity presents itself. An analogy might be the high jumpers or pole vaulters: some clear heights by a lot, some just squeak over--but either one counts as a successful jump.

I go back and forth about Bando. He's not an outrageous HOF selection, and there is some evidence that Bando contributed to winning in ways that don't show up in the individual stats.

Bando had a reputation as being a "team leader" while active that was based in fact. In Bill James' 2000 Historical Baseball Abstract, he wrote how Bando was the only player Dick Williams would socialize with, and they talked baseball. Serious baseball. Bando provided STAR leadership for his teams, and that is the kind of leadership that matters. Bando modeled the kind of work ethic and focus a winning team needs, and because he was one of the stars of his teams, others were focused on him, and what he was doing. Bando certainly played on highly successful teams; teams that were not successful before he arrived, and that is relevant to his selection.

On the other hand, Bando did not have an exceptionally high peak, and never played regularly after age 34 (being done at age 37). There is no statistical evidence that Bando was anything more than a pretty good offensive player in his best years (although during his prime, he was fairly consistent from year to year). He deserves some credit for playing in a pitchers' park during a pitchers' era, but he was not a Gold Glove third baseman (although he was good in the field).

I see no way to rank Bando ahead of Ron Santo, Ken Boyer and Stan Hack. I see no way to rank Bando ahead of Graig Nettles, who was the superior defensive player, and who also contributed to winning teams. I see no way to rank Bando ahead of Al Rosen, who is, IMO, the Sandy Koufax/Dizzy Dean of position players. I have advocated for all of these guys for the HOF in the past, so Bando isn't ruled out in my book.

What it comes down to, in my book is where Bando stacks up versus Ron Cey and Robin Ventura. Cey was a slightly better offensive player who is missing time due to a (needless) late call-up, but whose career lasted longer at the back end; his OWP is .614 to Bando's .593 in a shorter career. Ventura's OWP is lower than Bando's (.556), but he was much the superior defensive player, and also exhibited more longevity. Bando might rank ahead of both of those guys; the question is whether or not he is better by a large enough margin to be considered a Hall-worthy player, and on THAT question, I am undecided.

[SABR Matt]

Nice post...not much there I disagree with.

Ventura was a bit overrated in the field...that's about the only thing I can quibble with in that whole post...he was a better fielder than the aberage Bando, but not by a HUGE amount IMHO.

Nonetheless, I think that post is fair...and I agree on all of the guys you have ahead of Bando...perhaps even Al Rosen, though his peak is definitely not as strong as Sandy Koufax:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1953 AL 14.25 2.83 24.2 3.8 17.08
1952 AL 10.59 1.04 17.1 0.4 11.63
1950 AL 7.92 3.25 11.6 4.6 11.17
1954 AL 7.85 2.32 12.1 3.1 10.17
1951 AL 6.04 1.83 7.9 1.8 7.87
1955 AL 4.01 1.68 4.3 1.7 5.69
1956 AL 3.83 1.01 4.6 0.6 4.84

Pretty much one MVP season and a cluster of other good seasons around it...not like Koufax and his run of 6 years of utter and complete domination of baseball. I don't put Rosen in the HOF just because he didn't last long enough to qualify. But he did have a heck of a start.

[SABR Matt]

Why did Rosen get called up so late, BTW? He didn't stick til he was 26...was he just a late bloomer or was there someone in the way at his position?

[Domenic]

Why did Rosen get called up so late, BTW? He didn't stick til he was 26...was he just a late bloomer or was there someone in the way at his position?

Ken Keltner blocked him for a few years - he had been with the Indians for a long time prior to Rosen's first shot (about a decade), and was fairly popular. I gather he was a very good defender, and he had some big seasons - in 1948 he hit .297/.395/.522 with an OPS+ of 145. He was injured in 1949, and Rosen got his shot.

There is also a notion that Rosen was hindered a bit due to his being Jewish, though I am not sure that there is much to this.

[Freakshow]

Ken Keltner blocked him for a few years - he had been with the Indians for a long time prior to Rosen's first shot (about a decade), and was fairly popular. I gather he was a very good defender, and he had some big seasons - in 1948 he hit .297/.395/.522 with an OPS+ of 145. He was injured in 1949, and Rosen got his shot.

There is also a notion that Rosen was hindered a bit due to his being Jewish, though I am not sure that there is much to this.Well, Rosen "got his shot" in 1949 and blew it. I don't have game logs, but it looks like when Keltner went down they called up Rosen, who was having another stellar season at AAA. When he wasn't an immediate smash, Boudreau sat his butt on the bench for the rest of the year, playing himself and a couple others at 3B. The Indians farm system was stacked with options at the time. Ray Boone was ahead of Rosen in the pecking order and had a better glove, so he took over for Boudreau at SS.

Like most guys of that generation, Rosen missed three years to the army, ages 19 to 21. From 1946 to 1949 he never stopped hitting minor league pitching:

Year -G- -R- -H- -HR- RBI -BA- Club - League
1946 107 094 121 15* 86* .323 Pittsfield - CanAm
1947 146 115 186* 25 141*.349* Oklahoma City - T.L.
1948 127 102 151 25 110 .327 Kansas City - A.A.
1949 083 049 087 14 051 .319 San Diego - P.C.L.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Nice post...not much there I disagree with.

Ventura was a bit overrated in the field...that's about the only thing I can quibble with in that whole post...he was a better fielder than the aberage Bando, but not by a HUGE amount IMHO.

Nonetheless, I think that post is fair...and I agree on all of the guys you have ahead of Bando...perhaps even Al Rosen, though his peak is definitely not as strong as Sandy Koufax:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1953 AL 14.25 2.83 24.2 3.8 17.08
1952 AL 10.59 1.04 17.1 0.4 11.63
1950 AL 7.92 3.25 11.6 4.6 11.17
1954 AL 7.85 2.32 12.1 3.1 10.17
1951 AL 6.04 1.83 7.9 1.8 7.87
1955 AL 4.01 1.68 4.3 1.7 5.69
1956 AL 3.83 1.01 4.6 0.6 4.84

Pretty much one MVP season and a cluster of other good seasons around it...not like Koufax and his run of 6 years of utter and complete domination of baseball. I don't put Rosen in the HOF just because he didn't last long enough to qualify. But he did have a heck of a start.

I grant you that Rosen was not as good as Koufax during his peak. He was, however, the greatest third baseman of all time in AL history at the time he retired, and (possibly) the greatest in the history of baseball.

Eddie Mathews was a contemporary, and he started fast, so Rosen's peak may not have been the best of all time. Mathews, too, is underrated; it is kind of amazing how so few folks EVER viewed Mathews as the greatest third baseman of all time. It took Mathews FOUR tries before he was inducted into the HOF, which, to me, is absolutely absurd.

[Paul Wendt]

Well, Rosen "got his shot" in 1949 and blew it. I don't have game logs, but it looks like when Keltner went down they called up Rosen, who was having another stellar season at AAA. When he wasn't an immediate smash, Boudreau sat his butt on the bench for the rest of the year, playing himself and a couple others at 3B. The Indians farm system was stacked with options at the time. Ray Boone was ahead of Rosen in the pecking order and had a better glove, so he took over for Boudreau at SS.
They were the champions, too, based on a very big contribution from Keltner in his eleventh full season with the team. Those are about three more reasons why Keltner might get the job back, for a while, regardless of how well a rookie played while he was down.

[dgarza]

The hurdles for most 3B in the 70s is the same for most SS in the 90s.
There were quite a few 3B in the 70s/early 80s who really had their bats going for them. Of course, some were clearly better and worse defenders, but many seem hard to separate.

Clearly Schmidt and Brett stood out.

But many of the others were kind of hard to differentiate at the time.
What to say about :
Good defenders
Graig Nettles
Buddy Bell

Better defenders
Ron Cey
Darrell Evans

Average defenders
Sal Bando
Doug DeCinces

Poor defenders
Bill Madlock
Richie Hebner
Toby Harrah

[Paul Wendt]

. . . I have advocated for all of these guys for the HOF in the past, so Bando isn't ruled out in my book.

What it comes down to, in my book is where Bando stacks up versus Ron Cey and Robin Ventura. Cey was a slightly better offensive player who is missing time due to a (needless) late call-up, but whose career lasted longer at the back end; his OWP is .614 to Bando's .593 in a shorter career. Ventura's OWP is lower than Bando's (.556), but he was much the superior defensive player, and also exhibited more longevity. Bando might rank ahead of both of those guys; the question is whether or not he is better by a large enough margin to be considered a Hall-worthy player, and on THAT question, I am undecided.
Bill James treats thirdbase thru the 1920s and Pie Traynor as second shortstop. That makes one case for limiting discussion of Sal Bando to comparison with more recent rivals. Stan Hack belongs on those grounds and also by the fact that Bando played about as long before Robin Ventura and Matt Williams as he did after Stan Hack and Harlond Clift. (approx 1940, 1970, 2000)

In that time period we have Clift and Williams, not covered by FB, and Bob Elliott not yet mentioned. At a glance Elliott seems the closest competitor to Sal Bando: medium-long career, much above the norm as a batter, said to be below average with the glove, speculative value as a captain or leader of championship team, which helped put his manager in the Hall of Fame this year :)

Elliott and Bando have some support for shadow Halls of Fame, but not a lot of support
--about as much support as Al Rosen, Ron Cey, and Buddy Bell?

As far as I know, the shadow halls hear no support for Harlond Clift, Bill Madlock, Toby Harrah, and Tim Wallach.
and none for Ken Keltner.
Regarding Ventura and Williams, time will tell. I haven't yet looked.

Hack, Santo, Nettles, and Evans are in the shadow halls, or they are strong candidates.

[dgarza]

There were quite a few 3B in the 70s/early 80s who really had their bats going for them. We know that 3B bats starting regularly being really good starting in the 70s, then getting even stronger in the 80s.
Sure, there were more teams, but it made for harder separation.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bill James treats thirdbase thru the 1920s and Pie Traynor as second shortstop. That makes one case for limiting discussion of Sal Bando to comparison with more recent rivals. Stan Hack belongs on those grounds and also by the fact that Bando played about as long before Robin Ventura and Matt Williams as he did after Stan Hack and Harlond Clift. (approx 1940, 1970, 2000)

In that time period we have Clift and Williams, not covered by FB, and Bob Elliott not yet mentioned. At a glance Elliott seems the closest competitor to Sal Bando: medium-long career, much above the norm as a batter, said to be below average with the glove, speculative value as a captain or leader of championship team, which helped put his manager in the Hall of Fame this year :)

Elliott and Bando have some support for shadow Halls of Fame, but not a lot of support
--about as much support as Al Rosen, Ron Cey, and Buddy Bell?

As far as I know, the shadow halls hear no support for Harlond Clift, Bill Madlock, Toby Harrah, and Tim Wallach.
and none for Ken Keltner.
Regarding Ventura and Williams, time will tell. I haven't yet looked.

Hack, Santo, Nettles, and Evans are in the shadow halls, or they are strong candidates.

I rate Elliott ahead of Bando, and by a significant margin. Elliott and Bando were about equal on defense, but Elliott's career OWP was .641; that's a lot higher than Bando's .593. Elliott was a true "team leader" like Bando (his nickname "Mr. Team" suggests that Elliott was, while active highly respected by his peers). Furthermore, Elliott won an MVP award, and deserved it. (Bando finished 2nd to Vida Blue in the 1971 MVP race, but it wasn't really an MVP-type season; indeed, it wasn't even his best season.)

I rate Bando ahead of Harlond Clift (who Bill James overrates, IMO). Clift COULD have been great, but the reason he is forgotten is that his peak was rather short, and his decline was swift.

I rate Bando ahead of Matt Williams. It may be a surprise to some, but Bando was the superior OFFENSIVE player, and by a decent margin (.593 OWP for Bando, only .541 OWP for Williams), and while Williams was superior on defense, Bando MIGHT have won a Gold Glove in a league that didn't have Brooks Robinson in it.

All of this just adds to the "maybe" quality of Bando's candidacy. I support Elliott for the HOF, and I haven't closed the door to Williams.

[philkid3]

I'm with Matt on this one. He's not an overwhelming candidates, but he clears the bar for me. I'm not big on "maybe"--in my book, one either votes for the guy or one doesn't if the opportunity presents itself. An analogy might be the high jumpers or pole vaulters: some clear heights by a lot, some just squeak over--but either one counts as a successful jump.

When I put "maybe," as I did here, it's not a "yes or no, but barely." It's a legitimate "I haven't invested enough time to have a clue one way or the other."

I believe a barely yes should still be put down as a yes.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Whenever the discussion turns to third basemen outside the HOF, I rarely mention Bando. I'll think of Madlock, Gaetti, Cey, Nettles, Evans, and a few other contemporaries before I think of Bando.

I mention this because I'm open-minded to the idea that I have been unfair to Bando. Bando's anonymity (in my mind, anyway) is a remarkable thing; he had the kind of career to where you would think a HOF buff like me would think to automatically include him in the discussion.

Bando was well thought of while active; he was considered the second best third baseman in the AL before George Brett came along. I don't think he was better than Nettles, but some folks do.

Bando played in a poor hitter's park; the huge foul areas cut down on BA and the long fences cut down on HRs. If Bando had played his entire career in Fenway Park, he would have posted much better numbers. That wouldn't have made him a better player, but it would have made him a more viable HOF candidate.

[KHenry14]

Funny thing, I saw Bando in his prime many times, and I just can't make the argument for induction. He was the glue to that great championship run that the A's had, frankly no one called him Sal Bando, it was ALWAYS "Captain" Sal. And he was overshadowed by his teammates, certainly by Jackson, Hunter, Rudi, and Blue, but that was OK, since he was more of a behind the scenes kind of guy.

But I have to put about three other 3B in before giving Captain Sal the nod.

[PVNICK]

I gave a hasty no, mainly because he is about 5th in the pecking order of 70s3B (unenshrined) behind Santo, Evans, and Nettles and maybe Cey or Bell. In retrospect the best I can give him is a maybe. But 10-11 years with a no better than good or at least no bad glove leaves very little margin for error. The peak was not high enough and even though, as I recollect the time, he was considered the leader of the A's it just falls a tad short at best.

[KCGHOST]

I went with "Maybe" but I don't really think so. I watched him his whole career (even back to his ASU days) and never got the feeling I was watching anything more than a good player.

And just because there is a perceived shortage of 3B's in the HoF is not sufficient reason for me to start admitting the merely good players.

[Freakshow]

But I have to put about three other 3B in before giving Captain Sal the nod.And this points to the problem with Captain Sal's candidacy: there are a lot of 3B in line for the Hall and he's nowhere near the front. There you find Santo, followed by Hack, Evans, Groh and Boyer. Then the next wave led by Sutton, Nettles, Leach and Elliott. Beckwith from the Negro leagues. Edgar Martinez, if you assign him a position. Some would include Deacon White at 3B. It leaves Bando back in the pack with Cey, Cross, Bell, Ventura, Rosen, Williamson, et al.