Update- Santo in! 15 of 16 votes

[Rice Cube]

Joe Poz:

Joe Posnanski

 

[FirstTimer]

The Santo debate is what it is...


But like I mentioned earlier in the thread and the article above mentions the Buck O'Neill snub is an absolute disgrace to the sport.

 

[brett05]

9× All-Star (1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1973)
5× Gold Glove Award winner (1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968)
1973 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award
Chicago Cubs #10 retired

Batting average .277
Home runs 342
Hits 2,254
Runs batted in 1,331

Enough said (.277 then is different than .277 now IMO).

You didn't answer the question I had to your comment but that is fine.

Nice stats for Ron. Hall of Fame? No.

First off on your last point of .277 is not the same. There is some truth to that. Prior to 1969 the mound was higher. He spent 40% of his career with the lower mound. With the advantage moving away from the pitcher, Ron batted he hit 7 points below his career average. Minor difference, but worth pointing out.



He had no hall of fame totals (500 homers, 3000, hits, etc)
His home/Road splits are not good. His OPS was 158 points lower on the road. He hit 216 of his 342 home runs in the Friendly Confines.

Ron was a very good ball player, but I don't see stats that say Hall of Fame. 15-20 committees agreed.

I want to thank Billy Williams who not only voted but helped Ron get into the Hall over the weekend. He said in the room they talked about the numbers Ron put up, but it wasn't enough so they talked about all tremendous work he did outside of baseball and his philanthropy (sp) is what swayed the voters.

 

[brett05]

Only reason I'm surprised at all that Brett's being a moron again is ...

Ad Hominem attacks? I am guessing you are taking tips from First Timer?

 

[brett05]

His argument of "Santo didn't hit well on the road" is ridiculous. I've already showed players in the HOF that had worse batting average splits away from home. Again, even with Santo batting poorly on the road he was still the best offensive third baseman of his era by a pretty easy margin.

You keep making the "one eyed man" argument.

While he wasn't the defender Brooks Robinson was Santo still won 5 straight GG's and surpassed Robinson as an offensive player by a wide margin. Robinson is thought of as a no brainer for a HOF'er. Do the math.

True he was better overall. Compare the math in playoffs too. Big component especially when the normal HOF numbers aren't there.

By any standard(relative to his peers, 3rd baseman in the HOF, etc) Santo is a HOF'er.

Can you show that? (guessing you'll resort to ad hominem again since it's what you are good at)

 

[brett05]

He made some good points earlier in the thread, but people smarter than I have argued convincingly that Santo's body of work is HOF worthy. I've looked at the statistics and thought the same. I guess there's a chance that Santo didn't deserve it, but I think that's a very slim chance if at all.

And guys way smarter then me kept him out 15-20 votes prior to this last incarnation of voting on Ronnie which was totally favoring Ronnie.

 

[brett05]

IK, still surprised that his inner homer is telling him "He doesn't deserve it" vs. "He should be inducted as a White Sox because the Cubs suck" lol.

Probably just (hurt) about Minoso.

Neither. He was horrible as a Sox. And I would not have Minnie in, though I really think he has been a gret embassador for the game.

 

[FirstTimer]

First off on your last point of .277 is not the same. There is some truth to that. Prior to 1969 the mound was higher. He spent 40% of his career with the lower mound. With the advantage moving away from the pitcher, Ron batted he hit 7 points below his career average. Minor difference, but worth pointing out.

Yawn. Santo had an MVP arguable year in 1969.

He had no hall of fame totals (500 homers, 3000, hits, etc)

LOL at this coming from the guy who think Baines has a case for the HOF.

His home/Road splits are not good.

Oh noes!

I want to thank Billy Williams who not only voted but helped Ron get into the Hall over the weekend. He said in the room they talked about the numbers Ron put up, but it wasn't enough so they talked about all tremendous work he did outside of baseball and his philanthropy (sp) is what swayed the voters.

The committee is still Special person!

You keep making the "one eyed man" argument.

Actually I'm not.

But keep saying that.

Can you show that?

Read the thread.

Try to critically think. Please.

Bill James ranks him around the 6th best 3B ever.

And guys way smarter then me

That's really not that difficult...and not much of a point. These same guys also kept Buck O'Neill out.

BOOM!

 

[brett05]

The bottom line is that Ron is in, He's a Hall of Famer. He played by the rules and got elected.

 

[FirstTimer]

Mel Ott

323 HR's at home.

188 HR's on the road.

Take him out!

 

[brett05]

Yawn. Santo had an MVP arguable year in 1969.

Yep someone that had an mvp year and didn;t win it is hall of fame material for me. :lol:

LOL at this coming from the guy who think Baines has a case for the HOF.

As proven, lasted longer on the ballot then Ron did.

The committee is still Special person!

Yep conspiracy, regardless of how you see it.

Actually I'm not.

But keep saying that.

You keep saying compared to his era. Yes, you make it, even if you don't see it.

 

[FirstTimer]

Santo's OPS+ compared to the other HOF 3rd basemen.

Right in the middle of them.

 

[brett05]

Mel Ott

323 HR's at home.

188 HR's on the road.

Take him out!

Skipping your logic, Ott had the numbers that get you into the hall of fame (AKA 500 homers)
Lots of doubles and hits on the road too.

 

[brett05]

Santo's OPS+ compared to the other HOF 3rd basemen.

Right in the middle of them.

wow, comparing dead ball ops..

 

[FirstTimer]

Yep someone that had an mvp year and didn;t win it is hall of fame material for me. :lol:

awesome job missing the point.

As proven, lasted longer on the ballot then Ron did.

Odd. Santo has been on the ballot a lot.

Baines?

5 times?

Yep conspiracy, regardless of how you see it.

No. Just stupidity.

You keep saying compared to his era.

Of course I'm going to compare him to his era. Why the hell wouldn't you? It's not like Santo's era was bad. He played in the Golden Age of baseball. He outproduced a no brainer HOF'er like Brooks Robinson. He was up against other B like Greg Nettles etc and evern comparing cross era's Santo stacks up right in the middle of them.

There is no nation of the blind.

You're being a fool.


LOL at you still persisting with this "one eyed man" BS.

 

[FirstTimer]

wow, comparing dead ball ops..

You seriously need to leave the thread now.

You clearly have no idea what OPS+ is.

 

[FirstTimer]

Skipping your logic, Ott had the numbers that get you into the hall of fame (AKA 500 homers)

He doesn't get there is not for the HUGE disparity in home/road splits.

FAIL.

 

[FirstTimer]

*Waits while brett googles OPS+*

 

[Lex L.]

You keep making the "one eyed man" argument.



True he was better overall. Compare the math in playoffs too. Big component especially when the normal HOF numbers aren't there.



Can you show that? (guessing you'll resort to ad hominem again since it's what you are good at)

The problem with this one-eyed man stuff is that it suggests eras don't matter and numbers are numbers. If that's the case, then everyone who put up big numbers during the steroid era should be in. The problem is that writers put the 20s-50s on this pedastal. During subsequent eras like the 60s-80s you saw lower offensive numbers than the 20s-50s. During this time writers and other old timers were still clinging to this idea that the 20s-50s was some golden era where giants walked the earth. But then came the 90s and they started putting the numbers of the 20s-50s to shame in certain regards. And it was at this time clearly revealed that the writers had been putting the 20s-50s on this pedastal because the argument used against the players from the 60s-80s were suddenly not being used against players from the 20s-50s when being compared to the more offensive-laden 90s. Basically, the old timers have always been talkign out of both sides of their mouth for the sake of glorifying the 20s-50s.

And let me tell you, it's much more difficult to hit now than it was in the 20s-50s. A lot of people don't want to be honest about this though. It's some taboo because people want to glorify this "golden age".

And so, if people (namely media members) are going to say, the HR numbers were diluted in the 90s...that 400 HRs no longer means anything, they're actually saying that you have to look at the numbers in the context of the era they played in. So then, the pendulum has to swing both ways and that takes us to Ron Santo.

In a weird, ironic way, the steroid era might have actually helped Santo. Even though the numbers from the steroid era might have put Santo's to shame in a lot of ways, the real issue has been how old timers have always wanted to glorify the eras that preceded Santo, which, coincidentally, produced better offensive numbers. And once the 90s came, the arguments that were being used against Santo could no longer be used, because, to maintain the glorification of the 20s-50s, old timers started saying that you have to look at numbers in the context of their era...and Santo never benefitted from this caveat until the 90s came along. It re-framed the discussion.

And I realize that Santo never made it in by the voting of the sports writers but it's still possible that, because the discussion was reframed and it could have easily swung a few votes his way. Im not sure who was on the panel but, considering Santo was the only one to make it out of this recent vote, it's hard to argue that there wasn't some measure of scrutiny or due diligence involved. So, I think it would be wrong to assume there wasnt some measure of scrutiny going on with Santo and, in this regard, I think the re-framing of the discussion by looking at performence according to their era (by the media in every day chatter) could have affected how the voters viewed Santo.

 

[waldo7239117]

Is someone saying... Ron Santo should not be in the Hall of Fame?