Update- Santo in! 15 of 16 votes

[Jntg4]

According to brett, 500 HR or 3,000 Hits and you are HOF, but if you have neither then you're not?

But Baines is a HOF?
384 HR, 2,866 Hits while playing through the steroid era... and in 22 seasons...

Santo:
342 HR, 2,254 Hits while playing in a poor offensive era... and in only 15 seasons.

Do the math, 14 HR/year and 130 Hits/year for Baines. 23 HR/year and 150 Hits/year for Santo. Which is better?

 

[brett05]

Yeah keep it up.

Way to sneak away when you clearly had no idea what OPS+ even is.

You've been drubbed in this thread from the start.

Asking people to post "evidence" for Santo belonging when your evidence pretty much consists of Santo not batting as well on the road and you not knowing what OPS+ is.

Fantastic.

All the while saying you "could make a case" for Harold Baines.

lulz.

Cool story bro...

 

[Anno Catuli]

You talk too much.

Where's Donald Trump when ya need him

 

[brett05]

According to brett, 500 HR or 3,000 Hits and you are HOF, but if you have neither then you're not??

never said that. Take your time and read the thread

 

[FirstTimer]

According to brett, 500 HR or 3,000 Hits and you are HOF, but if you have neither then you're not?

But Baines is a HOF?
384 HR, 2,866 Hits while playing through the steroid era... and in 22 seasons...

Santo:
342 HR, 2,254 Hits while playing in a poor offensive era... and in only 15 seasons.

Do the math, 14 HR/year and 130 Hits/year for Baines. 23 HR/year and 150 Hits/year for Santo. Which is better?

He only said Baines "has a case".............but that's still Special person.

True story bro...

Fixed.

 

[Rice Cube]

He only said Baines "has a case".............but that's still Special person.

But does he have a Juan Gonzalez pamphlet?

 

[FirstTimer]

But does he have a Juan Gonzalez pamphlet?

I'm not sure pamphlets are supposed to have needles.

Juan Gonzalez is one of my favorite trivial facts.

The year he won one of his MVP's (1996)...he didn't make the All Star game.

 

[Rice Cube]

I'm not sure pamphlets are supposed to have needles.

Juan Gonzalez is one of my favorite trivial facts.

The year he won MVP...he didn't make the All Star game.

I think if you look at his value statistics (yeah, I know) one of the years he won MVP he totally shouldn't have won. But whatcha gonna do, people like HR and RBI which is why Andre Dawson won in 1987 despite making a zillion outs.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think if you look at his value statistics (yeah, I know) one of the years he won MVP he totally shouldn't have won. But whatcha gonna do, people like HR and RBI which is why Andre Dawson won in 1987 despite making a zillion outs.

I'm pretty sure that was 1996.

 

[FirstTimer]

Also, Dawson in 1987 even though he made a lot of outs he lead the league in total bases, home runs, RBI's, was gray ink in a lot of other areas. It balances out.

 

[Rice Cube]

Also, Dawson in 1987 even though he made a lot of outs he lead the league in total bases, home runs, RBI's, was gray ink in a lot of other areas. It balances out.

Yeah, those were some great power numbers for sure.

 

[brett05]

Jim Rice...in on a higher percentage of the vote than Cy Young and Al Simmons.
Lulz.

Babe Ruth. Not named on every ballot.
Named on less ballots than Tony Gwynn.

It took Al Simmons 7 ballots to get into the HOF.

The voting is idiotic to begin with.
Fun fact, Joe Dimaggio wasn't a first ballot HOF'er.
Sandy Koufox only got 80 some % percent of the vote?
How are people like this not unanimous first ballot HOF'ers?

The entire ... system is stupid.

That is
Your argument? No clue how that works I guess

Nolan Ryan has the largest percentage of all. Doesn't mean he is the best

 

[Rice Cube]

That is
Your argument? No clue how that works I guess

Nolan Ryan has the largest percentage of all. Doesn't mean he is the best

That's exactly right, and that explains right there why HOF voting is flawed and suggests a certain bias in the voting bloc towards certain players and against others.

 

[Jntg4]

never said that. Take your time and read the thread

You said that Santo doesn't have those and you referred to them as "Hall of Fame numbers", as your argument for Santo not being in it. Therefore, yes, you did.

 

[Anno Catuli]

You said that Santo doesn't have those and you referred to them as "Hall of Fame numbers", as your argument for Santo not being in it. Therefore, yes, you did.

Those are Hall of Fame numbers, meaning that if you have either one or both you should be a lock.

He never said that they were a must

 

[brett05]

That's exactly right, and that explains right there why HOF voting is flawed and suggests a certain bias in the voting bloc towards certain players and against others.

That is one possibility or it could suggest a strong candidate against a weak class. That's usually the case I believe.

 

[brett05]

Let's break this down.

You said that Santo doesn't have those

Without relooking at all the posts, I concede I said that. Santo does not have those Hall of Fame type stats (500 taters, 3000 hits, etc)

and you referred to them as "Hall of Fame numbers",

certainly prior to the drug era they were automatic bids

as your argument for Santo not being in it. Therefore, yes, you did.

No I did not say that. I said you look at other things to see if a guy gets in which is where I showed a lack of production away from a hitters park like Wrigley Field (previously provided a link that showed that to be true), his lack of playoff numbers (he has none), I mentioned that he was not considered a clutch player (I really only have comments from others and I have no way to prove he was or wasn't since he retired when I was 1), he was a bad teammate (called at least one guy out in public and accounts are he was not a nice player), bad to the media (it really shouldn't matter, but Eddie Murray was awful to the media and it did not hurt him)

At times in the past you've been great Wrigley Firehawks, but the last few months you spend more time with ad hominem attacks and lack of reading what is posted instead of putting out what I would consider some pretty good high quality stuff.

 

[Jntg4]

Misinterpretation, not lack of reading the post, happens all the time.

But Santo's case is obviously >>> Baines' case.

Still don't see how you claim he doesn't deserve it or how it is relevant considering that he is already in.

 

[brett05]

Odd. Santo has been on the ballot a lot.

Baines?

5 times?

You keep misusing numbers, but let's go thru this.

Baines has been on the ballot 6 times. Santo has been on it once. Santo got 3.9% of the ballots and was removed. Later one of many voting changes were made that ultimately made it easier and easier for Ron to get in. Baines has never had the rules changed for him.

One can only compare their first period of time on the ballot until removed for the first time. For Harold that is 6 for Ron that is one. To say a case can't be made for Harold being a Hall of Famer is a lack of baseball knowledge plain and simple. Similarly for Santo as well which has been my statement since page one I believe.

 

[brett05]

Misinterpretation, not lack of reading the post, happens all the time.

Point well taken, but didn't you say a page up that you didn't read the posts? My apologies.

But Santo's case is obviously >>> Baines' case.

I never said it wasn't, but I never said it was either.

Still don't see how you claim he doesn't deserve it

I listed why and those are more then likely the same reasons he wasn't in earlier.
[/quote]
or how it is relevant considering that he is already in.[/QUOTE]
It's not anymore.

Good post!