Update- Santo in! 15 of 16 votes

[brett05]

It's pretty clear FT and I don't like each other. But I think he made a point and at times I can separate the two

 

[Rice Cube]

Another farce. Dawson going into the HOF after Jim Rice?

Lulz.

Arguably neither one should've gotten in, but Dawson should've gotten in first :lol: They were more "borderline" candidates to me.

 

[brett05]

Which are great.

Ron Santo Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Your own link shows he falls short in three of four hall of fame monitor stats.

 

[Rice Cube]

Not really. The media has a job to do independent of how the player treated them, even if it was badly. Its beyond stupid to blame Santo while overlooking that the media didnt do its job.

I already know the media holds grudges. To say as much is pointing out the obvious. Where you go in the wrong, however, is when you blame the player while giving the media a pass.

I think it was a bit of both. The media probably did hold a grudge against Santo because he was a toolbag and arguably his numbers might be borderline if you use the brett05 school of thought so the media used both to their advantage in denying Santo the HOF.

I guess we'll find out next week what the committee says.

 

[brett05]

ZOMG! So are some other HOF'ers.

Then kick them out if it is so disparaging.

 

[brett05]

I think it was a bit of both. The media probably did hold a grudge against Santo because he was a toolbag and arguably his numbers might be borderline if you use the brett05 school of thought so the media used both to their advantage in denying Santo the HOF.

I guess we'll find out next week what the committee says.

You mean the yet revised again committee?

 

[brett05]

Yes, really.



False.

Baines played 22 seasons. He made 6 All Star teams.

Santo played 15 seasons. Made 9 All star teams. Won 5 Gold Gloves. Wasn't considered the best 3B of his time. Brooks Robinson owns that honor.
Santo was also in the Top 10 of the MVP voting 4 times. Baines twice. Santo was in the top 5 twice. Baines...never.

The black ink and gray ink stats relative to their peers isn't even close. Santo was better. Baines career numbers look nice but he was a classic case of a stat compiler. For the last 10-12 years of his career he floated around colleting hits and middling stat totals. Props to him for the longevity but even at his peak Santo was better relative to their era's.

LOL at comparing their "ailments". Santo had diabetes at a time when it was virutally untreatable(compared to today)..it helped end his career and basically it eventually killed him. Baines had bad knees. Santo's "ailment" caused his legs to be removed at the knees.

Santo's ailment allowed him to play the field, Baines did not.

 

[FirstTimer]

Not really. The media has a job to do independent of how the player treated them, even if it was badly. Its beyond stupid to blame Santo while overlooking that the media didnt do its job.

Both are too blame.

The media clearly isn't doing it's job well.

Santo was an asshole.

It's the perfect shit storm for getting left out.

Santo was an easy guy to forget at the time. He played on some really bad teams with other better players like Banks, Williams, Fergie. Brooks Robinson was clearly the elite 3B at the time and 3B weren't really put into the HOF much to begin with around that time. People moved past Santo rather easily and his personality and ego made it easier to do so. Does it make it right? No. Is it a factor? Of course.



No one gave the media "a pass". You clearly can't read.

 

[Lex L.]

Arguably neither one should've gotten in, but Dawson should've gotten in first :lol: They were more "borderline" candidates to me.

Here's the problem with saying neither should have gotten in. If you're going to not let guys in during the steroid era because 500 HRs doesnt mean much anymore, then, to be consistent and look at Dawson's and Rice's era, they put up good numbers for their era. It's like they only use the era as context if it's an era where there were historically big numbers (like the 90s). But if you played in an era where there weren't huge numbers compared to the 20s-50s (like the 70s-80s), then it's hypocrtical to measure them against the 20s-50s.

 

[FirstTimer]

Then kick them out if it is so disparaging.

Yeah. Let's kick Carl Yazstremski out of the HOF.

WHAT?!

Santo's ailment allowed him to play the field, Baines did not.

Yeah Santo's "ailment" really allowed him to play the field. Sorry. Andre Dawson had some of the worst knees on the planet. He played in the NL for basically his his entire career. I have no pity for Baines.

 

[FirstTimer]

Arguably neither one should've gotten in, but Dawson should've gotten in first :lol: They were more "borderline" candidates to me.

:smh:

Dawson should have been in much....MUCH sooner.

 

[Rice Cube]

Here's the problem with saying neither should have gotten in. If you're going to not let guys in during the steroid era because 500 HRs doesnt mean much anymore, then, to be consistent and look at Dawson's and Rice's era, they put up good numbers for their era. It's like they only use the era as context if it's an era where there were historically big numbers (like the 90s). But if you played in an era where there weren't huge numbers compared to the 20s-50s (like the 70s-80s), then it's hypocrtical to measure them against the 20s-50s.

I think part of the issue is that I'm using their calculated accumulated value while you guys are looking at raw numbers. There are multiple ways of assessing value.

I guess my definition of a HOFer will be different than yours as a result, but even with all its flaws, value is calculated based on contemporary data and thus you cannot compare Ron Santo to Ryan Zimmerman, for example. But during his time, Ron Santo was one of the best 3B and that's what we're trying to argue. It might be biased if we weren't using value statistics, and I know not everyone believes in them, but that's what I'm using and I think it's more consistent that way. That's why even with their raw numbers, the fact that Rice and Dawson made so many outs decreased their value relative to Santo.

To each their own, though. The HOF standards aren't really set in stone, and those HOF indicators on B-Ref aren't much more than guidelines. That's why this is always going to be argued unless the guy is a slam dunk like a Babe Ruth.

 

[FirstTimer]

That's why even with their raw numbers, the fact that Rice and Dawson made so many outs decreased their value relative to Santo.

To be fair in this; Rice was always shitty and slow(as a runner/fielder). Dawson was a legit 5 tool elite player early in his career who could run. Even after his knees went he wasn't even nearly the double play waiting to happen that Rice was.

 

[brett05]

Yeah. Let's kick Carl Yazstremski out of the HOF.

WHAT?!

Where did I say that? Come on now. You've been civil up to now.

Yeah Santo's "ailment" really allowed him to play the field. Sorry. Andre Dawson had some of the worst knees on the planet. He played in the NL for basically his his entire career. I have no pity for Baines.

Based on Dawson playing the field and Baines not, I gotta let what we see speak for itself meaning Baines knees were worse. Again, I am not saying Baines should be in though I think I can make a case for him. Santo shouldn't be. You have to argue him in. A HOFer should be a don't even have to think about it choice.

I also think it is wrong to penalize for longevity. It's not like they got the stats in a different level of the game. And teams kept wanting the players.

 

[Rice Cube]

To be fair in this; Rice was always shitty and slow(as a runner/fielder). Dawson was a legit 5 tool elite player early in his career who could run. Even after his knees went he wasn't even nearly the double play waiting to happen that Rice was.

Nice to know what you think of me. Asshole.

 

[FirstTimer]

Then kick them out if it is so disparaging.

Where did I say that?

See above

Based on Dawson playing the field and Baines not, I gotta let what we see speak for itself meaning Baines knees were worse.

Or he just wasn't a good fielder to begin with.....................................but was lucky enough to play in the AL.

Again, I am not saying Baines should be in though I think I can make a case for him.

:smh:

No you can't.

Baines has virtually no case.

Santo shouldn't be. You have to argue him in. A HOFer should be a don't even have to think about it choice.

LOL at this. Baines was barely an afterthought as a HOFer. I think the most votes he got one year was like 6%. Baines was then dropped from the ballot later for not even getting 5%. Santo's last season he had 43% of the vote. Santo's first and worst year of the HOF voting he had 10% of the vote....Baines best season....well you've seen the numbers.

I have no clue how you can say you can make a case for Baines....yet Santo shouldn't be in because Santo has to be argued in.?!?!?!? That makes zero sense. Zero. Your logic here is awful....but I'm not surprised.

I also think it is wrong to penalize for longevity.

I'm not penalizing Baines for longevity but I'm also not going to let it skew the numbers and I'm still going to look at them in context. Longevity or not Baines was never as good a player, even at his peak, as Santo was..who also played for 15 years. There's no way any sane person can say Santo "doesn't belong" but that "they could make a case for Harold Baines". You don't think Santo belongs? Fine. I disagree but I see why. But don't give me the crap that Santo doesn't and Baines has a case.

 

[brett05]

See above

That does not say Carl is out.

Or he just wasn't a good fielder to begin with.....................................but was lucky enough to play in the AL.

Baines was an incredible RF when he was healthy. A small sample size though

:smh:

No you can't.

Baines has virtually no case.

LOL at this. Baines was barely an afterthought as a HOFer. I think the most votes he got one year was like 6%. Baines was then dropped from the ballot later for not even getting 5%. Santo's last season he had 43% of the vote. Santo's first and worst year of the HOF voting he had 10% of the vote....Baines best season....well you've seen the numbers.

I have no clue how you can say you can make a case for Baines....yet Santo shouldn't be in because Santo has to be argued in.?!?!?!? That makes zero sense. Zero. Your logic here is awful....but I'm not surprised.

They both need to be argued in is what I have said.

I'm not penalizing Baines for longevity but I'm also not going to let it skew the numbers and I'm still going to look at them in context. Longevity or not Baines was never as good a player, even at his peak, as Santo was..who also played for 15 years. There's no way any sane person can say Santo "doesn't belong" but that "they could make a case for Harold Baines". You don't think Santo belongs? Fine. I disagree but I see why. But don't give me the crap that Santo doesn't and Baines has a case.

My statement is still you can make cases for and against both. Both were very good players. Both are not Hall of Fame players even though cases can be made. Please read better instead of assuming things.

 

[brett05]

Baines has virtually no case.

LOL at this. Baines was barely an afterthought as a HOFer. I think the most votes he got one year was like 6%. Baines was then dropped from the ballot later for not even getting 5%.

Santo got four percent and dropped after one year. Back on only after complaints were logged of which none of them have gotten in that have gotten this "extra life."

Santo's last season he had 43% of the vote. Santo's first and worst year of the HOF voting he had 10% of the vote....Baines best season....well you've seen the numbers.

Now if I was like you I would go on endlessly ranting how your numbers are wrong. 4% in 1980, right?

 

[Rice Cube]

My statement is still you can make cases for and against both. Both were very good players. Both are not Hall of Fame players even though cases can be made. Please read better instead of assuming things.

Kenny Lofton was much more valuable than Harold Baines. Lofton probably won't get in, unfortunately. You can take a look at raw numbers as a baseline, but you definitely have to look at how good those guys were.

For example, Jim Edmonds is a lot better than Harold Baines as well, and at Lofton's level in terms of value. Jim Edmonds might get into the HOF but a lot of people think it's borderline.

 

[Rice Cube]

Santo got four percent and dropped after one year. Back on only after complaints were logged of which none of them have gotten in that have gotten this "extra life."



Now if I was like you I would go on endlessly ranting how your numbers are wrong. 4% in 1980, right?

Just because Santo was dropped from the ballot doesn't mean the voters weren't Special person.