What the hell is wrong with the Hall of Fame committee. Santo has all the stats to be in the Hall. It's that SOB Mike Schmidt who believes no one should get in after he got in. What a tool.
Santo belongs in and I'm a White Sox fan!!
Posts: 782 | Location: Chicago Western Burb | Registered: Oct 05, 2006
Hey, I'm a Yankee fan and I think the oldtimer's committee should have admitted Gil Hodges and Tony Oliva. Jack Morris and Andre Dawson belong in there too.
Just one more sip.
Posts: 25041 | Location: NY | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
Originally posted by Markiemark: I didn't say he deserved it...I said his stats are better. Look it up.
Hard to compare their stats since Santo played in an era which for the most part was dominated by pitching (hence the pitching mound was lowered from 15 to 10 inches in 1969 to benefit hitters). While Jones played in the steriod era dominated by hitting. Here are a couple stats though:
Gold Glove awards: Santo- 5 C. Jones- 0
All Star Games: Santo- 9 C. Jones- 5
VM
Posts: 10139 | Location: Chicago | Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Santo teams: (sadly) never ever...and with three HOF teammates with him much of his career: Banks, Williams, Jenkins
Santo also never finished in the top 3 for MVP ANY year. He was an excellent consistent player but not one that comes to mind as one of the all-time greats.
I'm not pushing Chipper Jones at all. Just pointing out that there are a lot of players with similar stats. And HOF, with a few exceptions, are voted in on stats. Sorry.
Posts: 1176 | Location: Atlanta | Registered: Sep 02, 2006
Originally posted by Markiemark: Wow..there's a convincing argument for HOF
You don't think Gold Glove Awards or being selected as an All Star is taken into account by HoF voters? If fielding is not important how do you explain Brooks Robinson getting into the Hall?
With respect to post season play, I think that is the main reason Santo has not been elected.
VM
Posts: 10139 | Location: Chicago | Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Though Santo was an excellent fielder, I wouldn't compare Santo to Brooks Robinson.
Being selected as an all-star shouldn't matter, except as icing on the cake. It's only based on the first half of the year. As you know, the Cubs always faded in August & Sept. (ouch!!)
I watched Santo on WGN with Jack Brickhouse (hey hey!) for a decade growing up. I know Santo well, I just think he's on the margins as a HOF. If he does get in, I'll be happy for him.
Jack Morris should be a no-brainer. Post season matters.
Posts: 1176 | Location: Atlanta | Registered: Sep 02, 2006
Santo, Morris, Dawson, Hodges or whoever. The oldtimer's committee doesn't seem to want to put anyone in. I think I heard on the radio that this is the third straight time they failed to vote anyone in. Isn't that why this committee was formed? I really think it was.
Posts: 782 | Location: Chicago Western Burb | Registered: Oct 05, 2006
Originally posted by Spiral: Santo, Morris, Dawson, Hodges or whoever. The oldtimer's committee doesn't seem to want to put anyone in. I think I heard on the radio that this is the third straight time they failed to vote anyone in. Isn't that why this committee was formed? I really think it was.
Maybe they don't feel any pressure to take the best of a marginal pool. I don't think the HOF in any sport should vote someone in if they don't really make a case for it.
Posts: 1176 | Location: Atlanta | Registered: Sep 02, 2006
He was a terrific player, for his era or any era. You could argue he is in the top 15 3B all time. He is at best a borderline HOF, with no extra credit - like MVP, post season....
DBW
完全。それらはすべて完全である。
Posts: 1944 | Location: Maple Glen, PA | Registered: Aug 28, 2003
Originally posted by VT2IT: Actually, if Santo is in the HOF then Sal Bando should be also.
That's a little over the top. Santo had 100 more HR's, 150 more R's, 300 more RBI's and hit 23 points better than Bando. Santo also had 5 gold gloves to zero for Bando. They are not in the same class. The only advatage Bando has is that he played on a better team and saw postseason play.
VM
Posts: 10139 | Location: Chicago | Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Originally posted by VT2IT: Actually, if Santo is in the HOF then Sal Bando should be also.
That's a little over the top. Santo had 100 more HR's, 150 more R's, 300 more RBI's and hit 23 points better than Bando. Santo also had 5 gold gloves to zero for Bando. They are not in the same class. The only advatage Bando has is that he played on a better team and saw postseason play.
VM
Yea, but Santo played in that band box Wrigley and Bando played in the worst hitters park in the majors. Also with Brooks Robinson playing in the same league Bando had no shot at a gold glove.
Remember to always aim high, that way you won't get any on your shoes.
The Hall of Fame was created to honor extremely special players. Ron Santo was not an extremely special player. Of course, neither was Don Sutton; it's ludicrous that he was elected.
Just one more sip.
Posts: 25041 | Location: NY | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
As much as it pains me to say this I agree with Board-O. The HOF should be for the all time greats, not just good players for their time. IMHO too many players get in, not too few.
Remember to always aim high, that way you won't get any on your shoes.
VT2IT- I agree that Santo is a borderline HoFer. Otherwise he would have been voted in by the writers.
dbw- A few comments about your list. First, I don't think you can compare 3B to OF's. More offense and less defense is expected from an OF. It is also very important to compare players from the same era. Baseball changed drastically in 1969 and has become more and more a hitters game since then. Some of the changes:
1) Mound lowered by 5 inches in 1969 2) Only 20 MLB teams in 1968 and expansion has brought that to 30 today which has severely diluted pitching. Think of Santo playing 2/3 of his games against the pitchers of his day and the other 1/3 against the best triple A pitchers. 3) Livelier ball 4) Steroids 5) Smaller strike zone
The end result is that it used to mean something to hit 30 HR's in a year and today it is commonplace. 8 players hit 30 HR's in 1967 and only 7 in 1968. That number climbed to 17 and 19 in 1969 and 1970 respectively. The number of 30HR hitters remained between 12 and 20 for the most part until 1995. In 1996, steroids kicked in and the number of 30HR hitters has consistently stayed above 30 almost every year since. In my opinion there is no way that McGwire, Sosa or Bonds come close to 60 HR if they played in the 1960's.
Of the 3B you mention the only one from Santo's era was Ken Boyer who was just as good a fielder as Santo (both 5 gold gloves) but had fewer R's, HR's and RBI.
VM
Posts: 10139 | Location: Chicago | Registered: Oct 17, 2001
The Baseball reference comparisons are based on performance relative to the players' era. So Santo's score is fair - his 27 hr 105 rbi season in a time period like 1964-1970 would compare quite well with today's 35-110. Said another way, his production looks like Pat Burrell in some ways, but compares WAY better with his era, obviously. So he is much much more highly rated.
The comparison IS somewhat flawed when you consider that it is comparing offensive numbers for multiple positions. Given that 3B is a traditional power position, it is not as big a deal as it could be.
I did suggest that Santo could be a top 15 3B. Just going by what I have seen - from late 60's to now - Schmidt, Brett, Boggs and Robinson are ahead, Rolen, C Jones, Nettles, Cey and maybe Matt Williams are in his league. Young guys - Chavez and Blalock have a chance. I am sure I left off people, but there really are not ton's clearly ahead of Santo - at 3B.
DBW
完全。それらはすべて完全である。
Posts: 1944 | Location: Maple Glen, PA | Registered: Aug 28, 2003
