Ron Santo for the Hall?

I read an article recently in a newspaper about Ron Santo hoping to be selected for the Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee when they meet next. He's not extremely old (today is his 67th birthday) but he is in poor health (he's diabetic and has had both legs amputated) and he's not sure that he'll be around if the Veterans Committee waits another cycle. We've been talking about other HoF candidates a lot, so let's look at Santo. What do you guys think--should he be in?

My personal opinion is no. He seems to be a favorite candidate of Bill James and some other sabermetricians IIRC, and while I agree with those guys on a lot of things, I have a hard time seeing Santo as a Hof'er. He clearly was an outstanding defensive player (5 straight gold gloves at 3rd), but while he posted a good OBP, and had some power, his overall offensive stats aren't great, (though maybe I'm not adjusting enough for the era he played in), plus his career is relatively short.

Probably the two best things going for Santo is how few 3Bs are in the Hall and that he's been in the limelight (i.e. the media) for his post-baseball career thus keeping his name in the news.

The last time the restructured Vet Committee had an election, nobody made it in. Until I see who they elect, it is hard to speculate how they *would* elect.

I am a bit disappointed that a player like Rusty Staub (over 2,700 hits) didn't even make the ballot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

The last time the restructured Vet Committee had an election, nobody made it in. Until I see who they elect, it is hard to speculate how they *would* elect.

---

It's starting to look like the restructured committee will rarely if ever elect anyone.

For the record, here are the players on the ballot and my own belief on whether they should be in or out.

"Composite Ballot":
Buzzie Bavasi - out
August Busch, Jr. - out
Harry Dalton - out
Charlie Finley - out
Doug Harvey - in (if you think umpires should get in, he should get in)
Whitey Herzog - out
Bowie Kuhn - out
Billy Martin - out
Marvin Miller - out (in if you judge on impact to the game)
Walter O'Malley - out
Gabe Paul - out
Paul Richards - out
Bill White - in (combining player stats and league officialdom)
Dick Williams - out
Phil Wrigley - out

"Players Ballot"
Dick Allen - out
Bobby Bonds - out
Ken Boyer - out (the Dale Murphy of his era, great but for too short a time)
Rocky Colavito - out
Wes Ferrell - out
Curt Flood - in (stats are borderline but a significant part of baseball history)
Joe Gordon - out
Gil Hodges - in (also managed '69 Miracle Mets)
Jim Kaat - out
Mickey Lolich - out
Sparky Lyle - out
Marty Marion - out
Roger Maris - out
Carl Mays - out
Minnie Minoso - out
Thurman Munson - a tough out
Don Newcombe - out
Lefty O'Doul - out
Tony Oliva - out
Al Oliver - out
Vada Pinson - out
Ron Santo - in
Luis Tiant - out
Joe Torre - in (as manager and player)
Cecil Travis - out
Mickey Vernon - out
Maury Wills - in (brought SBs back into the game in the 1960s).

I figure if they were turned down 15 times (most of them) then there needs to be something else besides their player stats to get them in. My ballot then would choose Doug Harvey, Bill White, Curt Flood, Gil Hodges, Ron Santo, Joe Torre and Maury Wills for the reasons I've outlined above.

I like that, actually. I don't see the veterans committee as a body that should be giving guys a "second shot" at the hall. They should be considering the special cases, guys who should be in due to their overall outstanding contributions to baseball, not necessarily their on field play.

And for this poll, I voted no. His fielding is great (which is why James is talking about him, since fielding statistics are "kind of a mess"), but other than that he's not too special. I don't see any really outstanding contributions to baseball itself, like I talked about above, either.

Of all the cases, Joe Torre's should be the strongest. He was an outstanding player at two positions (c, 3b), won an MVP and a batting title. He's almost good enough to get in just as a player. But then you look at six American League pennants and four Worlds Championships managing the Yankees and you have to say he deserves to be in.

And I'm no Yankees fan. This is just about giving a guy his due. He's excelled as both player and manager. That ought to count for something.

Yea, agreed. That's the type of person that should be put in by the veterans committee, in my opinion.
Things like what Maury Willis did, changing the face of the game (without really putting up spectacular numbers otherwise) are also a perfect platform for them to take up.

Historically, there were times that the BWAA, for structural reasons, was electing very few people. If a player's time on the BWAA ballot happened to coincide wiht those periods, I think it's appropriate that the Veterans Committee take a second look at him. Otherwise, I agree that the Veterans Committee should be looking at players who made special contributions, or those in special circumstances.

To me, the players that the VC should particularly look at this year are Flood, Hodges, Mays (special circumstances--he was probably not selected earlier because he fatally beaned someone), Munson, Minoso, Newcombe (both these guys got started in the majors later than they probably would have had they been white), Torre, and Wills. I'm not saying that all of these guys should go in, just that they are the ones the committee should be looking most closely at. Of the 8 guys I listed, Hodges is probably the only one I'd vote for. Torre should be in, but I'd wait til he retires as a manager.

I frankly don't know what to do about owners, umpires, and other non-players. I think it's appropriate that such contributors be eligible, but I'm not sure how to objectively compare the various candidates.

More background:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10023546

could anyone here who is against ron santo being elected explain why

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pacers721

could anyone here who is against ron santo being elected explain why

---

I did:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

And for this poll, I voted no. His fielding is great (which is why James is talking about him, since fielding statistics are "kind of a mess"), but other than that he's not too special. I don't see any really outstanding contributions to baseball itself, like I talked about above, either.

---

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I did

---

Thought that I did, too, in the opening post. To summarize: great defense, but borderline offense, and a relatively short career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

Thought that I did, too, in the opening post. To summarize: great defense, but borderline offense, and a relatively short career.

---

What do you mean by "borderline offense"? You can't possibly mean that he was an almost-average/average offensive player...so I'm assuming you mean his raw totals aren't fantastic (thanks to your last reason, the relatively short career)...

Well, let's see. He played 15 years. Career .277/.362/.464 hitter (best season: .313/.412/.564). He played form 60-74, so those aren't bad numbers, certainly.
Let's see who he compares with:
1. Dale Murphy (875)
2. Ken Boyer (875)
3. Gary Gaetti (875)
4. Bobby Bonilla (868)
5. Brian Downing (866)
6. Graig Nettles (861)
7. Ruben Sierra (860)
8. Chili Davis (856)
9. Luis Gonzalez (855)
10. Robin Ventura (854)

None of whom are HOF'ers. Most similar by age includes Al Kaline, but Al has a career line of: .297/.376/.480.

Like I said above, close, but not quite close enough.

Bill James makes a great point, that defense isn't considered enough for HOF selections. However, I would exclude more players due to bad defense than I would include due to good defense. A HOF should be the complete package, as much as possible, in my opinion.

With a Career OPS+ of 125, he certainly was not a borderline offensive player...although, of course, for HoF reasons, okay..

As for defense, it seems as though good defense doesn't give you much of a boost unless you were truly an elite. Guys like Brooks Robinson, Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith got in the Hall almost exclusively on their defensive excellence.

Right, and I agree with that. Like I said above, defense should play a larger role in selections. I just think that it could easily be as much of a dis-qualifier as it is a qualifier. I honestly can't think of any good examples off the top of my head, but if defense were part of the equation, then I'm sure that more than one big name HOF'er who was inducted due to offensive numbers played terrible defensively.

Bill Mazeroski, he is the whole the reason the veterans commitee was changed. His selection was so heavily critizied that it lead to the change. Santo wouldn't be the worst selection ever, but I think the Veterans have done a good job as IMO none of the canodates in the last few years have been HOF worthy.

But, Mazeroski was good defensivly and bad offensively I thought... looking at his numbers, he seems barely average as an offensive player, and a pretty good defensive player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

But, Mazeroski was good defensivly and bad offensively I thought... looking at his numbers, he seems barely average as an offensive player, and a pretty good defensive player.

---

pretty good defensive player, not great tho and that's why some feel he shouldn't be in the hall.

That kind of illustrates the larger problem with factoring in defensive stats. There just not that good.

"Fielding Statistics in baseball, as you probably know, are kind of a mess."
-Bill James, The Fielding Bible

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What do you mean by "borderline offense"? You can't possibly mean that he was an almost-average/average offensive player...so I'm assuming you mean his raw totals aren't fantastic (thanks to your last reason, the relatively short career)...

---

Borderline in a HoF context.

Huh? This may well be the first time I have ever heard of anyone refer to Maz as a "pretty good defensive player, not great tho....". Mazeroski is widely considered as one of the greatest defensive players in baseball history. Defense is precisely why he got into the HOF. Look at what Bill James wrote ....

"In the win shares system I have Mazeroski credited with 113 win shares for his defense at second base, which is the highest total of all time". Also...

"The selection of Mazeroski as the most effective defensive second baseman ever is not a surprise to anyone; Total Baseball rates him as the best defensive player at any position, and he won eight gold gloves". Oh, one last quote...

"Mazeroski was better than anybody who ever lived at turning double plays".

Bill Mazeroski set the standard for play at second base....think of Ozzie Smith without the backflips . Yeah, I would say he was "pretty good" all right.

That's what I thought, I just wasn't certain is all. I knew that I had heard the name before, at least.

Well you were right, ohms. Its funny, Maz was considered the greatest defensively while he played, and for decades since. But he is remembered best for an offensive moment...the one swing of the bat that resulted in the walk-off homer in game 7 of the 1960 World Series.

Offense is always what is ultimately remembered. It's the most visible aspect of any player, besides pitchers obviously.

I still can't believe Roger Maris isn't in the Hall. It's like everyone likes to pretend it *means* something that he isn't *good enough* for the hall.

Before Big Mac, Maris was one of the most well known (famous if you will) players of all time. I know that his chances of getting in were likely shot when his record fell, but I really think the hall of fame in general is SOOO snobbish it's sickening.

As for Santo, he DID play in one of the absolute toughest eras for hitters, when the ERA leaders would be in the 1.50-2.00 range REGULARLY, and a 2.50 wasn't a big deal. Unfortunatly I never saw the man play, so without anything compelling to wrap my mind (Like the most famous baseball record in history) around I have to say no, with regret.

They ought to have an area (permanent) to recognize great accmoplishments. Guys who didn't have the career numbers, but for one season, one game, one streak, were great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

They ought to have an area (permanent) to recognize great accmoplishments. Guys who didn't have the career numbers, but for one season, one game, one streak, were great.

---

I agree.

That's why theres two parts to the Hall of Fame - the Hall itself, and the museum...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

Well you were right, ohms. Its funny, Maz was considered the greatest defensively while he played, and for decades since. But he is remembered best for an offensive moment...the one swing of the bat that resulted in the walk-off homer in game 7 of the 1960 World Series.

---

Jose Canseco (if you are old enough to remember the incident) was a hitter, pure and simple, but........ One of the first things that come to my mind when I think of him is his defense. More specifically, a long fly out that bounced off his melon and over the fence for a homerun. Lol. It works both ways (sometimes). ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

They ought to have an area (permanent) to recognize great accmoplishments. Guys who didn't have the career numbers, but for one season, one game, one streak, were great.

---

I certainly agree with you, but the Hall has already recognized players by inducting them for basically one "super year".

Take 1930 away from Hack Wilson and is he really a HOFer?

BR shows Maris as meeting 22% of the HoF standards, and Wilson 39%. The HoF standards test doesn't make an adjustment for different eras of baseball history, and that helps Wilson look better in this comparison; overall, I'd say that Wilson is a marginally better candidate for the Hall than Maris, but neither of them really belong there. Quite simply, both men had a very high peak, but neither stayed anywhere near there long enough to merit induction.