Ron Santo for the Hall?

[dps]

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.

[TexanBob]

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.

[dps]

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.

[TexanBob]

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.

[ohms_law]

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.

[TexanBob]

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.

[ohms_law]

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.

[dps]

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.

[TexanBob]

More background:

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

[pacers721]

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

[ohms_law]

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

I did:

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.

[dps]

I did

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

[HoustonGM]

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)...

[ohms_law]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.