Quote:
Originally posted by OldGiants
And as to your comment on segregation in the 1960's, does the fact that Oiva is black and Santo white enter into the equation of the current debate?
Just asking.
|
Well now, that is an interesting question. And, let's add that Oliva's real name was Pedro and Tony Oliva was his brother whose identity he used to get into the country - some fun folklore for the Hall.
Oliva'a hit total of 1917 comes up a bit short, and although hits are a stat of ever-diminishing importance in discussion, they are still out there, especially for the HOF. Oliva's equivalent average, an era-independent figure, is indeed better than Santo's, .298 to .295.
Santo >= 20 HR: 11 times. Oliva: 5.
Santo >= .300 AVG: 3 Oliva: 5.
Oliva's BA was higher than Santo's, .304 to .277, yet Santo's OBP outdistanced Oliva's, .362 to .353. I think that begins to tell the story of why the OBP/OPS crowd favors Santo. Interestingly, Oliva's SLG lifetime is .012 higher.
Santo contributed for 15 years, Oliva for 11 (not including a missed season among his 11). Santo had a 5-year period of uninterrupted stardom, '63-'67, and if you forgive him for '68 when everyone sucked, his '69 was about equal to his peak.
In the end, Oliva's sin is that his rookie season was his best one, and he really never matched it afterward. Oliva does not need to be forgiven for a poor 1968, as he hit .289/.357/.477.
In the end, I believe if you look at Don Mattingly's numbers, he's not only a better comparison for Oliva, he's a better candidate for the Hall. He has more hits, a higher lifetime average and OBP (and EQA, .301), and a nearly equivalent SLG. Mattingly was a star defensively and hit 2 more HR than Oliva and had more than 100 more 2B. He also had a very short peak, 6 years, had only 8 seasons of HOF-worthy play (at best).
Oliva was an excellent hitter, but I believe that a deeper look into his candidacy reveals that among the upper echelon of nonmembers of the Hall, he is merely one of the best. In the main wing of the Hall of the Pretty Good, you'll find (among 100 others) Albert Belle, Don Mattingly, Tony Oliva, Vada Pinson, Carl Furillo, Stan Hack, and Reggie Smith (who I also would advocate before Oliva) - and they are all very very good players.
Batters from the 60s, by the way, are definitely penalized in the same way that pitchers from that era are overpraised. Bill James is more critical of, say, Sandy Koufax than I would dare to be, but there is a lot to be said for pumping up the value of 60s batting. Of course, this would affect Oliva and Santo equally.
So the question is whether Santo belongs to the HOPG, or the HOF. For me, Oliva is merely among an enormous group of players who were notable in their era, but not necessarily through time. I feel Santo's total package is stronger and strong enough.
And that's respective of the stats, not color and nationality, though I think you bring up a valid point. I think Oliva's candidacy would, unfortunately, have been helped if he had been a white American. I'd like to think it's not still an issue today, but Trent Lott is waking me up in that regard.