HOF: Veterans ballot

[Jason Moyer]

Something else to keep in mind about Santo is that he, like Wills, peaked in an era that favored pitching by a wide margin. Look at how dominating he was as a hitter in the 60's and apply that to any other decade and it's mindblowing. His defense was nearly on par with Brooks Robinson and Mike Schmidt and his hitting was closer to Schmidt than Robinson. How a guy like that can be overlooked for the hall of fame is beyond me. I also would not object in any way to having Dwight Evans and Ken Boyer in the hall, for that matter. Hell, if Traynor and Collins can make the hall without an uproar, I wouldn't even bat at an eyelash if Nettles or Cey made it.

Jason

[OldGiants]

I don't object to the Veteran's committe at all. My comment applied solely to this year's crop of veterans, as Sixto listed them. I think players that came close, like Nellie Fox, should get every opportunity to be reconsidered, expecially before they die. I don't recall that any of these players were near-misses.

I see I'll never convince the rest of you about Santo, but here's my last thought:

With Billy Williams, Ernie Banks, and Fergie Jenkins already in the HOF from Santo's Cubs teams, haven't we honored that team enough? What does it say about the non-HOFers on the teams that actually won pennants and titles during that era? Joe Rudi, Sal Bando (now there's a great third baseman!), even Gene Tenace, are more deserving than Santo. they played and won, while the Cubs were the Cubs.

Santo, Glenn Beckert and Don Kessinger, along with Erinie Banks, formed an admirable infield. Yet they never won a thing. Doesn't Santo belong on the outside looking in with Beckert and Kessinger, rather than alongside Banks, Williams and Jenkins?

The question shouldn't be, weren't these great players who some how came up short? It should be, if they never won anything, how great could they have been?

[OldGiants]

Originally posted by Jason Moyer
Hell, if Traynor and Collins can make the hall without an uproar, I wouldn't even bat at an eyelash if Nettles or Cey made it.

Jason

Jason, Jason, what a silly thing to say.

Traynor and Collins were recognized as the best players ever to play their posiitions when they retired, and are on almost everybody's pre-WWII all time teams. The fact that they never hit homers is solely due to the fact no one did back when they played. The uproar would have been if they didn't get in.

No one ever consider Nettles or Cey the best at anything. Other than making errors, Cey being the last regular ever to field under .900, as I recall. (I can't get my hands on fielding stats, but either he or Butch Hobson did it or came mighty close in the early '80s).

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by OldGiants
Santo, Glenn Beckert and Don Kessinger, along with Erinie Banks, formed an admirable infield. Yet they never won a thing.

Santo was the only player in that infield I'd personally want on my team. No offense to Ernie, but his career was pretty much over after he was done playing shortstop.

Doesn't Santo belong on the outside looking in with Beckert and Kessinger, rather than alongside Banks, Williams and Jenkins?

Since Santo was arguably a better player than Banks I'm going to disagree.

Anyway, this argument is getting silly. Putting people in the hall of fame because they have good teammates is about as valid as giving an MVP award to someone because he has good teammates. Oh wait, that already happens.

If we're going to give out awards based on what the team did, then maybe we should be pushing for Lonnie Smith in the hall!! Every team he played for was a winner, from the Phillies to the Braves, even though he was an average hitter and a clutz in the field. But clearly he deserves it more than someone like Santo since he was on so many championship teams.

Jason

[OldGiants]

Originally posted by Jason Moyer
Putting people in the hall of fame because they have good teammates .... Jason

No! No! No! Exactly the opposite. I said keep him out because his teammates were very good and his team still couldn't win with him in the lineup.

What's missing from Santo is greatness. It was mentioned above that Santo did well in MVP voting, but did he really? When he made the list, there were still usually 2-3 other NL third basemen ahead of him, including such luminaries as Deron Johnson, Jim Ray Hart and Mike Shannon. Santo simply was not great.

[GForce22]

Originally posted by OldGiants


No one ever consider Nettles or Cey the best at anything. Other than making errors, Cey being the last regular ever to field under .900, as I recall. (I can't get my hands on fielding stats, but either he or Butch Hobson did it or came mighty close in the early '80s). [/B]

It wasn't Cey. His lowest FLD% in a season was .943.

GH

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by OldGiants
No! No! No! Exactly the opposite. I said keep him out because his teammates were very good and his team still couldn't win with him in the lineup.

Gotcha. He did lead the team in OPS 4 times tho.

If you want to know, in all seriousness, why the Cubs didn't win in the 60's (actually the last several years of Santo's career they had winning records, but I digress) take a look at the team runs allowed:

1960 - 4.97 last
1961 - 5.13 2nd last
1962 - 5.10 2nd last
1963 - 3.57 2nd (Cubs have a winning record)
1964 - 4.47 3rd last
1965 - 4.41 4th last
1966 - 4.99 last
1967 - 3.85 4th last (Cubs lead the league in runs scored and end up having a winning record anyway)
1968 - 3.75 2nd last (Cubs finish 2nd in runs scored and end up with a winning record anyway)
1969 - 3.75 5th (Cubs win 92 games)

Now if a team with Fergie eating up 300 innings a year is doing that badly in the runs allowed department, I think you can figure out quickly why this team never won anything. In 1966, when they went 59 and 103, their rotation consisted of Dick Elllsworth, Ken Holtzman, Bill Hands, Ernie Broglio, and a 37 year old Curt Simmons.

Despite Santo hitting .312/.412/.538 and winning a gold glove, the team finished last in runs allowed and also hit just .254/.310/.380. You can look through every other year of his career and see a similar discrepancy between Santo's performance and that of his team.

I'm not saying you're wrong when you say that he had some good teammates (Williams and Fergie were both fine players, and Ernie could hit homeruns if nothing else) but I can't see any evidence that he played on a good team, even in the years when the Cubs had winning records.

From 1962 to 1969 Santo was the best all around third baseman in baseball. In 70 and 71 he slipped a bit (to about 3rd best) but in 72 he again had the best season of any third baseman. In 73 some guy named Schmidt came along and Santo was pretty much done.

To put the icing on the cake, as it were, Win Shares rates him as a better defensive third baseman than Robinson in 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1971.

Jason

[Modern Relic]

Another way to look at it: If Brooks Robinson belongs in the Hall, Santo certainly does. Santo's defense was damm near as strong as Robinson's and his offense simply blew Brooks out of the water. Not even close.

If I'm drafting a 3rd baseman, I'm taking Santo WAY ahead of Robinson.

[holyroller]

Originally posted by Modern Relic
Another way to look at it: If Brooks Robinson belongs in the Hall, Santo certainly does. Santo's defense was damm near as strong as Robinson's and his offense simply blew Brooks out of the water. Not even close.

If I'm drafting a 3rd baseman, I'm taking Santo WAY ahead of Robinson.

Amen brutha.

[OldGiants]

Originally posted by Modern Relic
Another way to look at it: If Brooks Robinson belongs in the Hall, Santo certainly does. Santo's defense was damm near as strong as Robinson's and his offense simply blew Brooks out of the water. Not even close.

If I'm drafting a 3rd baseman, I'm taking Santo WAY ahead of Robinson.

I don't think Johnnie Bench and the Reds of 1970 would agree with you.

Brooks Robinson was a great clutch player who performed in pennant races and World Series. Santo rarely was in a pennant race and, as I pointed out earlier, choked in the big race he was in, along with the rest of his team in 1969. Its a lot easier to hit after your team is out of the pennant race. Just ask Albert Belle.

I'll spot you Santo and put Brooks Robinson at third and watch Robinson find a way to beat you, best 4 out of 7 every time.

The Cubs did have putrid pitching (and their attempts to shore it up backfired miserably. Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio being classic). But great players make their teammates better, and Santo never did.

I looked through a book I'm reading called "We played the game" which has player recollecionts of 1947 to 1964. There's little about Santo, but Dick Ellsworth, his friend and roommate, says, "He was never as great as he thought he was." Interesting. That might have been the opinion of Santo's contemporaries, too. He didn't explain that further. He did say Santo became the leader in the club house, not Banks. Which most of us knew.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally posted by Modern Relic
Another way to look at it: If Brooks Robinson belongs in the Hall, Santo certainly does. Santo's defense was damm near as strong as Robinson's and his offense simply blew Brooks out of the water. Not even close.

If I'm drafting a 3rd baseman, I'm taking Santo WAY ahead of Robinson.

You're ignoring the fact that Brooks played in Memorial Stadium (a pitcher's park) and Santo played in Wrigley (when it was the second best hitters park in the majors). Yes, Santo's park-adjusted OPS is still better, but he also had a far shorter career with fewer below-average seasons at the beginning and end. Take Brooks' 10 best offensive seasons, park adjust them, and compare them to Santo. There's not that big a difference. Add in Brook's defense and I think he still has the edge.

Nevertheless, I think Santo is a more than deserving Hall of Famer.

[sixto]

Originally posted by OldGiants
Brooks Robinson was a great clutch player who performed in pennant races and World Series. Santo rarely was in a pennant race and, as I pointed out earlier, choked in the big race he was in, along with the rest of his team in 1969. Its a lot easier to hit after your team is out of the pennant race. Just ask Albert Belle.

I'll spot you Santo and put Brooks Robinson at third and watch Robinson find a way to beat you, best 4 out of 7 every time.

Whoosh! Clutch. "Find a way to beat you." Now I understand fully that there's simply a fundamental difference between you and Jason Moyer (and among a variety of other posters) and how we look at the game.

While I too observed Albert Belle's numbers climbing when it "didn't matter," I'm not yet ready to trust my observations above all else. Likewise, if Dick Ellsworth is the #1 authority on Hall of Fame worthiness, then I have learned something. That said, observation is certainly a valid means of evaluation. It's hurt Dick Allen a lot; didn't hurt Cap Anson a bit. But it's just not the only one.

OldGiants, I'm not going to do you the disservice of assuming that you've never been in a baseball environment, nor am I going to suggest my 4 years as a fetchit-boy in a minor-league pressbox give me license to consider my opinions as fact. But if you know anything about "baseball men," you know that they are blowhards with a lot of axes to grind. Scouts across the Eastern League - especially Red Sox scouts - HATED Dan Duquette. Even in 1996 when he was considered not a flop but a savior. The fact that Duquette was a success and that his staff's lack of faith in him, then and afterward, was as much his undoing as anything he did himself, speaks for the ways that the old man's network of baseball often undermines what's best for the game, what's true about the game, and determines who's to get the credit and the blame without ever submitting to logic.

Syd Thrift, who has never failed to fail, can't stay unemployed, while Duquette, who only repeatedly put the Sox in the playoffs, who won by acquiring prospects, then won again by selling those prospects off, is a little league coach. Tell me again what it is exactly that baseball people know? The Brewers just signed Royce Clayton. That's what they know, although I am going to guess that you think Royce Clayton is a fine ballplayer. And he may be, he may be. I just don't think so, and the information at my disposal tells me so.

What's interesting is that there are things that can be proven, such as "Royce Clayton can't get on base." There are things that can't be proven, like "Boy, you put me some hard-nosed country boys in the field and I'll show you a team what would whup anybody came near town." And yet the burden of proof is still shifted to the ones with the facts and figures. That's baseball.

The Baseball HOF is one of the most interesting centers of debate in the world. As opposed to the NFL HOF, where I think Elvis Patterson might be a candidate for induction, or the LPGA HOF, where Annika Sorenstam already qualified when she was about 18, we are able to have energetic and passionate discussion about who goes in and who doesn't. However, I feel that there's a lot to be said for reexamining and refiltering history through some metrics, as opposed to talking about clutch and about what somebody who played during the segregated era of baseball has to say about Ron Santo vs. Ernie Banks. No offense to Mr. Ellsworth, I'm sure he's a great guy.

[OldGiants]

Sixto, good post. And yes, Jason and I have a fundamental difference in how we look at the game. IMO, major league baseball (as opposed to other levels) is all about winning. Players who find ways to win are more valuable than ones who pile up stats and sit next to us on the couch come October.

And, if you re-read my post, I never implied Ellsworth was an authority on anything more than why people did or did not like his roommate, Ron Santo. I did imply that Santo had an ego that might have turned off those who did not vote for him originally. that part you missed.

Personalities are a part of every walk of life, and doing a great job is no guarantee you'll get in the HOF or get a raise or promotion. It's just what it is.

Looking at stats in a vacuum in is just as dangerous as listening to the gripes of old timers. Jason and other sabremetricians (and I like Jason's opinions and analyses, despite disagreeing with him about Santo) are impressed with Santo's OBP. But as I thought it that some more, my old memory tells me the Cub batting order was usually Williams, Banks and Santo. Thus many of Santo's walks were of no real value to his team since it simply brought up a poor hitter who ended the inning.

Also, no one ever plays to lead the league in on-base percentage. Players do go all out to lead the league in BA, when they can. To that extent, Tony Oliva's three batting titles (and five times leading in doubles) are imensely more impressive achievenments than Santo's strolls to first. I don't understand how any one interested in stats can say Oliva's achievements are less worthy than Santo's (Interestingly, they are the same age and both retired following the 1974 season)

Why no mention that Oliva's .304 lifetime BA is is way ahead of the league BA's of his time? Why all the talk of how Santo's mumbers are more impressive because of the good pitching he faced, when Oliva played during the same period? I'm much more impressed by Oliva's .304 BA and titles than Santo's above average stats that led the league in nothing anyone cared about.

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.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by OldGiants
Sixto, good post. And yes, Jason and I have a fundamental difference in how we look at the game. IMO, major league baseball (as opposed to other levels) is all about winning. Players who find ways to win are more valuable than ones who pile up stats and sit next to us on the couch come October.

If you ignore all statistics for Santo besides the number of wins that he created for his teams, he's easily the most qualified player on that list.

My evaluation of his defense as better than Robinson's in several seasons is not because of raw statistics but because we can quite simply and easily measure exactly how many wins he contributed to his team with his glove.

As an example, in 1966 Ron Santo was the best player on a team that went 59-103. His offense and defense contributed 10 wins to his team. Williams contributed 7 wins to his team. Phillips contributed about 5, and Jenkins - as a reliever - was the next best player (and best pitcher) by contributing 4 wins. Quite frankly, the team had no talent beyond Santo and Williams.

As a counterexample, in 1966 Brooks Robinson was the 3rd best player on a team that went 97-63. He contributed 8 wins to the team, approximately what is expected from an all-star caliber player. Frank Robinson contributed 14 wins to the team, Boog Powell contributed 9, Aparicio contributed 7, Blefary contributed 7, Snyder contributed 5, Miller contributed 5, Johnson contributed 4, Eichebarren contributed 4, and McNally contributed 4.

Now think about that. Did the Cubs really lose because of Santo's ineptitude? No, clearly they lost in spite of his brilliance. They had 2 all-star quality players and 2 other players who contributed 4 wins, which is about what you expect from someone like, say, Travis Lee. Actually, in 2001 Travis Lee was worth 5 wins, to be more specific. No one on the team produced on the mound, in the field, or at the plate besides Santo and Williams. Quite frankly, I'm *amazed* they won 50 games with that team.

Did the Orioles really win because of Brooks? He was a key member, and the most productive third baseman in the American League in terms of creating wins, but I'm sure that having a runaway MVP candidate and 5 all-star quality players didn't hurt either.

In terms of creating wins, Ron Santo was the 6th greatest player of the 60's, behind only Aaron, Mays, Frank Robinson, Clemente, and Killebrew. Brooks Robinson was the 9th greatest player of the decade, sliding behind Mantle and McCovery and just ahead of Cash.

So why then did Brooks play on winning teams while Santo played for losers? Look at the supporting cast. Do you think Santo may have won a few championships playing with Frank Robinson, Powell, Blair, Blefary or Buford, Johnson, Aparicio or Belanger, Palmer, McNally, Cuellar, and Dobson? Maybe it's just me, but I think a team with those guys and Santo instead of Robinson would have an outside shot... Actually, I'd expect them to win more games than they did in reality, since Santo was a better player than Robinson.

Jason

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by OldGiants
Looking at stats in a vacuum in is just as dangerous as listening to the gripes of old timers. Jason and other sabremetricians (and I like Jason's opinions and analyses, despite disagreeing with him about Santo) are impressed with Santo's OBP. But as I thought it that some more, my old memory tells me the Cub batting order was usually Williams, Banks and Santo. Thus many of Santo's walks were of no real value to his team since it simply brought up a poor hitter who ended the inning.

Actually I missed this part.

Santo scored 1138 runs and knocked in 1331 in 9396 plate appearances, which comes out to 0.263 R+RBI/PA, which is pretty good considering no one else on the team could get on base or hit for power.

Robinson, in 11782 plate appearances, scored 1232 runs and knocked in 1357. That comes to 0.220 R+RBI/PA, playing on vastly superior teams and playing half of his career in the 70's when runs were much easier to come by than they were during the 60's, adjusting for Wrigley or not. (Wrigley's park run factor was about 101 anyway).

I'd say without giving much more thought that Santo's walks were pretty damn important to his team, as were his doubles, triples, and homeruns. On a team with a much lower OBP and SLG than Robinson's while also playing in a hitter's park (which makes those team numbers even less impressive), he still managed to score and knock in runs at a much higher rate.

Just for curiosity's sake, I checked Mike Schmidt's R+RBI/PA stats, which obviously will be slightly inflated since he played during a much better hitting period than Santo, had better teammates, and was quite frankly a better player. His ratio is .299. That's pretty damn good, by the way - the odds of Schmidt scoring or knocking in a run everytime he came up to the plate were nearly as good as Alfonso Soriano's odds of getting on base this year.

Jason

[sixto]

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.

[OldGiants]

Jason, nice post, interesting as always. I still think winshares has an inherent flaw in that it tends to favor good players on bad teams far too often. In this case, Santo.

Another thought on the 'segregation' line. The Cubs were usually bad while Santo played there. The 3 HOFs from that era are all black. Is part of the Santo for HOF ground swell really a he's my favorite player argument from a big city team? And is the reason he's so many old-time fans favorite player that he's the only white one? Again, just asking.

OTOH, I just read the thread about Santo having his last leg amputated. I had not known that. Now he will literally have given both his legs to play baseball. I doubt he has long to live.

Put him in. Now. While he can enjoy it.

There are less worthy folks in the HOF, we all know.

Stats can never be the 'honest broker' of HOF eligibility we'd all like them to be. Don Sutton being the poster boy for why career stats lie. Emotion and memory will always be there. It's Christmas, I say give Santo one last present and come down on the side of inclusion.