Who is in the HOF but shouldn't be?

I'm not saying that Robinson wasn't a great 3B...I'm just tired of people throwing shade at Santo,
while extolling Robinson as the paragon of HOF third basemen.

Tale of the Tape
162 Game Averages
Brooks Robinson vs. Ron Santo
(For the record, I have no issue with both being in the HOF.)

Hits
Santo wins 163 to 159

RBI
Santo wins 96 to 76

HR
Santo wins 25 to 15

Average
Santo wins .277 to .267

Fielding
Robinson wins .971 to .954

Seasons
Robinson wins 22 to 15

ChasHawk said:

I am 37, but have watched baseball all my life, seen plenty of highlights of both, and am a student of the history of the game.

I don't want to hear all of the "clutch" BS either. He had a great 1970 World Series, in which he won the MVP.

Aside from that, he was a mediocre hitter in the postseason as well.

Click to expand...

So, what your saying is you didn't see either player, Robinson or Santo, play. Your a student of the history of the game so therefore, you know by hitting stats and a few highlight films who was a HOF worthy player.

I wont bother commenting any further since you believe you know who was a clutch hitter, who was not (or at least don't want to hear about it), and think aside from the '70 WS Robby was mediocre in the post season. That tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of the history of the game.

Mark70Z said:

So, what your saying is you didn't see either player, Robinson or Santo, play. Your a student of the history of the game so therefore, you know by hitting stats and a few highlight films who was a HOF worthy player.

I wont bother commenting any further since you believe you know who was a clutch hitter, who was not (or at least don't want to hear about it), and think aside from the '70 WS Robby was mediocre in the post season. That tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of the history of the game.

Click to expand...

I guarantee [MENTION=2520]ChasHawk[/MENTION] is just a kid trying to be funny. He did this on another thread, too.

If you read my previous post, you'd see that I am 37. I also have been on fcb since it's inception and have 20,000+ posts.

In no way am I trying to be funny.

Actually Robinson was a better hitter in the postseason

But I think it's crazy Santo put up better offensive #'s in 7 less seasons

psj said:

Actually Robinson was a better hitter in the postseason

Click to expand...

Aside from the 1970 world series, he hit his career norms in the postseason.

Gwynn545 said:

I guarantee [MENTION=2520]ChasHawk[/MENTION] is just a kid trying to be funny. He did this on another thread, too.

Click to expand...

I didn't "do this" in another thread.

I discussed the merits of Tim Raines HOF worthy career in the other thread.

Funny that 70% of the BBWAA writers agree with me.

I can see how you'd mistake me for a kid though, since I mistook you for a decent dude all these years.

Just gets old...problem solved:

Mark70Z said:

So, what your saying is you didn't see either player, Robinson or Santo, play. Your a student of the history of the game so therefore, you know by hitting stats and a few highlight films who was a HOF worthy player.

I wont bother commenting any further since you believe you know who was a clutch hitter, who was not (or at least don't want to hear about it), and think aside from the '70 WS Robby was mediocre in the post season. That tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of the history of the game.

Click to expand...

So am I correct in assuming that you saw Ruth play? Cobb, Gehrig, Wagner, Mathewson? Ted Williams? Cy Young?

They must've sucked if all we have to go on is your first hand knowledge of them.

At no point did I say Robinson wasn't a HOF player. He is arguably the best defensive 3B of all time.



Regarding the rest of your bull****, I'm older than you so therefore I know more, condescension...

Clutch is a term used by the old farts who had their HOF votes taken away this year.
Your use of it tells all I need to know about your knowledge of the game...(see, I can be a dick for no reason too)

We have actual empirical data now that helps us determine a player's value.

And Robinson was a very mediocre offensive player.

If you subtract 1970 from his postseason stats, you're left with a...

.250 batting average
.248 on base % (yes, lower than his batting average)
.366 slugging
for a whopping .614 OPS

He had a tremendous 1970 World Series, which is why he was named the MVP...but the rest, average at best.

My point in all of this, is that history has been kinder to Brooks than it has to Santo, and we have evidence now to even the scales.

If you want to get butthurt, because I pointed out some actual data about your player, that's on you.

Gwynn545 said:

Just gets old...problem solved:

Click to expand...

This thread has gotten really entertaining.

ChasHawk said:

Take those stats you put up there, and compare them to Brooks Robinson's.

Those who saw Santo play regard him as one of the best 3b to ever play the game.

He was also brash and ****y, which in his era irked some of the writers and fellow players.

So after he died, many of them who had been dicks, and held him back all that time while he was alive, finally voted for him.

Click to expand...

Those who saw Santo play must not regard him as one of the best 3B of all time because while Brooks Robinson was getting elected into the HOF, Santo was not and their careers overlapped. How do you even logically make that statement when he couldn't get elected into the HOF until after his death 30 some years after his last game?

Please don't try and flip this to Santo vs "this guy" or Santo vs "that guy" like you do in all your arguments. My point to be made is that you are claiming those who watched Santo play regard him as one of the best ever and that simply isn't a true statement, as indicated by the HOF voting. Maybe the Cubs fans that watched him play regard him as the best 3B of all time, but not the BBWAA.

zlpeterson said:

Those who saw Santo play must not regard him as one of the best 3B of all time because while Brooks Robinson was getting elected into the HOF, Santo was not and their careers overlapped. How do you even logically make that statement when he couldn't get elected into the HOF until after his death 30 some years after his last game?

Please don't try and flip this to Santo vs "this guy" or Santo vs "that guy" like you do in all your arguments. My point to be made is that you are claiming those who watched Santo play regard him as one of the best ever and that simply isn't a true statement, as indicated by the HOF voting. Maybe the Cubs fans that watched him play regard him as the best 3B of all time, but not the BBWAA.

Click to expand...

I and others have previously pointed out that Santo was disliked during his career, mainly by the writers who found him "****y".

Those same writers would have a ****ing heart attack if they had to cover Bryce Harper.

That does not mean that those same people didn't know that he was a great player.

He was put in posthumously after years of "punishment" by the crabby old bastards that
thought they were some sort of custodians of the game or some such crap.

http://www.sbnation.com/2011/12/5/2612283/ron-santo-hall-of-fame-cubs

So why didn't the BBWAA elect him in his period of eligibility for that ballot? It's possible that his lack of postseason appearances could have hurt him. His contemporary, Brooks Robinson, whose career numbers had the advantage of longevity but overall don't measure up to Santo's, was elected in 1983. Robinson had several great postseasons, including defensive plays in the 1970 World Series that are still seen on highlight compliations. Had Santo appeared in, and perhaps starred in, even one postseason, perhaps he'd have been inducted already.

One of the reasons -- stated by Santo himself -- that he took a job as radio analyst for theCubs in 1990, after 15 years out of the game, was to get his name out there so that perhaps he could get voted in. Some resented this, as some had also resented the heel-click, done after Cubs home victories, that Santo had done during the ill-fated 1969 season. It was seen as "showing up" opponents. You might find that hard to believe in an era when "BEAST MODE" is done after every hit, but 40+ years ago, players just didn't do that. Nevertheless, it was felt in some quarters that certain voters, either old-time baseball writers or those charged in various incarnations of the Veterans Committee, held grudges against Santo.

I never got to watch Brooks Robinson play ball in person, but I can't imagine he was a better defender than Scott Rolen.

That dude could play 3B out of his freaking mind, and he did. He was a human vacuum cleaner at the hot corner.

I'm not diminishing Brooks in any way by saying this, I just don't want Scott Rolen to be undervalued.

Super Mario said:

I never got to watch Brooks Robinson play ball in person, but I can't imagine he was a better defender than Scott Rolen.

That dude could play 3B out of his freaking mind, and he did. He was a human vacuum cleaner at the hot corner.

I'm not diminishing Brooks in any way by saying this, I just don't want Scott Rolen to be undervalued.

Click to expand...

Rolen's defensive metrics are very comparable.