Congrats to Ron Santo Golden Era Committee HOF selection !!

[ChasHawk]

I assume Dale Murphy is up next, with Adrian Beltre in the distant future.

There was about a 10 year stretch where Murph was the most dominant CF in the game.

 

[nosterbor]

he hit over .275, had over 300 HRs and over 2000 hits... plus led the league in WALKS 4 times .....obvious HOFer

NOW you got to let in Garvey, Oliva, Mattingly, Munson, Kluszewski, Colovito, Cash, Minoso, Sain, Hodges, Madlock, Maris, FHoward, Tiant, Staub, RSmith, Kaat, Blue, Foster, Cedeno, Parker, TSimmons, and dozens of other just as good (not great).....

lets get that HOF up to 1,000 memeber by 2015!!!

He did it in 15 seasons, while battling diabetes, at one of the most demanding positions in the game.

He is one of the top 10 third basemen of all time. The fact that there are less 3B in the HOF than any other position player shows how tough it is.

I think people also fail to realize how under-treated and over-looked diabetes was in this era.

He was basically self-medicating during games with candy, and his teammates thought it was "funny" to eat them all while he was in the field.

3rd baseman, SS, 2nd baseman, who cares what infield possiton the guy played, ...Matt Williams blows Santo away, and he shouldnt be a HOFer.......

and if Santo did roids it would have KILLED him!

 

[nosterbor]

[quote="Sam Banks":3m07nctd]I'm not trying to be a dick, or a homer Cardinals fan here, but.........

I'm sorry, but Ron Santo doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. If you have to wait this long to get in, you don't deserve it. NOBODY DOES. In my mind, you're either first ballot worthy, or you AREN'T WORTHY! It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really Good Players. Their should just be the cream of the crop voted in. Not sympathy votes. Whitey Herzog didn't deserve it either. If you have to wait that long to get in, there's a reason for it, you're not worthy.

I know the Veterans Committee voted him in, but I call BS.

Guess he should have done some back flips

You're right, he should have done some heel clicks or something... oh wait. ::facepalm::

Heel clicks actually caused him to be disliked by some, so your attempt at a dig falls flat.

And Ozzie's backflips endeared him to everybody? Not a week goes by that some idiot on this board doesn't post something about the backflips insinuating that is why he is in the HOF. Anyone that thinks that had anything to do with his HOF career is a moron, period.[/quote:3m07nctd]
I will give you one guess the HOFer with the one of the worst hitting stats EVER TO MAKE IT IN that is not a pitcher. Look it up. SLG .328 and OPS of .666 ( Nice number by the way ) Holy shat he was awful. It has been noted that i am a moron thank you very much. MOR ON than OFF.

 

[nosterbor]

I assume Dale Murphy is up next, with Adrian Beltre in the distant future.

There was about a 10 year stretch where Murph was the most dominant CF in the game.

I think he should be in.
I will take Murphy's best 10 years over Ozzie's best 10 any day.

 

[Mozzie22]

I assume Dale Murphy is up next, with Adrian Beltre in the distant future.

There was about a 10 year stretch where Murph was the most dominant CF in the game.

I think he should be in.
I will take Murphy's best 10 years over Ozzie's best 10 any day.

Something tells me you'd take a lot the rest of us wouldn't. Murphy was a fine player.

 

[MaineMule]

All-around player for the late 70's/early 80's Dale Murphy > Jim Rice (and Jim Ed was my favorite player as a kid).

Whomever referenced Lefty O'Doul earlier should note he only had 6 seasons with more than 300 ABs. That clearly does not meet any 10 year threshold.

 

[Ryan The Orange]

Holy shat he was awful.

Ozzie Smith was flippin' good.

:lol:

 

[fsulevine]

Truly a travesty that they couldn't elect Santo while he was still alive. It is not like his death was really sudden or unexpected... he had diabetes most of his life and everyone could tell it was taking its toll.

 

[goldenegg1]

Watch the documentary This Old Cub and tell me he doesn't belong in the Hall.
You can sit here and debate the stats, but bottom line is he is a Hall of Famer period, and that's all that matters. You can call each other morons, but 15 of his peers saw it differently and that's all that matters.

 

[ChasHawk]

3rd baseman, SS, 2nd baseman, who cares what infield possiton the guy played, ...Matt Williams blows Santo away, and he shouldnt be a HOFer.......

and if Santo did roids it would have KILLED him!

Posted this in the thread already, but since...

.277/.362/.464/.826 - Ron Santo - career WAR 66.4(15 seasons)
.268/.317/.489/.805 - Matt Williams - career WAR 43.9(17 seasons)

Those roids did Matt a lot of good, didn't they?

 

[craftysouthpaw]

[/quote]I must not be reading this correctly. Surely you are not saying Minoso is a top 10 at his position, or any position for that matter. Simmons I give you and think he has HOF numbers. I guess someone will have to explain the Minnie Minoso love to me because I don't get it.[/quote]


Jay Jaffe (who for my money is the best HOF analysit out there) can say it way better than me. I've copied in a blurb from him below. I'm personally not there yet on Minoso but Jaffe makes a strong argument that at least has me re-evaluating.


Cuban-born Minnie Minoso's career is overshadowed by the gimmickry of his middle-aged cameos, but in his prime, the Cuban native was a fine all-around ballplayer who hit .298/.389/.459 for a career which, at its heart, ran from 1951-1964, with nine games with Cleveland in 1949 and five with the White Sox in 1976 and 1980 drawing things out. A speedster with a good batting eye, he led the AL in steals and triples three times apiece, ranked in the top five in OBP five times, and the top 10 nine times in a 10-year span. He had no shortage of sock, either; he led the AL in total bases in 1954, and ranked in the top 10 nine times in that same 10-year span (1951-1960). He never won an MVP award, but had four fourth-place finishes, including three consecutive from 1951-1954. He won three Gold Gloves, though our system likes him less than Baseball-Reference’s version of WAR does (+27 runs). Like Santo, Minoso falls short in the JAWS department, below the standard on career but ahead on peak.

The big question is how much of his major-league career is missing due to circumstances beyond his control, a question clouded by uncertainty surrounding his birthdate. Some sources say November 29, 1922, making him 28 in his first full big-league season (1951), while others (including BP's own database) say he was born in 1925, making him 25 as a rookie. In various places, Minoso has claimed both of those years, though in his 1994 memoir, he admitted that he when he arrived in the US in 1945, he had lied about his age in order to gain a visa; the 1925 date is the correct one. After playing with the ***** Leagues' New York Cubans from 1945 through 1948, he was signed by Indians owner Bill Veeck, but while the major-league color line had been broken by then, Minoso spent most of his first two years of organized ball pulverizing Pacific Coast League pitching; it didn't help matters that Veeck sold the club following the 1949 season to fund his divorce. Not until 1951, when he was traded to the White Sox, did Minoso get a shot at real playing time. He hit .326/.422/.500; that he lost two years at the major-league level is not doubted, but it might have been even more. In any event, while past versions of JAWS had him well below the line, this one has him close enough to justify a vote, particularly in light of such circumstances.

 

[hoopster3977]

[youtube:26hy32ws]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27wTqGucZK0[/youtube:26hy32ws]

 

[James52411]

Good article by Joe Posnanski...

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/12/05/ron-santo-hall-of-famer/?sct=hp_t2_a12&eref=sihp

 

[Mark70Z]

Quick question; why is it when someone disagrees with a selection that they are idiots, or not knowledgeable, uninformed, or whatever negative statement they can come up with, if they don't have the same opinion? I watched Santo play during his playing days and he was a very good player and I really liked him as a player, but I personally don't think he would be a HOFer. At this point it really doesn’t matter to much what I think because he’s in the HOF now. I do believe that if they start to put in “very good” players then it becomes the HOF of the very good, not the best. Then you can start the comparisons, i.e. if Ron Santo is in then Ken Boyer should be in as well. It’s my opinion that Boyer was just as good if not better than Santo.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but he did not receive over 43.1% to enter Cooperstown in fifteen (15) tries with the writers and four (4) with the Veterans Committee. Those that vote for the Baseball's greatest honor didn't believe he should be in the HOF. Also, he played for the Cubs and they didn't make it to the postseason during his playing career, which is the goal of a team, which I think hurt him in his HOF bid.

I do think it’s a shame to put him in after his passing.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Why do people use the "Hall of Very Good" argument when it's called the Hall of FAME and not the "Hall of The Very Best Statistically to Ever Play the Game". That argument makes little to no sense and it debilitates your position right from the get go.

 

[elmalo]

I must not be reading this correctly. Surely you are not saying Minoso is a top 10 at his position, or any position for that matter. Simmons I give you and think he has HOF numbers. I guess someone will have to explain the Minnie Minoso love to me because I don't get it.[/quote]


Jay Jaffe (who for my money is the best HOF analysit out there) can say it way better than me. I've copied in a blurb from him below. I'm personally not there yet on Minoso but Jaffe makes a strong argument that at least has me re-evaluating.


Cuban-born Minnie Minoso's career is overshadowed by the gimmickry of his middle-aged cameos, but in his prime, the Cuban native was a fine all-around ballplayer who hit .298/.389/.459 for a career which, at its heart, ran from 1951-1964, with nine games with Cleveland in 1949 and five with the White Sox in 1976 and 1980 drawing things out. A speedster with a good batting eye, he led the AL in steals and triples three times apiece, ranked in the top five in OBP five times, and the top 10 nine times in a 10-year span. He had no shortage of sock, either; he led the AL in total bases in 1954, and ranked in the top 10 nine times in that same 10-year span (1951-1960). He never won an MVP award, but had four fourth-place finishes, including three consecutive from 1951-1954. He won three Gold Gloves, though our system likes him less than Baseball-Reference’s version of WAR does (+27 runs). Like Santo, Minoso falls short in the JAWS department, below the standard on career but ahead on peak.

The big question is how much of his major-league career is missing due to circumstances beyond his control, a question clouded by uncertainty surrounding his birthdate. Some sources say November 29, 1922, making him 28 in his first full big-league season (1951), while others (including BP's own database) say he was born in 1925, making him 25 as a rookie. In various places, Minoso has claimed both of those years, though in his 1994 memoir, he admitted that he when he arrived in the US in 1945, he had lied about his age in order to gain a visa; the 1925 date is the correct one. After playing with the ***** Leagues' New York Cubans from 1945 through 1948, he was signed by Indians owner Bill Veeck, but while the major-league color line had been broken by then, Minoso spent most of his first two years of organized ball pulverizing Pacific Coast League pitching; it didn't help matters that Veeck sold the club following the 1949 season to fund his divorce. Not until 1951, when he was traded to the White Sox, did Minoso get a shot at real playing time. He hit .326/.422/.500; that he lost two years at the major-league level is not doubted, but it might have been even more. In any event, while past versions of JAWS had him well below the line, this one has him close enough to justify a vote, particularly in light of such circumstances.[/quote]
Minnie is the man!

 

[elmalo]

3rd baseman, SS, 2nd baseman, who cares what infield possiton the guy played, ...Matt Williams blows Santo away, and he shouldnt be a HOFer.......

and if Santo did roids it would have KILLED him!

Posted this in the thread already, but since...

.277/.362/.464/.826 - Ron Santo - career WAR 66.4(15 seasons)
.268/.317/.489/.805 - Matt Williams - career WAR 43.9(17 seasons)

Those roids did Matt a lot of good, didn't they?

Yes, they did. Maybe he would have been just average without them, or not in the big leagues at all.

 

[craftysouthpaw]

Why do people use the "Hall of Very Good" argument when it's called the Hall of FAME and not the "Hall of The Very Best Statistically to Ever Play the Game". That argument makes little to no sense and it debilitates your position right from the get go.

The "Hall of Very Good" is often used to lump players that don't pass the eye test but stack up when taking a deeper dive into newer statistics. I am not fond of that term either because it often comes with no hard evidence to back it up - usually just something like "because I saw him play and he didn't measure up based on my world view".

But as to your other point, it is obviously called the Hall of Fame but the voters have clearly established this means the "Hall of The Very Best Statistically to Ever Play the Game". The voting record proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt and very few guys have made based on "Fame" without having the stats. I know Ozzie Smith is often thrown out as an example but to me, the very best defensive player to ever play the most demanding position on the diamond belongs.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Why do people use the "Hall of Very Good" argument when it's called the Hall of FAME and not the "Hall of The Very Best Statistically to Ever Play the Game". That argument makes little to no sense and it debilitates your position right from the get go.

The "Hall of Very Good" is often used to lump players that don't pass the eye test but stack up when taking a deeper dive into newer statistics. I am not fond of that term either because it often comes with no hard evidence to back it up - usually just something like "because I saw him play and he didn't measure up based on my world view".

But as to your other point, it is obviously called the Hall of Fame but the voters have clearly established this means the "Hall of The Very Best Statistically to Ever Play the Game". The voting record proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt and very few guys have made based on "Fame" without having the stats. I know Ozzie Smith is often thrown out as an example but to me, the very best defensive player to ever play the most demanding position on the diamond belongs.

Personally, I don't care who gets in. If I don't think a player is worthy, I simply don't think about him as worthy. To make such a big deal of it as some do is just pointless. Like I said, boycott the Hall if it bothers you so much (not you specifically). I am more perplexed by great players NOT getting, like Trammell, Raines and Whitaker. Santo was on that list too, so I am happy he made it. He deserved it.

On a side note, anyone who doesn't think Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer is completely nuts. For 12 years (1975-1986) he was one of THE most dangerous hitters in the league. No one in baseball drove in more runs than Rice during that 12-year span. In that span he was in top-5 MVP voting SIX freaking times while winning once and was an All-Star 8 times. It's not always about longevity and massive accumulated stats, which a lot of people don't seem to understand.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Why do people use the "Hall of Very Good" argument when it's called the Hall of FAME and not the "Hall of The Very Best Statistically to Ever Play the Game". That argument makes little to no sense and it debilitates your position right from the get go.

The "Hall of Very Good" is often used to lump players that don't pass the eye test but stack up when taking a deeper dive into newer statistics. I am not fond of that term either because it often comes with no hard evidence to back it up - usually just something like "because I saw him play and he didn't measure up based on my world view".

But as to your other point, it is obviously called the Hall of Fame but the voters have clearly established this means the "Hall of The Very Best Statistically to Ever Play the Game". The voting record proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt and very few guys have made based on "Fame" without having the stats. I know Ozzie Smith is often thrown out as an example but to me, the very best defensive player to ever play the most demanding position on the diamond belongs.

Interesting points. I have always thought of the "Fame" in "Hall of Fame" as something bestowed upon a worthy player (as deemed by voters per the Hall's rules). Said "Fame" is not required, but rather given, upon entry. There are numerous players (for some reason, Ray Schalk and Roger Bresnahan immediately come to my mind) that would be rather more forgotten as ballplayers if they were not enshrined in Cooperstown.