There is something about the Baseball Hall of Fame -- all Halls of Fame, really -- that people don't really like talking about. Somebody has to the best player not in it. There's no way around this. It can be a big Hall of Fame or a small one. It can be an inclusive Hall of Fame or one as exclusive at Augusta National. Wherever you draw your line of greatness, there are remarkable people left outside.
For many years, Ron Santo's identity was wrapped up in being left outside. He was, simply, the greatest player not in the Baseball Hall of Fame. This is not to say that he was a better baseball player than Dick Allen or Minnie Minoso or Bert Blyleven or Ken Boyer or numerous other terrific players who have not yet been elected and inducted. That is a matter opinion. This is not to say he was a more egregious oversight than any of these players or others. That too is opinion.
What I mean is that Santo carried the title as Greatest Non Hall of Famer. Nobody else really wanted it. Every year, his name came up for the Hall of Fame -- is this finally the year? And every year, he fell short. Fifteen times he was on the Baseball Writers ballot and needed 75% to be elected. He never once got even 50% of the vote. Three times he received the most votes from the Veteran's Committee, but never once got the percentage he needed to qualify for the Hall of Fame. He handled all this with great dignity. In so many ways, it was the story of his career. He had grown used to being under-appreciated.
There are usually easy-to-understand factors that make anyone underrated. There's no mystery about it with Ron Santo. He played baseball in a time when runs were especially hard to come by -- and so his numbers are not jaw-dropping. He played third base, which has long been baseball's vacuum -- when Santo retired in 1974 there were only three third basemen in the Hall of Fame. Many of his skills were subtle -- Santo twice led the National League in on-base percentage and four times led in walks -- and these were not especially appreciated talents during his playing days.
Santo also played for losing teams, year after year after year. He never played in a single postseason game. In 1967, Santo may have been the best player in the NL -- he hit .300 with 31 homers, he walked 96 times, he scored 107 runs, he drove in 98, he won a Gold Glove. The Cubs, in what would turn out to be one of their most successful seasons during Santo's career, finished a mere 14 games back.
He was as solid as oak, the captain of the Cubs, and he put up virtually the same numbers year after year after year. Consistency is boring is underrated. From 1963 to 1970, he ALWAYS hit 25 home runs, and he ALWAYS drove in 94-plus runs, and he ALWAYS played 154 or more games. He won five Gold Gloves in those eight years, and he led third basemen in assists just about every year, and he led the league in sac flies three times, and he was good for 90-plus walks. It is true that he took advantage of the friendly confines of Wrigley Field, where he did most of his good hitting. Over a career, he hit .296/.383/.522 in Chicago. And he hit .257/.342/.406 outside. He hit 216 of his 342 homers in Chicago. He scored 180 home runs and drove in 155 more RBIs at home.
But it is just as true that he played in a very low-scoring time in a very low-scoring league. Baseball Reference's Wins Above Replacement takes a pretty good measure of a player's contribution. In the 1960s, in the National League, only Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Roberto Clemente had a higher WAR than Ron Santo.
Most Wins Above Replacement, NL (1960-69):
1. Willie Mays, 84.1
2. Hank Aaron, 79.8
3. Roberto Clemente, 59.2
4. Ron Santo, 54.4
5. Willie McCovey, 46.0
6. Eddie Mathews, 42.1
7. Frank Robinson, 38.9
8. Vada Pinson, 38.7
9. Dick Allen, 37.2
10. Orlando Cepeda, 36.7
Now, this might be a bit misleading if you put too much faith into it -- Robinson went to the American League, Dick Allen played 600-plus fewer games, and so on. But I'm not trying to make the point that he was the fourth best player in the NL during the decade but that his value was greater than his good numbers suggest and that whatever Wrigley Field gave, playing in an era of high mounds and high strikes took away. He was very good year after year after year after year.
And there was something else -- Santo was a Type 1 Diabetic. He had no easy way to monitor his blood sugar so according to his son Jeff he learned to do it by his mood. He did not share that he was Diabetic for many years, and he kept his struggle hidden from teammates, and he refused to come out of the lineup. He quietly visited hospitals to talk with children with diabetes. Later, he made his fight against Diabetes a public fight so he could inspire people. There are those who would say that while his quiet (and later public) triumph over diabetes is admirable, it has little to do with his Hall of Fame case.
I suppose it depends on what you believe the Baseball Hall of Fame means.
Santo was so under-appreciated as a player that when he first appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot in 1980 he received exactly 15 votes. That was not even enough votes to get him on the ballot again in 1981. It was only in 1985 that a minor uproar reinstated him and a few other overlooked talents to the ballot*. This time around, Santo received 53 votes which hardly made him a Hall of Fame threat but did keep him comfortably on the ballot. And that's how it would go for 14 more years -- he never came close to getting into the Hall but he would always stay comfortably on the ballot.
*The reinstated players included Santo, Ken Boyer, Curt Flood, Vada Pinson, Harvey Haddix, Dave McNally, Ron Fairly (who had received zero votes the year before) and, most remarkably to me, Denny McLain.
Of course, he stayed around the game. He became an enthusiastic Cubs radio broadcaster. He remained a wonderful presence in Chicago. He was beloved. That's the overwhelming feeling Friday after Ron Santo died at the age of 70. He was beloved as few ballplayers are ever beloved. I have little doubt he would have loved to be elected to the Hall of Fame, and my own baseball instincts tell me that it should have happened long ago. But when I was around him, when I listened to him, when I once interviewed him about the Hall of Fame, I never heard any disappointment or bitterness. I heard a man who loved the game and loved life.
And I look at this this way: Someone has to be the greatest player to not get into the Hall of Fame. Not everyone could handle that sort of thing. Ron Santo wore it beautifully.
A huge oversight. We should know better now. Great summary of why he should be in, Joe.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this. I'm not a Cubs fan but have loved Santo for his enthusiasm and summer nights in the midwest...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think the "death effect" will work in his favor the next time the Veteran's committee votes?
ReplyDeleteIf he doesn't make it this year and Steinbrenner does...
So now who does the title of "greatest living player not in the HOF" pass too? Blyleven?
ReplyDeleteMark from Vegas - Santo isn't on the ballot this year. They're voting on "era" groups now, and I think Santo's group comes up again next year.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right about the effect though.
Cubs fan here - thanks for the words, Joe. I'm only 18 and so my friends and I only knew Ronnie the broadcaster, which is to say we all grew up listening to Pat and Ron, and, as fans, came to love his idiosyncrasies and passion, found inspiration in his love of the Cubs in spite of the countless losses. I noticed that we all independently memorialized his passion for the Cubs in some form today, mostly by facebook status -- even the Sox fans. He will be truly missed.
ReplyDeleteAccording to WAR, he was actually far and away the best player in the NL in 1967. I wonder if having an MVP would have helped his HOF case any...it didn't with Boyer.
ReplyDeleteEven as a die hard White Sox fan I recognize how great Santo was as a player, he should've been in a long time ago. From what I've read, he told his family to let the Hall of Fame know that they could take a posthumous induction and shove it up their a**.
ReplyDeleteinteresting he died so soon after pat burns, who also had hof issues and willlikely be elected posthumously.
ReplyDeleteOdd that he's not in the Hall, ala Fergie, Williams, Durocher and Banks. He should be in, too. That '67-73 Cubs team was a classic near-miss case, they Should have won the East in '69 and could have '70 or '73 even.
ReplyDeletePos if you can push the case for Santo here, that's great, if you think about it Kenny Boyer deserves some love too-though he's been gone for ages now. Both would be worthy HOF selections. Santo's omission is a disgrace, Boyer's mystifying, too.
With his career fresh in the minds of the BBWA voters, Ron Santo got 15 votes. 3.9 percent.
ReplyDeleteWhen he was brought back to the ballot with Boyer, Boyer outpolled him for the first four years.
The word "great" has been bandied about so much that it has lost all meaning. Both Boyer and Santo were very, very good ballplayers who had a considerable, consistent stretch in the middle of their careers that approached, but did not quite reach, what I would call greatness.
I feel about Santo's likely imminent selections vis a vis Boyer, the same way I feel about Mazeroski's induction vis a vis Frank White.
They are pretty much the same player. How can you induct one and not the other?
I also personally believe that the fact that Santo, Boyer, and whoever else you think has been "snubbed" aren't in the Hall speaks highly of the standards set for Hall of Fame inclusion.
Unfortunately, as in the case of Mazeroski, those standards are being eroded as a new generation who never saw the guy actually play latches on the "snub du jour" like a pit bull with a ham bone.
A few years ago, the cause celebre was Mazeroski. Now it's Santo. Who next? Gary Gaetti?
"So now who does the title of "greatest living player not in the HOF" pass too? Blyleven?"
ReplyDeleteGood choice. Then there is Tommy John, Al Oliver, Steve Garvey, Harold Baines, Jack Morris, all of whom had much better careers.
Then we get into another class with Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmiero, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Not to mention Pete Rose.
I spent most of my adult life in Kansas City (where I learned to appreciate a young writer named Joe) but I grew up in the Chicago area. Hank Sauer, Ernie Banks and Ron Santo defined sport in my young mind. Santo arrived on the scene as I entered adulthood but he kept the child in me alive for many years. A hard nosed, gritty, productive and loyal player, he would be a great role model for today's prima donnas of sport. He was elected to the fan's Hall of Fame many years ago---In the final analysis, that is the only one that really counts.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have is that third base has been so overlooked. Was Brooks Robinson really the only Hall-worthy third baseman from the mid 60s-early 70s? I'm probably missing someone else from that era in the Hall, but I can't think of anybody off the top of my head.
ReplyDelete"Then there is Tommy John, Al Oliver, Steve Garvey, Harold Baines, Jack Morris, all of whom had much better careers."
ReplyDeleteMUCH better than Blyleven?
Not.Even.Close.
Not ONE of those guys can hold a candle to Blyleven.
How can you not put Frank White in there as one of if not THE greatest players not in the hall?
ReplyDeleteWell it's like all Hall of Fames. Ever check the Rock Hall of Fame? the resident Frankie Frisch there-you know, the guy packing the ranks w/ his cronies/faves--is Jann Wenner. So it's okay to put in every half assed group Steve Winwood, David Crosby or Eric Clapton were in, and make sure you toss in Hank Ballard or the Rascals, but be sure you leave out, among others: Connie Francis, Chicago, Brook Benton, the Turtles, Kiss, the Spinners, etc. All acts just as good or better than several that have been put in ages back. It's just what it is. Biased and Im-perfect.
ReplyDeleteNow as to Tommy John vs. Burt Blyleven-well I'd daresay that TJ is as good as the Dutchman, and ditto Jim Kaat. They don't quite have the pretty little K-W ratios that the Statborgs like, but c'mon-both guys are worthy of being in the Hall, too.
I am going to cherry-pick some important offensive miletones: 325 doubles, 300 homers, 3200 times on base, OPS+ of at least 125.
ReplyDeleteNine players achieved those milestones by their age 33 season: Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Frank Robinson, Alex Rodriguez, Babe Ruth, and Ron Santo. Albert Pujols is 313 xob short.
Of this select company, Ron Santo ranks 10th, of course. And he was unable to continue at that pace. And others would be there if not for WWII, Korea, a disfigured foot that limited playing time, going to college, nagging injuries, etc.
But if we notice why Ted and Stan and Willie and Al aren't there, shouldn't we consider why Ron Santo wasn't able to continue at that pace after age 33?
Peak accomplishment? Over on the baseball-reference blog, John Q has calculated the 14 players who have compiled the highest accumulative WAR for 6-consecutive-year periods beginning 1946. Short-version name will suffice. There are 60 such periods, so most players make the list more than once.
ReplyDeleteTed, Stan, Jackie, Mickey, Willie, Yaz, Reggie, Little Joe, Mike, Rickey, Wade, Barry, Albert. And, for the period 1964-1969, Ron Santo.
Yes, he can be placed 14th of 14. But, once again, this is very select company.
I feel that there is something at work that kept Santo out of the HOF that went well beyond his numbers. Maybe the idea that you can't put too many players from a team that never won anything in the Hall. Maybe his blow ups with minor players during the Cubs' collapse of 1969. Maybe something else.
ReplyDeleteRon Santo was the greatest player not in the Baseball Hall of Fame who:
ReplyDeleteA. Played for a team in New York, Boston, Chicago, or Los Angeles;
B. In retirement, became a broadcaster for a team in New York, Boston, Chicago, or Los Angeles;
C. Became the devout homer of homer broadcasters for a team in New York, Boston, Chicago, or Los Angeles;
D. Became the devout homer of homer broadcasters for a team with a series of legendary epic late-season and postseason failures that kept it from winning the World Series in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles. (Note: Boston, with World Series wins in 2004 and 2007, no longer qualifies. The Chicago White Sox no longer qualify for the same reason. The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Anaheim Angels of Los Angeles, or Angels of Azusa Pacific (sic) do not qualify);
E. Endured a tragic personal suffering (i.e. medical, death of a spouse, death of a child, etc.) for a team in New York, Boston, Chicago, or Los Angeles;
F. Became endeared to a generation of baseball journalists and/or bloggers who were raised in the 1960s and 1970s and see themselves as smarter than the "Chipmunks" of the 1960s and much cooler than the workplace sexual predators of Bristol, Connecticut;
G. Saw his on-field accomplishments enhanced or re-spun in a Frank Luntzian manner by a series of sabermetricians who view themselves as anti-establishment, anti-mainstream media, anti-Joe Morgan, anti-civilized society, and anti-Wall Street regulation of any sort;
H. Saw his on-field accomplishments further promoted or propagandized in a Frank Luntzian manner by a series of sabermetricians who view themselves as pro-statistical analysis, holders of an enhanced fetish for acronyms and Ayn Rand, devout believers in Bill James and Efficient Market Theory, unquestioned worshipers of Bill James and John Paulson, and a willingness to die and/or kill their own children for the base on balls, quantum mathematics, the minimalization of the adverse impact of the strikeout, Internet pornography, the deployment of nine relief pitchers to get the final eight outs of a ball game on the second week of spring training, their inherent Constitutional right to gulp nine energy drinks in 16 minutes or less, and the religious pontification of and/or awarding of the U.S. Congressional Medal of Honor to Voros McCracken.
IN SHORT, had the late-Ron Santo played for the Houston Astros, Minnesota Twins, or San Diego Padres, no one would give a damn that he was not in the Hall of Fame.
Had the late-Ron Santo not been a broadcaster and a homer and worked opposite the often-drunken Harry Carey, no one would give a damn that he was not in Cooperstown.
Had the late-Ron Santo not had diabetes and lost his legs, no one would give a damn that he was not in Cooperstown.
Had the Chicago Cubs won the World Series in 2003 and/or Steve Bartman been labeled by Frank Gaffney as a Muslim terrorist who wanted to bring Sharia Law to the U.S. or publicly castrated on the pitcher's mound prior to the Cubs' home opener in 2004, no one would give a damn that Ron Santo was not in the Hall of Fame.
Had the Church of Bill James not developed a cult-like, Jim Jonesian allegiance among a series of socially deficient, unfit for civilized society, video game addicts with more religious fervor and automatic weapons than any 15 Bible-thumping, Sarah Palin-worshiping mega-churches combined, no one would give a damn that Ron Santo was not in the Hall of Fame.
Ron Santo, a wonderful guy. A decent human being and then some. A fair broadcaster for a lousy organization in a beloved city. The second-best third baseman of his era behind Brooks Robinson - way behind Brooks Robinson with a gap and in a manner similar to the Slippery Rock U. men's college basketball team's competitiveness against the late-John Wooden's UCLA Bruins from 1964 to 1973. Ron Santo contributed a great deal to major league baseball - on and off the field.
Ron Santo does not deserve to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Anon, without the sabermetrics, Ron Santo would still be one of nine -- with Hank, Barry, Jimmie, Lou, Mel, Frank, A-Rod, and the Babe. I would still give a darn. You are welcome to your remarkable opinion. See you again, anon.
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong, "Anonymous". Completely wrong. I would still give a damn.
ReplyDeleteHow good would Santo's numbers be if he got to fatten up on Cubs pitching, like Mike Schmidt!
ReplyDeleteYou're a very angry person, Anonymous. And, as others have pointed out, you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteI mean, among other obvious problems with your argument, Joe is from Cleveland and lives in Kansas City. Do you think he's a slave to big-city Chicago/NY/LA/Boston bias?
Here's another problem: The teams with the most players in the Hall of Fame are the Giants, then Cardinals, then Yankees, then Cubs, then Indians. Even if you count the Giants as a New York team, how do you explain the presence of St. Louis and Cleveland?
Joe, as always you have done a service to Ron Santo. I was never a fan (wrong neck of the woods) but he needs his supporters. A posthumous election is never right.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong; he seems like a nice guy. But my father's a nice guy and he's not a Hall-of-Famer either. I wish someone could explain this to me.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened in 1985 to cause the reinstatement of Santo & others? Anyone remember?
ReplyDeleteAnd why is McClain's reinstatement so remarkable to Joe? Is it because of McClain's legal problems?
Explanation: No one last name Dreiwitz is listed in baseball-reference.com. The Hall of Fame for Nice Guys is more important than the Cooperstown one, though.
ReplyDeleteThe best player not in the Hall of Fame is obviously Barry Bonds. The best eligible player is Blyleven. After Blyleven gets in this year, though, Santo's got a case. More here:
ReplyDeletehttp://replacementlevel.wordpress.com
"The Greatest Player Not In The Hall"
ReplyDeleteCircle me, Barry Bonds.
"The Greatest Juicer Not In The Hall"
ReplyDeleteFlush the toilet, Barry Bonds.
SSgt. Marty Lee Dreiwitz said...
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong; he seems like a nice guy. But my father's a nice guy and he's not a Hall-of-Famer either. I wish someone could explain this to me.
December 4, 2010 1:48 PM
Sarge,
Read Anonymous at 10:42 AM for an explanation about why Joe Pos and the Acronym Set keep pushing the late-Ron Santo for the Hall of Fame.
Albanate said...
ReplyDeleteWhat happened in 1985 to cause the reinstatement of Santo & others? Anyone remember?
Alb,
Read Anonymous at 10:42 AM for an explanation about why the late-Ron Santo was reinstated to the Hall of Fame ballot after failing to get the required 5 percent of votes necessary for qualification.
Some powerful New York-Chicago media types loved the late-Santo and Denny McClain, a noted gambler, boozer, and crook, and found both to be ready with a quick quote, a mind-numbingly stupid controversy, and the willingness to speak to a scribe about anything on deadline when in desperate need of a column. Dave Anderson, in particular, relied on Santo and McClain for plenty of quick outs.
The other problem for Santo's HOF bid was, as Bill James has pointed out, the fact that the two best third basemen in history were both in their primes during his early years on the ballot. With Schmidt and Brett on TV every night, it was hard to see how Santo measured up.
ReplyDeleteAs for Anonymous 10:42, Santo's superiority over Brooksie at the plate more than makes up for Robinson's superiority with the glove. But you're right, if Santo had played for the Astros, he would have been ignored. And that would have been equally egregious.
It should be mentioned here somewhere that Jerome Holtzman had a personal vendetta against Ron Santo, and had a lot of influence in the BBWAA.
ReplyDeleteSince many names have been tossed out as candidates for "best not in the Hall", Bobby Grich should be added to the list. But surely taking over the top spot on the list these days is Tim Raines.
I'll never understand how someone like the anonymous guy above could possibly care so much about keeping Ron Santo out. Or anyone else, who didn't have moral issues. I mean, I'm not saying every nice guy who played the game should be in. But Santo's numbers are very, very good. Definitely worth consideration, at least, even to someone as skeptical/angry as that guy above. And he was a tremendous person, who continued to serve the game as a beloved broadcaster for 20+ years.
ReplyDeleteThe Hall of Fame, in my opinion, is made for guys like him. But even if you don't want him in, based on his numbers, then by extension you want to take people out who are already in, since it's not like Santo's numbers are a drastic drop-off from everyone in the HOF. Far from it.
To get back to my original point, what would possess someone to care so much about shrinking the HOF? That just takes a special kind of twisted view.
Much as I am amused by the hyperbole, especially coming from one brilliant reader, you know - Ron Santo was a big star. Quite famous, in fact. And the title of this blog post has been accurate for 30 years regarding Ron Santo. His recent passing aside, the man is less well-known now than long long before anyone had the foggiest idea who Bill James was, or OBP, or anything like that you might care to mention.
ReplyDeleteHe was considered one of the best players in baseball while he was playing - emphasis on the fact that subsequent events have only enhanced his image. Circa 1970 people for the most part probably considered him a lock for the Hall.
I don't know if he belongs or not - but certain people maybe should have a little more knowledge of the history of the game and the players who played it before coming up with elaborate conspiracy theories about Hall of Fame voting. The man just passed - is it so bad to read a fine tribute to him? Have some respect.
Much as I am amused by the hyperbole, especially coming from one brilliant reader, you know - Ron Santo was a big star. Quite famous, in fact. And the title of this blog post has been accurate for 30 years regarding Ron Santo. His recent passing aside, the man is less well-known now than long long before anyone had the foggiest idea who Bill James was, or OBP, or anything like that you might care to mention.
ReplyDeleteHe was considered one of the best players in baseball while he was playing - emphasis on the fact that subsequent events have only enhanced his image. Circa 1970 people for the most part probably considered him a lock for the Hall.
I don't know if he belongs or not - but certain people maybe should have a little more knowledge of the history of the game and the players who played it before coming up with elaborate conspiracy theories about Hall of Fame voting. The man just passed - is it so bad to read a fine tribute to him? Have some respect.
Barry Bonds isn't in consideration simply because he isn't yet eligible. Once he's eligible, and if he's not voted in immediately, let the discussions begin.
ReplyDeleteKaat and John were both excellent pitchers. Blyleven was MILES better.
As for Ron Santo's career ending so abrubtly...
ReplyDeleteHe went to the Chi-Sox, who immediately tried to make him a second baseman. Although he did ok there, he struggled at the plate, and probably decided that enough was enough, time to find another job.
I'm sure if he had played in this era he'd have stuck around and added to his stats. And possibly if he didn't have diabetes, he might have played longer.
Regardless, his numbers don't lie.
According to BB-Ref WAR, every eligible plater with a higher career WAR than Santo is either 19th Century or a career later than Santo's. Not that WAR is all, but on that simple basis, Santo probably was the best eligible position player back when Bill James first made the point, but no longer. Subjectively, I agree that Whitaker or Grich or Trammell (higher WAR than Santo) had better careers than Santo, although any of the 4 (and a few others) are reasonable candidates. No one will ever challenge Whitaker for biggest HOF travesty.
ReplyDeletecircle me, Mark McGwire.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing about Ron Santo to me is his 1964 season in comparison to two other 3B.
ReplyDeleteSanto: .313/.398/.564, 30 HR, 114 RBI, AS, GG
Ken Boyer: .295/.365/.489, 24 HR, 119 RBI, AS, NL MVP
Brooks Robinson: .317/.368/.521, 28 HR, 118 RBI, AS, GG, AL MVP
Both Boyer and Robinson both led the league in RBI. Santo led the league in 3B, walks and OBP. You can clearly argue that Santo had a better season than both MVPs, and if you look at home - road splits, you see Santo hit .307/.392/.531 on the road that year, still arguably better than both MVPs. But Santo only came in 8th in MVP voting because the Cubs were terrible that year.
I don't know if it means much for his HoF case, but it's interesting at least.
Wow. Anonymous wins for the most insane diatribe I've seen this year. I had no idea I was such a fan of Ayn Rand or killing children.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous' diatribe is indeed quite insane, but one of the most amusing insane posts that I've read in a while.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite things/people include Bill James, 2112 by Rush*, and mega-churches. But as for Sarah Palin...well, you have to draw the line somewhere.
*Ayn Rand reference.
Loclede, allow me to clarify. I meant to say that Blyleven, John, Morris, et al, had better careers THAN SANTO.
ReplyDeleteAs for the paucity Hall-worthy third basemen from the era, the only thing that means is that the position was kinda thin.
Eddie Mathews also made the Hall, but here are the other 3B All-Stars from the 1960s: Ken Boyer, Frank Malzone, Rich Rollins, Jim Davenport, Dick Allen, Max Alvis, Jim Ray Hart, Harmon Killebrew (amazingly!), Tony Perez, Don Wert, and Sal Bando.
Marc Daniel, the seven guys who finished ahead of Santo that year also had pretty good years.
ReplyDeleteI would also argue that Santo, as good a year as he had, wasn't even the Most Valuable Cub in 1964. Larry Jackson was.
I'm not arguing that Santo deserved an MVP. I just think it's interesting that two 3rd basemen won the MVP awards in '64, and Santo was probably better than both of them that year.
ReplyDeleteIt's convenient to advertise for Santo because he's not in the HOF and recently passed, but the truth is he's not in the HOF for a reason, none of which you bothered to address, Joe. One, his offensive statistics, above average but borderline anyway for the HOF (in terms of accumulation, if not the averages), were assisted big time by playing half of his games in Wrigley Field. Santo's career OPS+ is 120 in Wrigley Field. Outside of Wrigley, his OPS+ is 80. 62% of Santo's career home runs were hit in Wrigley Field. Basically, you take away the confines of Wrigley Field and Ron Santo is a utility player with his bat. Of course, one can demur that this is unfair because someone had to put those numbers up in his offensively-inclined home field, and that is certainly true. By the same token, you could say that Dante Bichette, or someone with his name, had to hit like Ted Williams at Coors Field, as well (with a 146 OPS+).
ReplyDeleteDefensively, there's no doubt that Ron was very good. He won five gold gloves. But he's not good enough to get into the HOF on his fielding alone. He has a career Total Zone Total Fielding Runs Above Avg of 27 runs. His career FP at third is .954 Brooks Robinson, a contemporary whose offensive averages are comparable to Santo's non-Wrigley stats has a career Total Zone Total Fielding Runs Above Avg of 293 and a .971 FP.
If we looked at this rationally, and not emotionally, Santo is at best a borderline player. He's not the 'greatest', and even if he was he's the 'greatest' at not getting into something his numbers should not permit. Yes, the emotional appeal is there. I remember the appeals of Yankee fans for Phil Rizutto (a man who had no business getting into the HOF as a player). The same with Buck O'Neal a few years ago (again, his statistics in the Negro Leagues, while good, hardly merit the same mention as a Josh Gibson). You have to have a cutoff point somewhere, and I guess I'm the heel to deliver it. Ron Santo is not a HOF player.
Anon above, Joe did mention Wrigley field.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, the HOF is a bit of a crock anyway so I have a hard time getting worked up about it.
What we need is a "Poz Brilliant Reader" HOF. All we need to do is agree criteria(s) and see who gets through. Joe can host it, right Joe?Personally I'd like to see an offensive hall and a defensive hall - for purity of purpose. And then a combo hall to see the cream. And I'd be juudging on 5 year periods with say the top 5 in each 5 year window because I think that shows a level of sustained excellence.
I think doing our own Hall is infinitely more productive that whining about the one in Cooperstown.
Win shares, 1964: Ken Boyer 28, Brooks Robinson 33, Ron Santo 36. Willie Mays 38, Dick Allen 41.
ReplyDeleteThe expert-knowledge commentator using Denny McLain as evidence might spell McLain's name correctly.
Tim Raines is a good choice for best out. Someone above said "he saw" Tim play and that was evidence enough for keeping him out. Well, Raines played in 2502 games. Seeing him in 1997-78, when his ob% was .399 as a Yankee part-timer is one thing. Seeing him on April 20, 1994, in Milwaukee, when he reached base 7 times (and stole one) is another. The problem with wanting "I saw him" to be dispositive is that only someone who saw Raines every day, particularly for the 7 years 1981-1987 when he was based in Montreal, could have as good a perspective on his career as we can with a very careful look at the statistics (and ALL the eyewitness testimony).
Maybe Ronnie can get a wheelchair statue next to Buck's.
Raines reached base 5 times in a game on 36 other occasions (raise your hand if you were in attendance for at least one of those). And his stolen-base % seems to have been the best of anyone who attempted 350 or more steals (Raines stole 808).
ReplyDeleteRaines was fantastic, but cursed to be the 2nd best leadoff man of all time while the best one (Rickey H) was playing. Playing so long in Montreal didn't help, nor did the coke thing.
ReplyDeleteHaving been a Braves fan who went to lots of games as a kid in the '80s, I wouldn't be surprised if I was in attendance for one of Raines' 5-on-base games (and cursing our pitchers for it*) -- how many of them were in Atlanta?
ReplyDelete*See how I was blaming our pitchers instead of crediting Raines? That's one reason he (like Santo) is not in the Hall Of Fame. When fans see a walk, they notice that the pitcher screwed up, but they don't tend to notice how the batter drew the walk.
Most fans in the 80s didn't recognize or understand the difference between Raines and Vince Coleman. If anything, Coleman got more attention and credit as the "best leadoff man" in the NL at the time -- for his stolen base numbers, and for being on a consistent playoff team and contender. Fans oohed and aahed at every Coleman steal, but not at every time Raines got on base.
Don't really have an opinion on Santo in or out of the HOF--but I did have a problem with the relentless campaign to get him in. The whiny, oh-the-injustice-of-it-all tone was way over the top. It's sad that he had diabetes and all the related health issues, but it gave the HOF push a Jerry's Kids vibe that discredits the guy's baseball achievements. One aspect of the failure to get in the HOF that hasn't gotten much run in these comments is that when he was playing, he was very unlikeable. Ernie Banks was beloved, Billy Williams and Fergie Jenkins were appreciated, Kessinger and Beckert were well-liked, but Santo and Randy Hundley were hotheaded jerks who would gloat and smirk in victory and bitch and moan in defeat (see Summer of 1969, collapse). He had an ignominious end to his career, too. He pouted when the Cubs wanted to trade him (they had traded for Bill Madlock), and refused to go to the Angels. For some reason, the White Sox agreed to take him (trading Steve Stone among others), and Santo not only had a horrible year while playing some 2B, some DH and some 3B, but his obnoxious personality alienated the Sox best player, Dick Allen, and prompted Allen's premature retirement....And as for Santo's broadcasting career, let's just say it was one that only a Cub fan could love, and even for many of them, it was a tough sell.
ReplyDeleteDon't really have an opinion on Santo in or out of the HOF--but I did have a problem with the relentless campaign to get him in. The whiny, oh-the-injustice-of-it-all tone was way over the top. It's sad that he had diabetes and all the related health issues, but it gave the HOF push a Jerry's Kids vibe that discredits the guy's baseball achievements. One aspect of the failure to get in the HOF that hasn't gotten much run in these comments is that when he was playing, he was very unlikeable. Ernie Banks was beloved, Billy Williams and Fergie Jenkins were appreciated, Kessinger and Beckert were well-liked, but Santo and Randy Hundley were hotheaded jerks who would gloat and smirk in victory and bitch and moan in defeat (see Summer of 1969, collapse). He had an ignominious end to his career, too. He pouted when the Cubs wanted to trade him (they had traded for Bill Madlock), and refused to go to the Angels. For some reason, the White Sox agreed to take him (trading Steve Stone among others), and Santo not only had a horrible year while playing some 2B, some DH and some 3B, but his obnoxious personality alienated the Sox best player, Dick Allen, and prompted Allen's premature retirement....And as for Santo's broadcasting career, let's just say it was one that only a Cub fan could love, and even for many of them, it was a tough sell.
ReplyDeleteDon't really have an opinion on Santo in or out of the HOF--but I did have a problem with the relentless campaign to get him in. The whiny, oh-the-injustice-of-it-all tone was way over the top. It's sad that he had diabetes and all the related health issues, but it gave the HOF push a Jerry's Kids vibe that discredits the guy's baseball achievements. One aspect of the failure to get in the HOF that hasn't gotten much run in these comments is that when he was playing, he was very unlikeable. Ernie Banks was beloved, Billy Williams and Fergie Jenkins were appreciated, Kessinger and Beckert were well-liked, but Santo and Randy Hundley were hotheaded jerks who would gloat and smirk in victory and bitch and moan in defeat (see Summer of 1969, collapse). He had an ignominious end to his career, too. He pouted when the Cubs wanted to trade him (they had traded for Bill Madlock), and refused to go to the Angels. For some reason, the White Sox agreed to take him (trading Steve Stone among others), and Santo not only had a horrible year while playing some 2B, some DH and some 3B, but his obnoxious personality alienated the Sox best player, Dick Allen, and prompted Allen's premature retirement....And as for Santo's broadcasting career, let's just say it was one that only a Cub fan could love, and even for many of them, it was a tough sell.
ReplyDeleteI've looked at Santo's HoF case, and frankly, the man doesn't have a leg to stand on.
ReplyDeleteBlueGuyRedState - I'm unclear - does alienating Dick Allen count for or against Santo's HOF case? :-)
ReplyDeleteThis has got to be the weirdest thread ever.
Dick Allen had his demons, but he was still a productive player at 32 when he quit the White Sox. He led the league that year in HR even though he left a few weeks early. He helped turn around the franchise in 72. Santo's actions help undermine it, and kicked off the decline of the Chuck Tanner era, and the White Sox were all but moved to Seattle before Bill Veeck rescued them. So yes, this counts against Santo.
ReplyDeleteI don't know who Ron Santo is, or what kind of baseball the man played, but I do know that one time I was listening to the radio broadcast of a Chicago Cubs game, and an older gentleman took three innings to tell the story of how his friend wears a toupee, and how he washes said toupee in the dishwasher.
ReplyDeleteI had always assumes this was a demon in my head reciting a monologue that my brain had written during a mescaline-induced fever-dream, but I'll be goddamned if it wasn't 'ole Santo going off the reservation during the second game of a July double-header against the Astros.
God Bless that man.
First, to correct an inacurracy from above. Ron Santo's road OPS+ is not 82 for his career. That would be bad, if true. I believe the poster took his tOPS+ to be OPS+, which is not the same thing (as I understand it, tOPS+ compares his OPS splits to each other, not to other players. Thus, Babe Ruth's road tOPS+ of 97 doesn't mean that the road Babe Ruth is 3% worse than an average major leaguer, but that the road Babe Ruth was 3% worse than an average Babe Ruth)
ReplyDeleteNow the fact that the road Santo is 18% worse than the average Santo is harmful to his HOF candidacy, just not as harmful as the road Santo being 18% worse than the average MLer would be.
Someone mentioned that Santo wouldn't even be considered if he played for the Astros. Probably true, his skill set wouldn't look so great in the Astrodome. I suspect a power hitter who only hit 15 HRs a year wouldn't be all that impressive.
Just for fun, I compare Santo's 1964-1969 WAR to Cesar Cedeno's from 1972-1977. Santo's was 45.7 (using baseball-reference.com numbers). Cedeno's was 37.1.
Brent
BTW, if the question, who is the greatest player eligible for the HOF, but not in right now, then the correct answer is Barry Larkin or Roberto Alomar, but hopefully those are oversights that will soon be corrected.
ReplyDeleteBrent
Speaking of the HoF, I see Pat Gillick got in today. He has won World Series with two teams and posted the best records ever with another. However, since this site dedicates so much time to bad teams (See: Royals), I think his most interest job might have been the Orioles. Yeah to be as as the Royals, Orioles, and Pirates you almost need bad luck. Then you look at the Orioles over the last 15 years and the fact that their only good team was Pat Gillick's and then the let him go. And you learn that to be that bad you have to make some stupid decisions.
ReplyDelete"And you learn that to be that bad you have to make some stupid decisions."
ReplyDeleteStory of my life Somebody. Story of my life.
Dear Jim Caple,
ReplyDeletePlease do not use my name or memory to disparage Le Grande Orange. If your only argument for my inclusion is at his expense, I'd rather you refrain.
http://twitter.com/jimcaple
Pete Rose
ReplyDeleteNow, Joe is one of my favourite writers. And he can write circles around just about anyone. I bet he could write something so subtle that I wouldn't even know what he meant. But I doubt that's Joe's style, and that's one of the reasons he's one of my favourite writers.
ReplyDeleteAnd I say this because, nowhere in Joe's post, does he write that Ron Santo should be in the Hall of Fame. He says he's the Greatest Player Not In The Hall Of Fame. Joe is awfully smart, and he knows that just because you're the Greatest Player Not In The Hall doesn't mean you SHOULD be in the Hall - because after you got in, then the next best guy should get in; and once he gets in, the next best guy should get in; and... well, you gotta draw the line somewhere. And maybe you agree with where others draw the line, and maybe you don't.
Ron was underappreciated, check. Maybe, depending "on what you believe the Baseball Hall of Fame means", Ron's diabetes should be taken into account, check. Should be in the Hall... well, maybe Joe kinda writes that somewhere between the lines. But like I said, I don't know if that's Joe's style.
@BlueGuyRedState:
ReplyDeleteEven if one accepts the argument that Santo wasn't a good clubhouse guy, that's still not enough to make him not qualified for the HOF. Is Santo not still one of the 10 best third basemen of all time? (If you say no, please list your 10.) Was Santo not one of the 2 or 3 or 5 best third basemen of all time at the time he played? (If you say no, please list your 5.) Call him a Hornsby if you insist, one of the best at his position all time who loses some standing for clubhouse issues. Hornsby is still a Hall of Famer. Santo is a couple or few rungs down the ladder from Hornsby, but only a couple or few. The Hall of Fame cutoff is more rungs down the ladder than that.
Given what we now know about treating diabetes, especially its effects on blood circulation to the extremities, I am not surprised that Ron Santo suffered an early drop off to his career. I *am* surprised that Kirby Puckett got cut slack for his medical issues shortening his career (because they were clear and certain) and Santo did not.
ReplyDeleteProvided what we currently be familiar with managing diabetes mellitus, especially its consequences in blood circulation to the limbs, I'm not astonished that John Santo suffered an early on disappear to be able to his / her occupation. My partner and i *am* surprised that will Kirby Puckett acquired lower slack pertaining to his / her health concerns reducing their profession (because they ended up apparent and also specific) as well as Santo did not.
ReplyDeletehttp://fashoionstyles.com/
http://warcraftever.com/
He made it. :) He made it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDelete