R.I.P. #10

[Mace]

Just heard on the morning news that Ron Santo died last night of complications from bladder cancer. Too bad he didn't make it into the HoF prior to his death.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ron- ... -70-120310

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

HoF? Sure, let's lower the bar some more. Cooperstown used to be reserved for great players, not good.

If the Veteran's Committee suddenly decides that he's now worth more than 60% of the vote because he's assumed room temperature, it will be a travesty.

[Goober McTuber]

Just heard on the morning news that Ron Santo died last night of complications from bladder cancer.

What a pisser.

[Sirfindafold]

Just heard on the morning news that Ron Santo died last night of complications from bladder cancer.

What a pisser.

RACK!!!

sin,

1965

[Goober McTuber]

Oh, look what's dangling off my shoe.

[Mace]

HoF? Sure, let's lower the bar some more. Cooperstown used to be reserved for great players, not good.

If the Veteran's Committee suddenly decides that he's now worth more than 60% of the vote because he's assumed room temperature, it will be a travesty.

"Lower" the standards? Stupid much? Brooks Robinson was inducted into the HoF in 1983 with lesser offensive stats than Santo.

Santo was the best third baseman in the game throughout the 1960's, and retired after 15 seasons due to health issues (diabetes) which probably shortened his career by 4-5 years.

Robinson hit .267 over 23 seasons, had 268 HRs, .322 OB%, .401 slugging%, .723 OPS, and .971 Fielding% (the only stat where he bettered Santo).

Santo hit .277 over 15 seasons, had 342 HRs, .362 OB%, .464 slugging%, .826 OPS, and .954 Fielding%.

Robinson had the luxury of playing on some good/great teams with the Orioles....Santo, not so much with the Cubs. Santo's career was also shortened by illness that cost him longevity in the majors, but even that does not minimize the fact that he was the best third sacker in baseball during the 60's.

So, genius, just how far would the HoF have to "lower their standards" to admit Santo? It's just too bad that he died before gaining enshrinement and it will be a bittersweet moment for his family when he is finally voted into Cooperstown.

[Sirfindafold]

Oh, look what's dangling off my shoe.

those are your earlobes.

[Q, West Coast Style]

He's no longer half the man he used to be.

[Goober McTuber]

HoF? Sure, let's lower the bar some more. Cooperstown used to be reserved for great players, not good.

If the Veteran's Committee suddenly decides that he's now worth more than 60% of the vote because he's assumed room temperature, it will be a travesty.

"Lower" the standards? Stupid much? Brooks Robinson was inducted into the HoF in 1983 with lesser offensive stats than Santo.

Santo was the best third baseman in the game throughout the 1960's, and retired after 15 seasons due to health issues (diabetes) which probably shortened his career by 4-5 years.

Robinson hit .267 over 23 seasons, had 268 HRs, .322 OB%, .401 slugging%, .723 OPS, and .971 Fielding% (the only stat where he bettered Santo).

Santo hit .277 over 15 seasons, had 342 HRs, .362 OB%, .464 slugging%, .826 OPS, and .954 Fielding%.

Robinson had the luxury of playing on some good/great teams with the Orioles....Santo, not so much with the Cubs. Santo's career was also shortened by illness that cost him longevity in the majors, but even that does not minimize the fact that he was the best third sacker in baseball during the 60's.

So, genius, just how far would the HoF have to "lower their standards" to admit Santo? It's just too bad that he died before gaining enshrinement and it will be a bittersweet moment for his family when he is finally voted into Cooperstown.

I think Robinson goes in over Santo as the best defensive third baseman of his era. Not just fielding %, but also because he got to a lot of balls that Santo wouldn't have. I saw them both play and B Robby was better.

[Mace]

Better defensively? Absolutely, but Santo was a very good defensive third baseman too, just not as good as Robinson. Offensively, Robinson did not even compare to Santo. Robinson is already in the HoF and Santo deserves to be there too.

[Goober McTuber]

Robinson was WAY better defensively. Santo won 5 Gold Gloves. Robinson won 16. In a row.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Brooks Robinson was inducted into the HoF in 1983 with lesser offensive stats than Santo.

I thought Robinson was in the HoF because he's widely considered to be the greatest defensive 3rd baseman of all-time?

[War Wagon]

Growing up playing baseball, Brooks Robinson was the epitome and definition of a great fielder. Every kid with a glove on his hand during that era dreamed of being the next Brooks Robinson, just like any kid who played football wanted to be Johnny Unitas.

[Mace]

Brooks Robinson was inducted into the HoF in 1983 with lesser offensive stats than Santo.

I thought Robinson was in the HoF because he's widely considered to be the greatest defensive 3rd baseman of all-time?

That's true, and I haven't stated anything to the contrary, but Santo was also a good defensive player...just not as good with the leather as Robinson. The point is that Santo was a far better hitter, had more power, and was, in general, a far more productive hitter than Robinson, which makes up, imo, for the difference in fielding.

[Mace]

Growing up playing baseball, Brooks Robinson was the epitome and definition of a great fielder. Every kid with a glove on his hand during that era dreamed of being the next Brooks Robinson, just like any kid who played football wanted to be Johnny Unitas.

Not true. I wanted to be Billy Williams and Gale Sayers.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I wanted to be Walt Weis.

[Mace]

I wanted to be Walt Weis.

You might be the only man in America that ever spoke those words.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Santo was my all-time favorite Cub and probably on the Top 10 list of my all-time favorite non-Yankees.

I remember voting for the All-Star game as a kid. Santo was always my sentimental pick at 3B, even though he was on the downside of his career by that point, and there were other players available who, from an objective standpoint, were probably more deserving. RIP.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

That's true, and I haven't stated anything to the contrary, but Santo was also a good defensive player.

And he was good offensively too. However... your sentiments aside, he was not great.

Your Brooks Robinson comparison is shit. It's apples to oranges. Some players, like Smith and Robinson got in mostly because of their glove. They were great. Maybe the best ever defensively at their position. Understand?

[Mace]

That's true, and I haven't stated anything to the contrary, but Santo was also a good defensive player.

And he was good offensively too. However... your sentiments aside, he was not great.

Your Brooks Robinson comparison is shit. It's apples to oranges. Some players, like Smith and Robinson got in mostly because of their glove. They were great. Maybe the best ever defensively at their position. Understand?

Yes, I understand your reasoning, but he's still going to get in, and deservedly so.

[Shoalzie]

I wanted to be Walt Weis.

Charlie Weis
Frederic Weis
Dianne Wiest
Walt Weiss




I was partial to Terry Steinbach and Carney Lansford myself. I pulled for the A's in the 80s before I old enough to know what team loyalty was about.

[TheJON]

It's sad that Ronny passed away as he was a great person, so I hate saying this, but....

Over the last few years I got to a point where I couldn't listen to a Cubs game unless Santo was gone. His color commentating was so unproffesional and so unlistenable. He had no business on the radio.

Also, he is not a HOFer. Period. His numbers are GOOD. Good does not = HOF. You either need to have very good offensive numbers and very good defensive numbers or be great at one or the other and at least average at the other to get in. Ozzie Smith couldn't hit off a Tee. He's in because he was the best shortstop of all-time until Omar Vizquel came around.

Fielding percentage is the most meaningless stat ever- unless your percentage is really low. A high fielding percentage means nothing other than you were able to make the plays you got to. There's no range factor. Jeter led the AL shortstops in fielding percentage and he sucks dick in the field. His range factor and UZR is god awful. He had a -4.7 UZR, which means his inability to get to the balls he should have cost his team 4.7 runs this year. It's slightly above putting a cripple out there. Jeter's high fielding percentage just means he doesn't make mistakes on balls he gets to.

I have only seen highlights of Santo and Brooks Robinson and I don't like to comment on stuff in which I never saw, but based on numbers alone, neither of them should have been in. But Robinson got in because, back then, defense got more publicity than it does now. Bill Mazeroski is another prime example of that. That said, defense doesn't win games EVER in baseball. There's no such thing as a team that wasn't very good at hitting, wasn't very good at pitching, was great defensively.....and won. You might lose a few more games than you would have if your fielders didn't suck, but having just an average defense is perfectly fine. So, based on that, I would say that getting into the Hall of Fame at any position other than catcher (or maybe shortstop) simply because of defense is silly.

As for Santo and Robinson's offensive numbers.....they're just not good enough. I will look it up, but I don't think either had too high of a WAR and their OPS and OPS+ were nothing special. Santo also played in more of a hitters ballpark than Robinson.

I will say, I think based on stats alone, Santo does have just as compelling of an argument as Robinson. Robinson's OPS was that of an average number 9 hitter- even back then, assuming Mace's stats are correct.

.826 OPS in Wrigley Field was like having a .926 OPS at the Polo Grounds. And I know it isn't his fault- but Santo never had to play under pressure much because the Cubs were never in the pennant chase. Maybe his career numbers aren't as good if he did. Maybe not. We will never know.

[Mace]

Here are the stats for both players, including WAR.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... ro01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... br01.shtml

[poptart]

Mace, Santo was a very good player, but comparing his numbers with Robinson and declaring that he deserves to go in is a bit of a folly - as has already been pointed out.

Here is a list of 3rd baggers who are in the Hall.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofst3b.shtml

You can SEE that Robinson got in because of his fielding ability - when you compare his numbers to the other 3rd basemen who are IN.
Lowest batting avg., lowest slugging pct., etc.

Yeah, Santo compares favorably to Brooks offensively, but in comparison to the other 3rd basemen in the Hall, Santo is nothing special.

If anything, he's a very borderline YES.

Not a travesty if he gets in, but also not a travesty if he is denied.



My .02.

[poptart]

Btw, I wanted to be Wilt Chamberlain. :wink:

[Terry in Crapchester]

Here is a list of 3rd baggers who are in the Hall.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofst3b.shtml

Two things really jump out at me from that list.

One is the relatively low number of 3B in the Hall, although many 3B have moved to 1B (or more recently, DH) later in their careers.

The second is the relatively low offensive totals of those in the Hall at that position.

No doubt 3B is a very difficult defensive position, and Robinson is absolutely the best ever defensively at that position. No qualms with him being in the Hall on that basis. But as the adage goes, defense is most important at the positions up the middle (C, 2B, SS and CF). Generally speaking, you count on more offensive production from the corner positions (1B, 3B, LF and RF).

George Brett, generally not thought of as a power hitter, is comfortably in 3rd place in HR's among HOF 3B, although longevity no doubt played a part in that. And while some of the 3B on that list played in dead-ball eras (Baker, who ironically earned the nickname "Home Run," and Traynor come to mind easily), some of the others (Boggs jumps out here) did not.

George Kell, IIRC, is the answer that came up after Tommy Herr's 1985 season (8 HR's, 109 RBI's) had everyone thumbing through the record books to find the last player in major league history to have > 100 RBI's and < 10 HR's in the same season.

[TheJON]

Ya know, after posting that I got to thinking.....

You could probably sell me on the idea of Santo in the Hall of Fame.

He played before I was alive, so I have nothing but stats and a few highlights to go by. Baseball is the worst sport for watching old time games because all they have are old playoff games. So that makes it impossible for me to see players like Santo and Ernie Banks.

The thing with Santo is this....

He was clearly a very good ballplayer, but he wasn't great at anything. His defensive numbers are pretty good, his power numbers were good, his on-base was good. He led the league in walks 4 straight years- with Ernie Banks hitting behind him. That tells you he had a great eye at the plate even though he struck out a decent amount.

The 9 Gold Glove awards can be misleading for 2 reasons- 1.there weren't many great 3rd basemen back then like there are now and 2.Gold Glove is a joke. Once you win one, you've pretty much got it locked up for the next decade unless you get injured. Those that vote on the award don't want to take the time to pay a whole bunch of attention to defense, so they get lazy just vote who they voted for the previous year.

Same with All-Star game appearances.

he's kinda stuck as an in betweener. What was he great at? Nothing. Brooks Robinson was considered the best defensive 3rd basemen of all-time- and won 2 MVP awards. Santo never finished higher than 4th in the voting.

While I would definitely agree that there are probably 20-25 guys in the HOF that shouldn't be, I just don't see how Santo would be considered a "great" player. To me, that's who should be in- great players. Not very good players. There are a lot of players today such as Carl Crawford, Michael Young, Magglio Ordonez that are very good players that have had very good careers but won't be HOFers.

Was Santo great......or was he just very good? Numbers suggest good-very good. And baseball is mostly a numbers game- which is why Jeter is so overrated (yes, I realize Jeter has good numbers, just not as great as ESPN and Yankee fans make him out to be. This whole "intangible" crap annoys me. It's baseball- it's mostly an individual game. Intangibles make up less than 1 percent of the game).

[War Wagon]

George Brett, generally not thought of as a power hitter...

Don't tell Goose Gossage that.

stats can be misleading in that they don't always show the impact a player had on the team around him. George Brett absolutely willed the Royals into finally beating the Yankees in 1980, which imo, was an even greater accomplishment than winning the World Series in 1985.

Not ashamed to admit I grew up worshipping #5

[Mace]

I didn't start this thread to start a debate for Santo being in the Hall, but it happened anyway. One thing to consider when it comes to Santo's stats is that he played his prime years during the 60's (the decade of pitchers), when hitting .300 was a rarity, and he reached that mark four times during his career. I know that he wasn't a shoe-in for the Hall, but I think he did enough. The Hall, as you mentioned, already has members who you do not consider "great", but that did not keep them from being enshrined. I think that Santo is better than some of the folks already in Cooperstown and that he did enough to gain membership.

As for you point about not playing under pressure, please check the stats for 1969, the one year the the Cubs were in contention until September, when they folded their tents and the Mets captured the title. Santo hit .289. had 29 HRs, and 123 RBIs. He kept playing while most of his teammates were choking. Intangibles cannot be measured with statistics but they are important to a team. And by intangibles, I mean leadership and attitude that can rub off on teammates, and doing the little things like hitting behind runners and sac flies.

Lastly, I realize that you may not have enjoyed Santo in the broadcast booth, but he was beloved by Cub fans for all of the reasons you didn't like him. Sure, he was a homer...bigtime...but he was working for the Cubs and WGN, not FOX or MLB. The people who listen to the radio broadcasts are Cub fans, who loved Santo, not fans of other teams. He knew the game and spoke his mind.....always with a Cubs slant on things....but he still knew the game and was a good analyst on a home radio station. That was his job.

[Mace]

George Brett, generally not thought of as a power hitter...

Don't tell Goose Gossage that.

stats can be misleading in that they don't always show the impact a player had on the team around him. George Brett absolutely willed the Royals into finally beating the Yankees in 1980, which imo, was an even greater accomplishment than winning the World Series in 1985.

Not ashamed to admit I grew up worshipping #5

Brett was a great hitter and I enjoyed watching him swing the bat. It was Brett's hitting that got me to buy a Charlie Lau hitting video, books, and attend hitting clinics with coaches who taught the Lau theory of hitting. I never really bought into the whole theory but did incorporate some of Lau's hitting theory into my own, and used Brett as an example when teaching it. Brett was always a good reason to make the trip to KC to catch a game several times a year. Plus the Royals were fun to watch...with Willie Wilson flying around the bases and little Freddie Patek playing SS.

[TheJON]

Lastly, I realize that you may not have enjoyed Santo in the broadcast booth, but he was beloved by Cub fans for all of the reasons you didn't like him. Sure, he was a homer...bigtime...but he was working for the Cubs and WGN, not FOX or MLB. The people who listen to the radio broadcasts are Cub fans, who loved Santo, not fans of other teams. He knew the game and spoke his mind.....always with a Cubs slant on things....but he still knew the game and was a good analyst on a home radio station. That was his job.

I am a Cubs fan and love watching Cubs games. I love to listen to baseball on the radio. Most Cubs fans I know couldn't stand Santo on the radio.

I realize he worked for WGN and wasn't a national announcer, but he went well beyond being a homer. His act was childish, in fact. It was very unprofessional. Ronny was a great guy. He was as genuine of a person as anyone you could meet. I got his autograph at an I-Cubs convention about 10 years ago. Nicest guy you will find. But he had no business broadcasting games.

His analysis of a bad Cubs play was "ooohhhhh geeeeeezzz" or "GOSH!". His analysis of a great Cubs play? "oh yeeeaaaaaaaaahhhh!". That's not broadcasting. Moreland and Otto are both pretty good. I didn't like Otto the year he was on TV, but he plays off of Pat Hughes well in the booth and gives good analysis.

Pat and Ron's stupid "guess the attendance" inside jokes got old by about 2002. It was no longer funny and they were still doing it this past year. Yeah, Santo definitely knew the game of baseball- he just didn't know how to communicate that knowledge with his audience.

I have an appreciation for the great baseball announcers. My favorite being Denny Matthews and Vin Scully. Those guys are professionals of the utmost level, and Santo would have driven them absolutely insane.

[TheJON]

Plus the Royals were fun to watch...with Willie Wilson flying around the bases and little Freddie Patek playing SS.

The Royals are still fun to watch..........if you enjoy comedy.

Watch Yuniesky Betancourt play shortstop and tell me that's not entertainment!! :D

[Mace]

His analysis of a bad Cubs play was "ooohhhhh geeeeeezzz" or "GOSH!". His analysis of a great Cubs play? "oh yeeeaaaaaaaaahhhh!". That's not broadcasting. Moreland and Otto are both pretty good. I didn't like Otto the year he was on TV, but he plays off of Pat Hughes well in the booth and gives good analysis.

The problem is that he had far more opportunities to say "ohhhh geeeeezzzz" and "GOSH!" than "oh yeeeaaaahhhh!"

No, Santo was not a professional broadcaster and had no professional training to be one, but he would, more often than not, follow up after the "ooohhhh geeeezzz" with an explanation of how the Cubs had just fucked up. Santo was a fan in the booth and made no pretense of being Vin Scully. He was just being himself, which is what most Cub fans loved about him, and he, like the Cubs, were oftentimes unintentionally comedic.

[Moving Sale]

HOFs seem like they get watered down due to the need people feel to put people in every year. I guess it is hard to have a ceremony every year if there is no one to induct from time to time but missing a ceremony or two or doing something else during the ceremony in those years when no one deserves to be in seems like a better choice that letting people that don't belong in.

[Mace]

HOFs seem like they get watered down due to the need people feel to put people in every year. I guess it is hard to have a ceremony every year if there is no one to induct from time to time but missing a ceremony or two or doing something else during the ceremony in those years when no one deserves to be in seems like a better choice that letting people that don't belong in.

True, but I thought you were chiming in to say you wanted to be Freddie Patek.

[smackaholic]

TiVO makes a good point, for quite possibly the first time in board history.

Has there ever been a year when the HoF has said fuggit, you all suck. See you next year.

[smackaholic]

If santos had played for the yanks in the 50s with those numbers, is there a chance he wouldn't be in?

i doubt it. the scooter's in cooperstown as a player with pretty much average numbers.

the defensive stat take is interesting. fielding percentage is misleading. in fact, it's possible to argue that a lead footed, but steady infielder could have an insanely high FP and still suck since you can't be charged an error on balls you didn't get to because you are ridiculously slow.

i do think timeliness should be looked at even though it is hard to measure. there are some who might deserve entry due to when they got the hits even though their raws stats fall short. likewise you might argue against entry for someone with good enough stats if he never got it done when it counted.

[War Wagon]

I thought you were chiming in to say you wanted to be Freddie Patek.

That'll Rack!

[TheJON]

I wanted to be Kevin Appier. He's my favorite pitcher of all-time. Even though I'm a lefty, when I was a teenager I tried to copy his delivery. Realized it hurt my control and velocity, so decided to steal Tom Glavine's windup.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Since we're on the subject of who we wanted to be as kids, I always wanted to be Rod Carew. An absolute magician with the bat. Unfortunately, although I was always a good high-ball hitter, I couldn't hit a low pitch if my life depended on it.