Jump to content

Looking for your opinion on Ron Santo


Scarey

Recommended Posts

I brought this up in the game thread tonight and wanted to get more opinions on it.

Santo is going to be up for consideration from the veterans committee again for the Hall of Fame. I would say almost all Cubs fans feel this man belongs in the Hall. Admittedly, many Cub fans feel this way because he's a great guy and a real fan of the game. However, a large majority also believe he's earned the right to be among the games best.

Now, the argument I hear most often is that his numbers are just not good enough to warrant him being a HOFer. What people fail to recognize usually though is he is worthy when compared to his 3B peers.

Here's a compilation of Ron Santo's career numbers compared to other HOF third baseman.

----------------------------AVG-------- HRs---------RBIs-------ALL-STARS -------------GOLD GLOVES

Ron Santo (1960-74)-------.277----------342--------1,331----------9--------------------------5

Eddie Mathews (1952-68)---.271----------512--------1,453----------12------------------------0

Brooks Robinson (1955-77)--.267----------268--------1,357----------18------------------------16

Wade Boggs (1982-99)-----.328----------118--------1,014----------12------------------------2

Mike Schmidt (1972-89)----.267----------548--------1,595----------12------------------------10

George Kell (1943-57)------.306----------78----------870-----------10------------------------0

Based on this comparison, I find it hard to believ he hasn't got in at this point. Only problem is I have an obviously biased opinion.

So, what do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For one thing, that isn't a very good comparison point. Matthews and Schmidt both hit several hundred more homers, which made up for their mediocre-looking batting average and Brooks was one of the best defensive baseball players ever. Boggs had a career .415 OBP.

I'd say Santo DOES belong in the Hall, just... not for any of the reasons you posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For one thing, that isn't a very good comparison point. Matthews and Schmidt both hit several hundred more homers, which made up for their mediocre-looking batting average and Brooks was one of the best defensive baseball players ever. Boggs had a career .415 OBP.

I'd say Santo DOES belong in the Hall, just... not for any of the reasons you posted.

Well to be frank, I didn't really give any reasons, I just posted the stats. I will give my reasonings eventually, but for now I want to see people's reaction strictly to the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's a real annoying broadcaster -- too much of a homer -- but that's probably my Cardinals partisanship showing.

Oh, that wasn't your question, was it? :)

I don't think of Ron Santo as a Hall of Famer, any more than I think that Ken Boyer or Ron Cey ought to be admitted. Santo's credentials are probably slightly better than those of Boyer or Cey, but not sufficiently better to get him in, as far as I'm concerned.

Santo did have the disadvantage of playing with diabetes and, while his overcoming of obstacles is commendable, I don't think it ought to affect assessments about whether he should be in the HOF or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's a real annoying broadcaster -- too much of a homer -- but that's probably my Cardinals partisanship showing.

Oh, that wasn't your question, was it? :)

I don't think of Ron Santo as a Hall of Famer, any more than I think that Ken Boyer or Ron Cey ought to be admitted. Santo's credentials are probably slightly better than those of Boyer or Cey, but not sufficiently better to get him in, as far as I'm concerned.

Santo did have the disadvantage of playing with diabetes and, while his overcoming of obstacles is commendable, I don't think it ought to affect assessments about whether he should be in the HOF or not.

He is so much of a homer as an announcer that it's actually endearing and hilarious. He makes no pretense at all that he's an objective observer.

Santo is much better than Boyer or Cey. He's the best 3B not in the Hall. He's a borderline case and I could go either way on him. Someone has to be the best 3B not in the Hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is so much of a homer as an announcer that it's actually endearing and hilarious. He makes no pretense at all that he's an objective observer.

Santo is much better than Boyer or Cey. He's the best 3B not in the Hall. He's a borderline case and I could go either way on him. Someone has to be the best 3B not in the Hall.

Very well put as both a broadcaster and as a player. I think you nailed it. I am a Cubs fan and he is too much of a homer as a broadcaster for me. But he wears his heart on his sleeve so he is loved.

Hope he makes the hall, but it is a bordeline case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He only played for 15 years. His peak weren't strong/long enough to get in.

I disagree:

Advanced Batting Statistics                             <---------ADJUSTED FOR SEASON-------------> <------------ADJUSTED FOR ALL TIME------------->AGE YEAR TEAM   PA  OUT  UEQR   EQA  EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR  WARP1   EQA  EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR  WARP2 WARP320 1960 CHI-N  382  267    42  .258   45   11   -1   -3  -16    0    1.0  .258   45   11   -1   -2  -17    0    1.1   1.121 1961 CHI-N  655  421    97  .290   95   42   22   15   -5    0    6.3  .290   95   42   23   20   -5    0    6.7   6.922 1962 CHI-N  679  476    67  .237   65    5  -17   33   11    0    4.2  .233   62    2  -20   35    9    0    4.1   4.1[b]23 1963 CHI-N  687  458   103  .301  113   55   34   40   15    0   10.5  .297  110   52   31   40   14    0   10.1  10.124 1964 CHI-N  686  417   131  .339  140   87   68   44   19    0   14.1  .339  139   86   67   43   19    0   14.0  14.025 1965 CHI-N  704  439   119  .321  128   72   52   33   10    0   11.5  .319  126   71   51   33   10    0   11.3  11.226 1966 CHI-N  672  401   124  .337  133   82   63   43   19    0   13.6  .337  133   82   63   42   20    0   13.4  13.427 1967 CHI-N  697  427   122  .330  134   80   60   49   25    0   14.0  .328  132   77   58   49   25    0   13.8  13.828 1968 CHI-N  682  445    92  .301  110   54   34   42   17    0   10.5  .298  108   51   31   40   16    0   10.1  10.0[/b]29 1969 CHI-N  687  426   110  .305  109   55   36    6  -16    0    6.8  .299  104   50   31    5  -18    0    6.1   6.130 1970 CHI-N  655  414    98  .281   87   34   15   25    6    0    6.6  .278   84   32   13   28    5    0    6.6   6.631 1971 CHI-N  642  415    84  .281   86   34   15   14   -5    0    5.3  .275   82   29   11   15   -7    0    4.9   4.932 1972 CHI-N  547  338    88  .310   90   47   32   20    2    0    7.4  .305   87   44   28   19    0    0    6.9   7.133 1973 CHI-N  604  396    79  .277   80   30   12   -2  -21    0    3.1  .272   76   26    8   -2  -23    0    2.7   2.734 1974 CHI-A  417  297    30  .220   34   -4  -18   11   -1    0     .7  .223   35   -3  -16   10   -2    0     .7    .7 .3040       9396 6037  1387  .297 1450  684  409  370   60    0  115.5  .294 1418  652  378  375   45    0  112.6 112.8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree:
Advanced Batting Statistics                             <---------ADJUSTED FOR SEASON-------------> <------------ADJUSTED FOR ALL TIME------------->AGE YEAR TEAM   PA  OUT  UEQR   EQA  EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR  WARP1   EQA  EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR  WARP2 WARP320 1960 CHI-N  382  267    42  .258   45   11   -1   -3  -16    0    1.0  .258   45   11   -1   -2  -17    0    1.1   1.121 1961 CHI-N  655  421    97  .290   95   42   22   15   -5    0    6.3  .290   95   42   23   20   -5    0    6.7   6.922 1962 CHI-N  679  476    67  .237   65    5  -17   33   11    0    4.2  .233   62    2  -20   35    9    0    4.1   4.1[b]23 1963 CHI-N  687  458   103  .301  113   55   34   40   15    0   10.5  .297  110   52   31   40   14    0   10.1  10.124 1964 CHI-N  686  417   131  .339  140   87   68   44   19    0   14.1  .339  139   86   67   43   19    0   14.0  14.025 1965 CHI-N  704  439   119  .321  128   72   52   33   10    0   11.5  .319  126   71   51   33   10    0   11.3  11.226 1966 CHI-N  672  401   124  .337  133   82   63   43   19    0   13.6  .337  133   82   63   42   20    0   13.4  13.427 1967 CHI-N  697  427   122  .330  134   80   60   49   25    0   14.0  .328  132   77   58   49   25    0   13.8  13.828 1968 CHI-N  682  445    92  .301  110   54   34   42   17    0   10.5  .298  108   51   31   40   16    0   10.1  10.0[/b]29 1969 CHI-N  687  426   110  .305  109   55   36    6  -16    0    6.8  .299  104   50   31    5  -18    0    6.1   6.130 1970 CHI-N  655  414    98  .281   87   34   15   25    6    0    6.6  .278   84   32   13   28    5    0    6.6   6.631 1971 CHI-N  642  415    84  .281   86   34   15   14   -5    0    5.3  .275   82   29   11   15   -7    0    4.9   4.932 1972 CHI-N  547  338    88  .310   90   47   32   20    2    0    7.4  .305   87   44   28   19    0    0    6.9   7.133 1973 CHI-N  604  396    79  .277   80   30   12   -2  -21    0    3.1  .272   76   26    8   -2  -23    0    2.7   2.734 1974 CHI-A  417  297    30  .220   34   -4  -18   11   -1    0     .7  .223   35   -3  -16   10   -2    0     .7    .7 .3040       9396 6037  1387  .297 1450  684  409  370   60    0  115.5  .294 1418  652  378  375   45    0  112.6 112.8

You are a lot more knowledgeable about stats than me.

I was just looking at OPS+. He had 164, 146, 161, and 153. Then at the age of 34 completely dropped off the planet. I don't know if it was health reasons or what since I wasn't born until '86. I don't even know the guy to tell you the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Shawn Green belong in? They're very similar players, and that could give you a non biased POV.

Only difference being Santo played 3rd and Shawn Greene played the outfield... which is a HUGE difference.

Here's my take. The guy has put up fringe numbers for a general position player, I can't deny it. However, compared to other 3rd baseman he stands tall among the crowd. On top of that, I think the diabetes thing SHOULD affect his placement in the HoF. I don't know if people understand how diabetes was handled in Santo's day. He didn't even have the capabilities of checking his blood glucose, he controlled it on gut feeling alone most of his life. On top of that, it severely limited his years in the game and his accumulated numbers like HRs and RBIs would be much more impressive if he had even 3 more seasons.

I would vote for him if I was on the committee. It sounds like he has a good shot this year with the way they restructured the veterans committee process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only difference being Santo played 3rd and Shawn Greene played the outfield... which is a HUGE difference. Here's my take. The guy has put up fringe numbers for a general position player, I can't deny it. However, compared to other 3rd baseman he stands tall among the crowd.

I agree. His main problem is that he was a contemporary of Brooks, which makes him look kinda ordinary by comparison in terms of both D and of peak value. For example, Brooks not only won an MVP, he was in the Top-3 a total of 4 different years. Santo never was. So, their impact on the game and their perceived value at the time was way different.

On top of that, I think the diabetes thing SHOULD affect his placement in the HoF. I don't know if people understand how diabetes was handled in Santo's day. He didn't even have the capabilities of checking his blood glucose, he controlled it on gut feeling alone most of his life. On top of that, it severely limited his years in the game and his accumulated numbers like HRs and RBIs would be much more impressive if he had even 3 more seasons.

I don't see how diabetes should have anything to do with it at all, except maybe for the "shorter career" part. I can see that, but the rest of it shouldn't matter. It's not the Medical Condition HOF, it's the Baseball HOF.

I would vote for him if I was on the committee. It sounds like he has a good shot this year with the way they restructured the veterans committee process.

I think it would be fine if he got in. But I don't think it's a crime if he doesn't. It's one of those iffy things. There are guys in there who deserve it less than him, but that's no reason to do it, otherwise you could say anybody decent should get in. But I can see how Cubs fans would make a stink about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is so much of a homer as an announcer that it's actually endearing and hilarious. He makes no pretense at all that he's an objective observer.

It might be "endearing" for an Orioles fan. I can assure you that it's not for a Cardinals fan who happens to be listening to a Cubs broadcast. Based on the comments by "Scarey", it sounds as though it's not that endearing for all Cubs fans either.

In a sense, Santo is like Mike Shannon, the Cardinals broadcaster and former 3rd baseman. I don't regard Shannon as a "good" broadcaster at all. However, he is very beloved by Cardinals fans and there is a collection of "Shannonisms" very similar to those compiled for Yogi Berra.

Santo is much better than Boyer or Cey. He's the best 3B not in the Hall. He's a borderline case and I could go either way on him. Someone has to be the best 3B not in the Hall.

I disagree that Santo is "much better" than Boyer or Cey. They have similar length careers (15 years) and very similar offensive statistics. In fact, Boyer is the 2nd most comparable player to Santo statistically, according to B-R. Both Santo and Boyer had 5 gold gloves, indicating that both were highly regarded defensively by their peers. (Cey had none.) Santo had 9 all star selections, compared to 7 for Boyer. Boyer was MVP in 1964, with 6th and 7th being his next best finishes, while Santo's highest finishes were 4th once and 5th once.

Santo has 60 more career home runs, which could easily be attributed to all those home games in Wrigley with the wind blowing out, and more doubles than Boyer. Their triples were nearly equal, but Boyer had three times as many stolen bases. Santo's career BA is 10 points lower than Boyer's, while his career OBP is 13 points higher. Santo's career SLG is 2 points higher. Santo has a career OPS+ that is 9 points higher than Boyer's, which is why I said that Santo's credentials are a little better, but it's not an overwhelming difference. You can make a statistical case that Santo deserves selection more, but not enough of a case to overwhelm the intangibles.

Boyer had key home runs in games 4 and 7 of the 1964 world series; Santo has no post season record. It's not necessarily Santo's fault the Cubs of his era were so bad, but post season accomplishments are rightfully included in any consideration of HOF worthiness.

Ken's brother, Clete, was often compared with Brooks Robinson on defensive ability at 3rd base. Clete won only 1 gold glove over his career, and that with Atlanta after he moved to the NL, but he might have won a half dozen or more if his career hadn't paralleled Brooksie's. Those who watched both brothers play claimed that Ken was a better 3rd baseman than Clete. I don't really think there's anyone who can make an authoritative claim that Santo was better defensively than Ken Boyer. They both were superior 3rd basemen and offensive leaders on their respective teams. Santo got a little more favorable publicity due to being in Chicago, because his career began 5 years later when baseball was getting more national TV coverage, and because of his situation with diabetes, but it's not clear at all that Santo was the superior player.

I would argue that the relative shortness of the careers of Santo, Boyer, and Cey also detracts from their HOF credentials. The "consensus" HOFers often had careers of 20 years or more, with their career stats being "watered down" by the additional years tacked onto the end of their careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lean towards letting Santo in. He played his peak in the dead ball era on some really awful teams. He would look much better if not for that.

The Ken Boyer comp is pretty good until you realize Boyer's peak was about 7 or 8 years earlier in a better offensive era, on generally better teams (though the Cards did have some clunkers in there).

The better comp is Dale Murphy, who is borderline as an outfielder. As a third baseman with similar numbers, Santo should be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be fine if he got in. But I don't think it's a crime if he doesn't. It's one of those iffy things. There are guys in there who deserve it less than him, but that's no reason to do it, otherwise you could say anybody decent should get in. But I can see how Cubs fans would make a stink about it.

In complete objectivity, I can't disagree with this. In Cubjectivity though I have to say... c'mon!

By the way, thanks for all the opinions people. It's appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • Posts

    • I don't even want my mind to go there. I don't think I can endure another cheap ownership and be a fan. For now I'm going to keep the faith that they won't be. It could be Elias being too conservative AGAIN then lack of commitment from ownership if they aren't very active in FA again 
    • I have to laugh how different baseball is from football. Here Elias is saying he is in the information gathering stage when FA has already started and then you have football where you had Rex Ryan at Bart Scott's front door at the stroke of midnight in the start of football FA years ago. Crazy how the 2 sports works. 
    • Pinto seems to be Eflin’s guy with McCann not coming back. For a team with budget constraints, is it really worth it pay McCann more than the league min?  I say no.  Also, it would be harder to get rid of McCann mid season in the clubhouse when we believe Basallo is ready. 
    • I find Elias's comments when asked about Coloumbe kind of troubling. Sounds like business as usual for the Orioles. Translation: don't expect much, we're cheapskates ... "I think any time you look at option decisions, you're looking at price point on a salary and you're looking at putting together a budget and a plan for the offseason that encompasses the entirety of your roster, and in particular the bullpen. And then, ultimately, it comes down to a fit and your talent evaluation, and the fit that you see going forward. We had hard decisions in both directions with these option decisions. Sometimes, you make a decision not to kick off your offseason with exercising an option, but you remain in position to stay in touch with a really good player, and Danny's somebody who has done a ton for us, been enormously successful the past couple of years and we really enjoyed having him, and he's somebody that we're going to want to continue talking to throughout the free agency, as long as that lasts. But I'm sure he's going to have a lot of good opportunities, and we'll see where it goes"
    • I would have  took Preston Smith for a 7th.  Damn like the Steelers really needed him. I'm just not feeling a SB at all. This defense just isn't going to get it done in a big game. Thanks DeCosta for taking another year off of Lamar"s chances. A 4th for Ojulari wouldn't had been a bad deal. 
    • Ok but I think many Orioles fans and the Orioles themselves would want the less years and not care so much about the  yearly salary especially with pitchers.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...