ARTICLE: Hall of Fame Trial - Ron Santo

[Brian the Automator]

www.brewerfan.net/ViewArt...icleId=214

 

splitterfj takes a look into Ron Santo's career and his hall of fame credentials. Discussion of the article is definately encouraged.

 

Vote Here!

[gregmag]

The problem I have with Todd's article is that it ignores the poor offensive context in which Santo played. His career centered right around the lowest run environment since the dead ball era.

 

As such, this is a case in which OPS+ can be especially telling. Santo's career OPS+ is 125. For comparison, Pie Traynor is at 107; Brooks Robinson is at 104; Paul Molitor is at 122. Matthews (143), Brett (135), Schmidt (147), Home Run Baker (135), and Wade Boggs (130) are higher, but that's about it; Santo sits right between the first and second tier of 3Bs who are already in the Hall of Fame.

 

Put together the fact that he ranks safely within the top 10 hitters at his position and his excellent defense at a key position, which Todd's article documents, and you have a Hall of Famer. Todd's right that Santo didn't last long, but he's also right that Santo was durable while he lasted. He has my vote.

 

Greg.

[splitterpfj]

Hi Greg-

 

Of the players I compared Santo to, I think he compares best to Brooks Robinson. To some, it may not appear that way, because Brooks played forever, but on a per season basis, take a look at this..........

 

S Runs Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB AVE OPS

13.8 82 163 26 5 25 96 3 .277 .826 Santo

17.8 68 159 26 3 14 75 1 .267 .723 Robinson

 

The one obvious edge Brooks has, is the four extra seasons played, otherwise Santo looks great in the comparison.

 

Third base is a tough one, Robinson is really the only Hall of Famer from Santo's era. I like Santo, I'm just not convinced, so I haven't voted yet............Santo guys, sell me.

[bbrauch2000]

I dont like the argument that playing in a time where there werent other great third baseman should help Santo.

 

He's been a no for years and he should stay that way

[Brian the Automator]

In my opinion, if you say yes to Santo, you've instantly added a precedent for a TON of players to be in the hall and cheapened.

 

A well above average player and a fixture in Chicago, but not a HOFer.

[WV Brew]

Santo's numbers are inflated by playing in a vastly superior offensive park relative to all other parks at the time except Fenway. Memorial Stadium was certainly a total pitcher's park.

[gregmag]

Brian, I'm curious -- whom do you mean? Bill James has Santo as the sixth-best 3B ever, right ahead of Molitor and Robinson, way ahead of Pie Traynor. His numbers (OPS+ does take park factors into account, as well as era) mark him as a little bit better hitter than Andre Dawson and Tony Perez, a little bit worse hitter than Jim Rice and Dave Winfield, right in that tight group -- but Santo was a gold glove third baseman, giving him much more defensive value than any of those guys.

 

I think we're a little bit spoiled by the recent memory of arguably the two greatest 3Bs ever, Mike Schmidt (no argument) and George Brett. Those guys shouldn't keep Santo out of the Hall any more than Hank Aaron and Willie Mays should have kept Dave Winfield out of the Hall. Yes, there have been better players than Santo -- but not a lot, and some players worse than Santo are deserving Hall-of-Famers. So how does letting Santo in lower the Hall's standards?

 

Also, is there some Cub hate skewing this discussion? I didn't live in Milwaukee long enough to truly hate the Cubs; the Brewers were in the AL, and the Cubs were just that bumbling team I got to watch on TV a lot. So maybe I'm not in the proper spirit.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

Greg.

[RU Rah Rah]

Quote:

---

Also, is there some Cub hate skewing this discussion?

---

 

Not so much for me. I simply think he falls a little short. (That is a "no.")

[clancyphile]

Yeah... but looking at the era (back when the mound was still "high" and when Bob Gibson posted a 1.12 ERA one season), I'm not so sure it would cheapen him.

 

In this case, OPS+ points to someone who did well when compared to his peers at the hot corner. People will argue that including McGwire and Bonds into the Hall of Fame will "cheapen" it because of BALCO. Others will argue the same when pitchers come up for the Hall from this era, because their numbers will not be as good as those from past eras.

[pogokat]

I think santo was a fantastic ball player...and is probably the best player not in the hall right now...

 

He shoulda been a superstat...and it's not his fault that he wasn't treated like one....3b just hasn't been an overly offensive position over the years, and yet santo was a great affensive player...

 

he has a much better case than Simmons or Andre Dawson...

 

I emphatically vote yes...

[brettac1]

He's a slam dunk for me, and I posted a similar thing a couple months back that I wish hadn't fallen off the board. Santo was a terrific player, who was outstanding with the glove (better than Brooks Robinson, who couldn't hit much better than average but had more attention on him, according to things like Fielding Runs and Range Factor), and hit like a corner OF at a more demanding position. Maybe his over the top persona as a broadcaster hurts him a little, but I don't think that should be used either way. It would really be a shame if he weren't inducted into the Hall.

[huntsvillefan]

I just want to check - are you saying that Santo was better defensively than Brooks Robinson and if so why?

On the main question this seems like another slam dunk, Santo was better offensively than most of the 3B's already in the Hall and its pretty much an under represented position.

Unless we want to start a new higher standard its hard to see why he is out.

[colbyjack]

In my opinion, if you say yes to Santo, you've instantly added a precedent for a TON of players to be in the hall and cheapened.

 

A well above average player and a fixture in Chicago, but not a HOFer.

 

Agreed. Santo isn't HOF worthy.

[Fike85]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Santo a shameless when it comes to trying to get pity for the fact that he is not in the HOF?

[bando1234]

This was a hard one for me. First I have to take him being a Cub out of the equation. Thats hard to do in it self. I never got to see him play so all Im going on are stats & what I have read about him.

 

Unfortunatly he had a shorter career than what he probally should have (due to being dieabetic I assume). If healthy he could have consivelby had 2700 hits 400 hr's & 1500 RBi's if not more. I think those numbers would have put him in no problem. But do to no fault of his own he did not reach those numbers. He really wasnt dominant as Kirby Puckett was even though his career was cut short also.The problem is he did many things well but did not dominate at any one of them. People look at Boggs & can say he always his for a high avg or look at Ozzie Smith & say his defense was awsome. With Santo you cant pick out any one thing.He's probally the best at 3rd to be eligable but not to be in(although someone has to be that person).

 

In the end I give him the nod to get in although that being said Ken Boyer should go in at the same time. Both of their stats are very similar & they both won 5 gold gloves.

 

Maybe they should have tiers to the Hall.Tier 3(guys on bubble such as Santo & Boyer)Tier 2 (a solid player such s B Robinson or Boggs) Tier 1(the elite such as Brett & Schmidt). Just an Idea.

[gregmag]

Brian and Patrick, I want to hear more. Sorry, guys -- you're too good to get away with conclusory statements about a candidate whom a lot of smart people (and I, but that's nothing) take seriously. Why does he come up short for you? How would his selection debase the Hall's standards, and what undeserving players are you concerned would have to follow him in?

 

Greg.

[RobertR]

I'd vote Santo in, although I don't feel that strongly about it.

 

My reasoning basically falls along these lines.

 

Third basemen are underrepresented in the Hall, I believe they have the fewest representatives.

 

Santo is clearly the most qualified of the eligible third base candidates.

 

Ergo: Santo deserves to be in the Hall.

 

That same reasoning is why I'm reluctant to vote for first basemen and corner outfielders unless I think they did something special or unique.

 

Robert

[colbyjack]

Greg, for me I don't like looking at OPS+ or things like that when trying to figure out whether or not a player is HOF worthy. I have very high standards when it comes to whom I believe should or shouldn't be in the Hall, and if players haven't reached certain milestones, they shouldn't be elected in. Santo really hasn't reached any milestones, and to me falls under the very good but not good enough category. As soon as Santo goes in, I have to change my opinion for players like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, players that were already discussed and players that are very good, but again, not good enough. In my mind, letting Santo in opens the door for those two players as well.

 

And by milestones I'm talking overall career statistics like 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, stuff like that. Ryne Sandberg is the all-time leader in home runs for a second baseman, which gets him in, even though I felt he wasn't necessarily a no-brainer first ballot HOFer. I agree that the standards are probably too high for 3B, and it is going to be extremely hard for someone to match the milestones that players like Schmidt, Matthews and Brett have set. Boggs got in given his hitting prowess, as did Molitor, who added the added dimension of speed and overall versatility. Molitor and Boggs both attained certain statistical milestones such as hits, stolen bases, etc.

 

People have made a very strong argument for him though, but it still hasn't and won't change my mind.

[splitterpfj]

When I looked over the thirdbasemen in the hall, I was surprised at how few there are. I also noticed several Hall members played significant portions of their career there, but were not able to do it for the long haul...........Molitor, Killebrew, Rose, Tony Perez.

 

That tells me this position is a really tough one, and also made me think the standards here may be a bit high. Santo did a lot of things very well, perhaps as the total package you could take him, there just isn't the one big thing that gets him in.

 

Checking these numbers gave me a newfound appreciation for Eddie Mathews, Mike Schmidt, George Brett and Wade Boggs. Those guys put up fantastic numbers, which look absolutely eye-popping good for the position they played. Comparing Santo to those four does not help his case, I do think he compares well to Brooks Robinson though, which is probably the best way to consider him, since Brooks is the only guy in who played the same position at the same time.

[huntsvillefan]

Just a note really, many people have mentioned the shortness of his career, but I think he actually ranks 8th in games actually played at 3B, which underlines just how tough a position it is.

I'm not sure that its totally fair to compare him to Robinson as (rightly or wrongly, its all we have to go on) consensus at the time was that Robinson was the best defensive 3B ever and also of outstanding character. Both of those attributes are in the HOF criteria and they obviously played a bigger part in his selection than his prowess with the bat did.

[brettac1]

Here's a great article by Cyril Morong on Santo. He references Palmer's "Fielding Runs", which was the metric I referred to to say that Santo was better than Brooks Robinson.

 

LINK

 

But Palmer ranks Santo 4th all-time in a stat called fielding runs, with 168 (behind Schmidt, Buddy Bell and Clete Boyer). That means that Santo prevented 164 more runs that an average fielding third baseman would have over his career. So Santo is either a little better than average or great in fielding.

[huntsvillefan]

Morong spends a lot of that article quoting Bill James, so we may as well include this Bill James quote in the discussion too, "I will agree that Santo was not a brilliant defensive third baseman. Had Brooks Robinson or Clete Boyer been in the national league, Santo's Gold gloves would have been few and far between."

I remember reading a book called player's choice, where ex players had been circulated and asked for their views on the best in each category. Not very scientific, but I remember being impressed that Brooks Robinson as best defensive 3B was one of the few categories where there was no real argument or difference of opinion.

I just quoted James' view and I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of informed commentators who actually saw them both play agree with him.

I even seem to recall a recent post of yours that allowed for a degree of questionability about most defensive stats.

I think there are a lot of reasons why Santos should be in the HOF, but claiming he had superior D to Robinson is likely to discredit his claim rather than add to it in most people's eyes IMO.

[brettac1]

I even seem to recall a recent post of yours that allowed for a degree of questionability about most defensive stats.

 

I certainly do question them, but I think that Santo and Robinson were likely near equals defensively by looking at the various measures. My whole beef is that Robinson got much more face time, thus won a bunch of Gold Gloves based on reputation, even when he was quite poor. He led the league in Palmer's FR one time - with 32 in 1967. Santo also led the league once with 31 in 1967. Santo also had 74 more for his career. Santo led the league in Palmer's "Range" seven times, Robinson twice. Santo's career mark is also better than Robinson's in this.

[huntsvillefan]

My whole beef is that Robinson got much more face time, thus won a bunch of Gold Gloves based on reputation, even when he was quite poor

 

We're obviously going to disagree on this and short of arguing the nitty gritty of Palmer's stat method, there is impasse.

I am curious though that you think a guy as respected in the stat community as Bill James who actually saw them both play, could be fooled by 'face time'

[brettac1]

I am curious though that you think a guy as respected in the stat community as Bill James who actually saw them both play, could be fooled by 'face time'

 

I don't take everything James says as gospel, or anything. I think Pete Palmer is every bit as respected as James within the stats "community", if not moreso. It's not like I think Santo was head and shoulders above Robinson defensively, but that they are equals. He was head and shoulders above with the bat, and I think all-in-all a superior player.

 

EDIT: This isn't to say that Robinson doesn't belong in the Hall.