MVN - a Chicago Cubs blog
The Cub Reporter
Ron Santo Snubbed
Three votes closer, but still five votes short, the Veterans Committee once again pitched a shut out and left our pal Ron on the curbside, their stranglehold on their elite membership firmly in place. Santo received 69.5% of the vote and he did lead all vote-getters, unfortunately 75% is required for entrance.
We’ll do it again in two years….
- Trans - in the meantime, for new visitors to TCR, we recommend that you check out this series of articles on Santo’s Hall of Fame merits.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, February 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pm and is filed under Ron Santo, Hall of Fame.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
THE AUTHOR
RECENT ARTICLES BY DIVISION RIVALS
ARCHIVE
SPONSORS
Online Seats
Chicago Cubs Tickets Chicago Bears Tickets
Ticket Specialists
Coast to Coast Tickets
Chicago Cubs Baseball Tickets Buy Baseball MLB Tickets Chicago Event Tickets Chicago Bears Football Tickets NASCAR Tickets Sports Tickets
Ticket Specialists
Tickets4U
Chicago Cubs Tickets 2005 World Series Chicago Bears Football Chicago Concerts
Great Seats
Cubs Tickets White Sox Baseball Tickets Tickets to Chicago Bears Final Four Tickets Green Bay Packers Tickets Chicago Ticket Broker
114 Responses to “Ron Santo Snubbed”
February 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Guy LeDouche?
February 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
God, just LOOK at what I’ve started. There goes the neighborhood.
Seriously, though. Santo’s a hall of famer in my book. The Hall of Fame already is tainted by the number of undeserving players who were brought in, way back when, primarily for their association with true hall of famers. Put another way, the Hall of Fame is an important honor only because people have made it out to be an important honor. It really isn’t the best, or even a particularly good, way of recognizing the game’s great players.
Nuts.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“mark” rolled one out in a previous thread, too…fun stuff.
im quite happy having no opinion on the santo thing cuz i can see both sides of the argument, but like manny im not really looking forward to hearing about santo and the hall for the next couple+ years.
then again im ready to see bonds go just to not hear about him anymore even though i could care less if he breaks every record out there. MLB let this whole “supplement” thing go for way too many years gleefully ignoring it and promoting their supermen who are just as manly as football players…thanks MLB, enjoy the products of your product.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
not trying to hijack the thread…but wow…talk about timing…
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor.....85646.html
“DA in Albany, N.Y., raids Fla. steroids center
Yearlong investigation of Internet drug sales may expose use by pro athletes”
g.matthews jr. named as a customer…
February 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
All right, let’s have names and numbers of the douche baggers that continually shut out not just Santo, but others (Hawk) as well. This is getting old. I want to hear their reasons.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I’m pretty sure Joe Morgan is one of those who leaves Santo off of his ballot…shouldn’t really surprise anyone as I don’t think he votes for anyone who didn’t play for the Reds, Giants or A’s…..or anyone who once played 2B for that matter.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Joe Morgan is a guy you’d suspect as a nay-sayer, but I seem to recall he’s voiced his support of Santo, before.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Sorry to hear, Ronnie.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Ronnie needs to hire Karl Rove. He’s proven he can get anybody elected. The fact that Ronnie unconditionally deserves it would make it that much easier. Ohh, and Mike Schmidt, be watching over your shoulder.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Let me get this straight. Ron Santo was a very good player, not a great player. Ron Santo was also a jerk who was universally reviled by his teammates, manager, umpires and opponents during his playing career. Ron Santo was on the BBWOA ballot for 15 YEARS. Ron Santo has been on the Veterans Committee ballot 3 times.
What’s not to get? Ron Santo isn’t a Hall of Famer. He can parade around like a run over puppy dog and shamefully ask for the sympathy vote all he wants.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Bruce Miles
http://www.dailyherald.com/spo.....?id=285713
February 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
as classy as Manny, Silent Towel….
and you still haven’t presented anything resembling a coherent argument on this…..
there are plenty of articles out there placing Santo’s career in historical perspective and all come to the same conclusion that he’s more than deserving than half the players in the Hall, all the naysayers have nothing more than “well he hasn’t been voted in yet, he must not deserve it”.
Talk about compounding one mistake with another…
February 27th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
You might be right Trans, although I’m hearing a certain Chicago baseball reporter approached Morgan today and had a heated discussion on Santo falling short. Though it might just be in regard to Morgan’s statement today…
Joe Morgan said “it was unfair to criticize the Veterans’ Committee for not voting anyone in because “the writers voted on these guys 15 years without any of them being elected.”
February 27th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Mike Schmidt is a big outspoken guy who refuses to vote anyone in. His reasoning is that if they didnt make it before the vote got to him. They obviously didnt deserve his vote either.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I recall Morgan supporting Santo as well at least in the press…
February 27th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
If the Recognized Authorities all agree, then It Must Be True.
the trick is in creating a different, competing set of Recognized Authorities. That’s what the blogosphere, the baseball historians, and the sabremetricians are in the process of doing. We’re already seeing some of the fruits of this competiting source of authority in the H o F results of recent years. The Veterans Committee, far more insulated from this new source of expertise, is going to be the last area to change, if ever.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Schmidt supposedly changed his tune though sometime last year, I don’t have the link though…
February 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Rob G.:
“as classy as Manny, Silent Towel….”
Hey, go in the corner of your office and cry in your Old Style if you feel bad for Ronnie. Just cause I don’t agree with it doesn’t mean I don’t have class. What a fucking baby!!!!
February 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Bottom line, Ron Santo played on bad ballclubs and a 1969 ballclub that imploded in historic fashion. Santo didn’t play in a single playoff game during his career. Ernie Banks, Billy Williams and Fergie Jenkins had the type of career success that overwhelmed this glaring negative on their resume. Ron Santo did not. He was a very good player, not a great player.
And I’ll say this again. Ask 100 baseball experts from back in the day who they’d rather have — Brooks Robinson or Ron Santo — and I’m quite certain 100 of them would pick Brooks.
Those are the “facts” by which I form my basis of opinion.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
You stay classy, manny….
February 27th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
“Just cause I don’t agree with it doesn’t mean I don’t have class. What a fucking baby!!!!”
Bless you, Manny; Even when you and I disagree, you manage to do so with good humor! Thanks for the heartly LOL!!!
February 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Rob G.:
“You stay classy, manny….”
Just trying to keep up with you man…Need a tissue????
February 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“Ask 100 baseball experts from back in the day who they’d rather have — Brooks Robinson or Ron Santo — and I’m quite certain 100 of them would pick Brooks.”
Impressive feat, basing facts upon reading the minds of 100 anonymous baseball experts. That’s better facts than what I got. Can you tell me what they recommend for the fall fashions?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
“And I’ll say this again. Ask 100 baseball experts from back in the day who they’d rather have — Brooks Robinson or Ron Santo — and I’m quite certain 100 of them would pick Brooks.”
This is a “fact”? Well I guess you used quotation marks…
February 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
aaronb: schmidt has made some more concilliatory noises, lately:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns
“More guys should get to experience the joy while they’re alive. For sure, we can’t keep Kaat out any longer and I hope the writers don’t do it to Smith, the past all-time saves leader. They are welcome at my table Sunday night.”
“And consider Santo, Murphy, Herzog, and Harvey, and a vacant chair for Mauch, Hodges and Buck O’Neil (who by the way was just honored by President Bush as an American hero).”
February 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Ask 100 baseball experts who they would rather have in their prime: Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig.
Since all 100 would say Babe Ruth, therefore, Gehrig does not belong in the hall. What a crock.
Better yet, Clemens or Maddux. Clearly, Maddux must not be allowed in.
This is fun, who else wants to play?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
“Just trying to keep up with you man…Need a tissue????”
Um no, I’m just pointing out a baseball injustice. I’ll live another day….
you seem far more riled up about this than me, so much so that you’ve stooped to revisionist history….
February 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
WTF more do you people want?!? Santo was on the BBWOA ballot 15 FRIGGIN TIMES !!! And he’s been on the Veterans Committee ballot 3 TIMES!!! That makes 18 TIMES he’s been DENIED entrance into the Hall of Fame.
The man had a very fine career and is beloved figure nationally. But that doesn’t make him a Hall of Famer. As the people closest to the game attested to 18 friggin times.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
it’s BBWAA and we’ve already pointed out how ridiculous your argument is, repeating it umpteen times doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Bah, Rob. Quantity, Quality, same difference. Just substitute a few letters.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“WTF more do you people want?!?”
people probably want you to quit labeling your opinions as facts, dismissing other people’s facts as not mattering or countering them with your opinion as if that stands up to a fact, and continuing to counter pointed questions asking for facts with anything but facts pertaining to what was asked.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
si.com
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....thru.0791/
Morgan very defensive, although he says he voted for 10 players.
“We are disappointed that no one has been elected in the three voting cycles,” Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said. “We will be evaluating this process and its trends at our next meeting, which is March 13, and discussing whether there should be any changes.”
February 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
But that doesn’t make him a Hall of Famer.
ST…are you capable of actually making an argument (other than he “had his chance” and was “on bad teams”) to support your assertion? Or do you just like to repeat your opinion over and over?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
well Morgan has a point…
I think the current Vet Commitee is a bad idea, but it’s not because they haven’t voted anyone in, it’s just a silly group to entrust this responsibility with…
February 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Somebody please explain why they expect the Veterans Committee to EVER elect a modern day ballplayer. Players like Santo had 15 opportunities to be elected on the BBWOA ballot. The VC should be focused on evaluating the Hall credentials of managers, umpires and baseball executives.
18 times is 18 times. And 3 of those times have been by the greatest living collection of baseball players on the planet. With all due respect, I’ll defer to the living Hall of Famers a whole heck of a lot more than I will the hometown fans, especially the hometown fans who have been victim of a shameful self-publicity campaign by the retired player in question.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
“WTF more do you people want?!?”
I want you to admit you are not now nor never have been a Cubs fan. Other than September of 1969 (if then), did you even see Santo play??
Be honest now, Troll…. I mean Towel.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Rob G.:
“you seem far more riled up about this than me,”
I think you better go back and read the thread, all I said was: “Oh god, 2 more years of hearing Santo complain about not getting in….”(which crunch also said). And you basically called me (not crunch from what I recall) classless. Sorry you are upset about Santo not getting in. I will drop talking about him and me not thinking he should get in as I don’t want to upset you further.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“…it’s just a silly group to entrust this responsibility with…”
You’re kidding, right? You mean to tell me that guys like — for example — Mike Schmidt, Robin Yount, George Brett, Ryne Sandberg, Billy Williams, Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer is a “silly group” to be evaluating Hall of Fame credentials?!? Good Lord. That’s like saying Van Gogh wasn’t qualified to offer opinion on the work of Michael Angelo.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
43 years old. Been a diehard Cub fan since 1977. I’ve attended several hundred games at Wrigley over the past 30 Years. In the seats at Wrigley for 10-12 games on average per season the last few years.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
yeah, kicking a guy when he’s down is classless and crunch’s statement didn’t quite carry your tone nor does he quite have the history of idiotic statements that you have…..
that and you think a story about a guy fighting through diabetes his whole life and losing two legs is a glorified informercial, one that your accusing him of putting out on his own behalf (which of course he didn’t)
Yeah, so classless….
February 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Some “stats.” Baseball-Reference.com does a player similarity calculation. While this isn’t the end all, be all, it does provide solid comparison. The top ten players that Baseball-reference.com comes up with comparable to Ron Santo are:
1. Dale Murphy (875)
2. Ken Boyer (875)
3. Gary Gaetti (875)
4. Bobby Bonilla (868)
5. Brian Downing (866)
6. Graig Nettles (861)
7. Ruben Sierra (860)
8. Chili Davis (856)
9. Luis Gonzalez (855)
10. Robin Ventura (854)
None are in the Hall of Fame. Nor do any deserve to be.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
You mean to tell me that guys like … is a “silly group” to be evaluating Hall of Fame credentials?!? Good Lord.
Well…it is telling that very few talented athletes (meaning really talented, hall of fame caliber) make good coached or gms.
And further, ST, it is disingenuous to make an argument against Santo by saying that others already said no. Arguing for/against something based on what has happened is terrible logic (we can look at slavery, women’s suffrage, etc for other examples of such brilliant logic).
Do you have ANY stats to support you assertion that Santo does not belong in the HOF? How do you justify the fact that there are many athletes in the Baseball HOF that are worse than Santo, yet you claim that Santo was not good enough to be in the Hall?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
it’s a horrible comparision but at least your making an effort finally…
BR’s similarity scores are based on how close players career numbers are to each other, Santo’s career was cut short. There’s a bunch of very well-done analytical articles about Santo’s candidacy and they all say he deserves it. Many done by people with no affiliation to the Cubs or Santo’s “publicity” campaign.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
More stats. During Ron Santo’s 15 years on the BBWOA ballot, he only received MORE THAN 40% OF THE VOTE one time. During his first year on the ballot, he RECEIVED 15% OF THE VOTE.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
You’re kidding, right? You mean to tell me that guys like — for example — Mike Schmidt, Robin Yount, George Brett, Ryne Sandberg, Billy Williams, Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer is a “silly group” to be evaluating Hall of Fame credentials?!? Good Lord. That’s like saying Van Gogh wasn’t qualified to offer opinion on the work of Michael Angelo.
yeah, asking an exclusive group to elect new members into it’s group, which somewhat diminishes their elite status, isn’t a very good idea. Some of those guys may take it seriously, some don’t, some might not even know their own names right now, some hold petty grudges against Santo cause he clicked his heels even though his manager told him to keep doing it…
There’s a better way….
February 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Final stats. Ron Santo played in ZERO playoff games. ZERO.
In summation.
1. His numbers are very good, but not great.
2. He was considered a jerk by the majority of his teammates, managers, opponents and umpires throughout his playing career.
3. His player similarity peer group doesn’t include one Hall of Famer. And it doesn’t include Brooks Robinson either.
4. During his 15 years on the BBWOA ballot, he received greater than 40% of the vote only once.
5. Not once did his team make the playoffs. Not once.
The defense rests.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
“…which somewhat diminishes their elite status..”
Rob, the above quotation about says it all why Ron Santo has not been elected into the Hall of Fame in 18 tries.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
playoff games?
who cares…jose offerman is a great playoff hitter…give him a plaque.
if 1 person could send a team to the playoffs in spite of the 24 others then damn…he should be in the HOF already.
the problem seems to be your mixed bag of argument with a total 100% disregard and devaluing of anyone else’s facts or opinions.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
1. His numbers are very good, but not great.
Any actual numbers to back this up? I would like to see you compare Santo other 3b in the HOF…
2. He was considered a jerk…
And? What does this have to do with the Hall of Fame?
3. His player similarity peer group doesn’t include one Hall of Famer.
Rob already dealt with this - Santo’s career was cut short. Similar players are compared by looking at total numbers, meaning that those that last a long time will look better than they are when compared to those who have their careers cut short for a variety of reasons.
4. During his 15 years on the BBWOA ballot, he received greater than 40% of the vote only once.
That means absolutely nothing, as I have already pointed out. Justifying a wrong by referencing previous wrongs does not make a convincing argument .
5. Not once did his team make the playoffs. Not once.
So what? Last I heard baseball was a team sport.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
“….playoff games?
who cares…”
Thank you Crunch for amplifying a key point for why Ron Santo remains on the outside looking in at Cooperstown. If Ron Santo was such an elite player, then tell me why he never even sniffed the playoffs? Or why he crashed and burned after the All-Star break in 1969? Again, Ernie and Fergie and Billy had careers that overwhelmed the big negative of playing on bad ballclubs. Santo did not.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Michael Angelo, huh? True. Mr. Angelo is an art expert. Don’t forget Leo Nardo.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Brooks Robinson similarity scores…..
Rusty Staub
Buddy Bell
Robin Yount
Vada Pinson
Gary Gaetti
Steve Finley
Brian Downing
Julio Franco
Tony Perez
Craig Nettles
you got me, one HOF’er who was a shortstop/CF’er
February 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I thought the defense rested.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
sorry 2 HOF’ers, duh
February 27th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
So according to Dave, you and me and him are amply more qualified to decide who should, or should not, be in the Hall of Fame. As opposed to the baseball writers whose career has been to passionately track and dutifully report on the sport 24/7 for decades upon decades. And as opposed to the greatest living collection of retired professional baseball players on the planet.
Wow, do I feel POWERFUL.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Robin Yount and Tony Perez are in the Hall. Also, the fact that Brooks Robinson was an All-Star 16 times, won 17 Gold Gloves and played in 4 World Series has just a wee bit to do with his being elected into the Hall of Fame post haste in 1983.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
“then tell me why he never even sniffed the playoffs?”
cuz of the whole…if 1 man could make a team a playoff team in spite of the 24 others blah blah blah…
being great has little to do with the playoffs cuz it takes a team.
if you want a more realistic answer i could post the lineups and worse, the pitching staffs, of those teams to point to the issues with why santo never reached the playoffs…the point is it had little if anything to do with him cuz he kinda pulled his weight.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I’m not sure whether I think Santo belongs, but the more I read from the “Towel”, the more I think he belongs in. Why? Because the Towel’s arguments are idiotic (”dave” did an excellent job at explaining why), he’s a troll, and he doesn’t think Santo belongs. Therefore, Santo belongs.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
This really comes down to people who would defer to the authority of others, and those who would make up their own minds.
It’s not an argument that you can win, folks, by appealing to ST or MT’s sense of reason and analysis and logical thought. Time and again, they have shown that they would rather defer to the authority they see vested in others. That’s their perogative, although I happen to disagree with it. You’re trying to argue against deep-seated psychological habits, and you will never, ever win…..
February 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Santo played in 9 all star games and won 5 Golden Gloves drove in more than 93 runs for eight straight years and according to Bill James, Santo was a better hitter than other HOF inductees Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, Fred Lindstrom and Brooks Robinson.
The problem that Santo faces is that there are a number of HOF who went in during the 70’s and 80’s that didn’t deserve it. Santo is the whipping boy for the small Hall proponents.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
90s, too…phil rizzuto…PHIL RIZZUTO?!?!? give me a f’n break.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Who cares at this point! By the time the Veterans Comm. votes again that will be in another two years by then if Ron Santo is elected does anyone think he will be alive to enjoy it.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
“Who cares at this point! By the time the Veterans Comm. votes again that will be in another two years by then if Ron Santo is elected does anyone think he will be alive to enjoy it.”
I hope that was a reflection on how badly we all need baseball and not how far the class of this site has fallen.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
The best argument for Santo getting into the hall of fame are that his career numbers were not only diminished by a shortened career, but also because he played in one of the deadest offensive eras since Babe Ruth was a pitcher.
And the best argument to keep Santo from being voted into the hall of fame is that he hasn’t been voted into the hall of fame… which is about the dumbest argument i’ve ever heard. The second best argument is that he never played in a playoff game, a feat cheapened by the wild card round in recent years. Ridiculous.
I admit i’m biased, but that’s why i look at numbers unbiased by time period, home park, and opponent, and its also why i trust the analysis of those who don’t have any stake in this, either way. Both the numbers and the unbiased analyses point to the same conclusion: Ron Santo not only deserves to be in the hall of fame, he is arguably the most deserving person not to be voted in yet.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
I’ve provided plenty of arguments, and plenty of stats, to support my proposition. I haven’t once devolved into personal attack. Somehow if somebody doesn’t think Ron Santo should be in the Hall, then they’re deemed an asshole. Which, of course, is an attack. I guess that puts me in some mighty good company then. While I played baseball and have been a diehard fan of the Cubs for 30 years, I will ever pretend to have more perspective than former great players like Mike Schmidt, Johnny Bench, et al. To suggest they anti-Santo group of HOF’s has a prejudice against the man is an insult to them. The only person with a clear ax to grind is Joe Morgan. Who of course is a world class asshole.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I thought I posted this before but I guess I didn’t….
I think Ronnie doesn’t get in the hall cause I don’t think people like him very much. I just have a feeling.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
“While I played baseball and have been a diehard fan of the Cubs for 30 years, I will ever pretend to have more perspective than former great players like Mike Schmidt, Johnny Bench, et al.”
I’d like to submit this as the most serendipitously accurate typo of the day.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
posts 66 and 67 lol
February 27th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
this one is for Silent Towel..
“[t]he Ted Williams/Bob Gibson/Honus Wagner standard for Hall of Fame selection has never existed anywhere except in the imaginations of people who don’t know anything about the subject.”
guess the writer for a bonus point….
February 27th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Rob G.:
“nor does he quite have the history of idiotic statements that you have…..Yeah, so classless….”
That is your opinion of course, but I don’t think they are idiotic, just many times not the norm. But hey, not a big deal.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Rob, was that Rob Neyer?
February 27th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
well Neyer worked for him….
February 27th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
and on february 27th, t/c/r is in mid-season form.
play ball !!
*******
surely someone, sometime has studied santo’s stats, both batting and fielding (flawed though they might be) in comparison to all players in the hall, to see whether he belongs. numerically, doesn’t he belong?
*******
if being an asshole was a barrier to the hall, how many players in the hall would have to turn in their plaques and vacate cooperstown? cap anson, ty cobb, and tommy lasorda come immediately to mind; i doubt those are the only 3 assholes on the inside looking out.
*******
just my virtual 2 cents.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
i have the book that quote by james is with and it is honestly one of the worst written books ever as far as how hard it is to read…and its not because of its “weighty” subject matter.
i’ll give the guy props for working in the pre-internet era with these stat analysis through the 80s+, but damn…reading him can be exhausting…i pity his editors.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I couldn’t disagree more crunch, I enjoy Bill James’ writings far more than his statistical analysis. I’ve always enjoyed his style.
I pulled the quote from the Ron Santo pieces in the comments, thanks to whoever posted it originally….
Surely someone, sometime has studied santo’s stats, both batting and fielding (flawed though they might be) in comparison to all players in the hall, to see whether he belongs. numerically, doesn’t he belong?
Nah, we’ve all just been brainwashed by his publicity campaign and because he was a Cub. I can’t even remember what position he played…
February 27th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Isn’t Bill James also the one who came up with the “HOF Standard” in which 50 is the score for an average HOFer, and 100 is the max? Santo scored a 40.9. Below Ellis Burks and Moises Alou.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
the dirty secret of cubs HOF’rs to me is the last 1/2 of ernie banks’ career.
the 1st half is legend…especially for the time period.
and frank chance, i guess…but he did make contributions to the game and managing.
joe tinker…another vet commitee pick from the same year as chance is also suspect.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
I would expect some criticism of the VC tomorrow from a number of writers, and the statements of Jane Forbes Clark today seem to indicate that the HOF may be somewhat sensitive to the criticism.
I think we can all agree that, in theory, it is perfectly fine for the VC not to induct anyone if no one is out there who passes whatever the test is. However, in some sense, the HOF is in the business of inducting people. They would get a lot fewer visitors, probably, if inductions were not held every year, and thus they are under some pressure to induct people on a continuous basis. The HOF, in order to remain relevant, must continually walk a fine line between letting people in all the time and being perceived to be highly selective. They’ve been all over the place in terms of having consistent standards, and they’ve not infrequently changed the rules and processes for induction. What they seem to have done this time is replace a process that may have been too lenient with a process that is far more difficult than they imagined when they put it in place. The powers that be at the HOF may feel that the VC’s six-year, three-election cycle of electing nobody reflects poorly on the HOF, particularly if the outcry is loud enough.
As I’ve said before, I think Santo should go in, on the merits, and it would not require the HOF to lower any of their standards to let him in. I also think that Ken Boyer and Jim Kaat merit serious consideration, and the HOF would not need to lower their standards to let them in either.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
http://www.baseball-reference......#black_ink
educate yourself….
most of his little metrics are ways of looking at how the voters will look at the players, not how he personally feels or how he rates the players.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Re: HOF Standards.
As I’ve noted in another thread, those tests were devised by James to show what voters seem to have valued in the past. They were not intended to be a definitive measure of how deserving a player is for induction. They ignore more sophisticated analyses like OBP. They make no timeline adjustment. Look at the criteria sometime.
There are plenty of Hall of Famers with scores below 50. See Pie Traynor, Ryne Sandberg, Gary Carter, Enos Slaughter, Tony Perez, Bobby Doerr, Richie Ashburn, Hack Wilson, Roy Campanella, Kirby Puckett, Tony Lazzeri, Jackie Robinson and Orlando Cepeda, among others.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I read all the little definitions, but if James thinks Santo is such a clear cut HOFer, he should really look at some of his metrics as most have him not getting in.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I just think it is stupid to have any kind of “formula” to say this guy is a HOFer or not.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Brooks Robinson’s HOF Standards score is 34. He doesn’t appear on the Baseball-reference.com web page listing the top 200 batters.
Other HOF third basemen:
Jimmy Collins 25.9
George Kell 28.7
Fred Lindstrom 26.9
Home Run Baker 33.0
February 27th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I don’t think James uses the formulas to form his own judgments. I think the formulas were designed as a critique of the factors voters have used in the past.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
that leo nardo guy sure could paint.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
from espn.
I once asked James, now a senior baseball operations advisor for the Boston Red Sox and a guy worthy of his own HOF candidacy one day, if he thought Santo’s 15-year career had the necessary baseball gravitas. His reply: “To me it is clear and unequivocal that Santo is a Hall of Famer. & Putting guys like George Kell, Freddy Lindstrom, and Tony Lazzeri in the Hall of Fame while you leave out Ron Santo is like putting Dalmatians, Palominos, and Siamese in the zoo while you let the lions roam the streets.”
February 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
so silent towel, citing as a reason for exclusion the allegation that past teammates/opponents regarded santo as a ‘jerk’ isn’t getting personal? there is more empirical evidence in this thread of your assholeness than there is of anything else…on a related note - some say that santo’s heel clicking in ‘69 was deemed bush around the league, which rings plausible, but, even so, isn’t the amputation of those heels enough of a penalty to pay for that transgression?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Jay Jaffe at BP:
http://www.baseballprospectus......red/?p=232
February 27th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I’m not so sure you’re an asshole, ST. The fact that you keep stating over and over that the only good team Santo played on was the ‘69 Cubs just shows ignorance. Six of the thirteen Cub teams Santo played full seasons for were good teams and four of them would have been in the playoffs under today’s format.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Just to go back and fact check the “fact” that Santo played on “bad teams” and therefore shouldn’t be in the Hall:
Aside from the flawed logic on whether good players from bad teams can make the Hall, were the Cubs teams that bad? Santo played for the Cubs from 1960 to 1973. In those 14 seasons, the Cubs had seven winning seasons, including six in a row from 1967 to 1972. Santo put up big numbers throughout that stretch, as well as the years preceeding it.
That is the best stretch in the last century for the Cubs, and Santo was a primary reason…
February 27th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02.....ref=slogin
check out the bottom of this article, the voice for a generation of Chad’s….
February 27th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Poor Murray. New things are scary. And bad.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Some other HOF members with HOF Standards scores below 50:
Willie McCovey, Lou Brock, Willie Stargell, Johnny Bench, Billy Williams, Harmon Killebrew, Johnny Mize, Chuck Klein, Ernie Banks, Ralph Kiner, Larry Doby, Carlton Fisk
February 27th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
They all are worse than Babe Ruth. Shouldn’t be in.
Signed,
The Keeper of Flawed Logic
February 28th, 2007 at 12:25 am
To think that I am in agreement with the Old Grey Lady. Somewhere Hitler is ice skating with Stalin.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Pairs dance, no doubt.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:22 am
JOE MORGAN at tonight’s nytimes.com
“Hall of Famer Joe Morgan said he was surprised that Hodges, Miller, Wills and SANTO had not been elected.”
February 28th, 2007 at 1:30 am
|but also because he played in one of the deadest offensive eras since Babe Ruth was a pitcher.|
This is not true, PLEASE quit repeating it. Was 1961 a dead ball season? Jesus, do some freaking research.
Ron Santo is not in the Hall of Fame because he’s not a hall of famer. How hard is that to wrap your minds around?
IT’S CALLED THE HALL OF FAME - If you want to make a Hall of Sabermatically Beneficial and put Santo in, go ahead. If you want to make a Hall of Great for around 10 Years, do it, put Santo and Canseco and Rice in, but if you have to argue about whether or not a guy is a Hall of Famer 35 years after he retired, guess what, he’s not. Was Santo one of the greates of the game? When Yankees fans were talking about the Orioles were they saying ‘Robinson’s good, but that Santo in Chicago, if we could get him no one would talk about Robinson’?
All-Start games, Post Season Games, World Series rings, MVP and Cy Young awards, Gold Gloves, these things help make you famous. I’ll ask again (even though I know the answer, none of the older fans on this board answered it last time). When Santo retired was everyone patting him on the back and saying ‘We’ll see you in Cooperstown, Ronnie’?
February 28th, 2007 at 1:38 am
|check out the bottom of this article, the voice for a generation of Chad’s…. |
I have to love any reporter who wallows in his own ignorance so happily. Has anyone ever written the book ‘All I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned by 7th Grade’? That would be the Dyanetics of sports columnists.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:21 am
I can’t believe anyone is using “post seaon games” and “playoff appearance” when judging the HOF credentials of a player who spent the majority of his career in an era where there was no such thing as playoffs.
February 28th, 2007 at 6:22 am
“Was 1961 a dead ball season? Jesus, do some freaking research.”
Well, i’m no savior and don’t have time for original research this morning, but i did have enough time to look up the article by one of the saints who got me interested in baseball statistics, Rob Neyer.
Check out this article he wrote a few years ago. In it, there are a few comments i’d like to bring to your attention:
“When Ron Santo retired, he was probably the second-best third baseman in the history of the game.”
“Here’s something else that’s interesting: the list of players most comparable to Santo (available at baseball-reference.com) includes no Hall of Famers. That’s not because he himself isn’t worthy, but because a bunch of spots on that list are occupied by outfielders who didn’t hit enough to be enshrined.”
“Santo is unique in baseball history, a third baseman who hit like a left fielder while playing excellent defense at the hot corner.”
“Santo never had a monster season, in part because his era wouldn’t allow for them. Yes, he played in Wrigley Field, which helped his numbers, but the game-wide dampening of offense kept him from having the signature years, the 40-homer, 120-RBI campaigns that Hall of Fame voters love to see on a resumé.”
In conclusion, Neyer writes:
“The omission of Ron Santo is the most egregious mistake ever made by the Baseball Writers Association of America. They should have inducted Santo 20 years ago, and that they overlooked him throughout his 15 years on the ballot is a shame.”
February 28th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Here’s more from an article by Dying Cubs Fan, linked to in the lead post of this thread:
———————-
n January 1963, the strike zone was expanded by rule. After 1968, a year in which the American League batting champion hit .301, rule changes were instituted lowering the height of the mound from fifteen inches to ten and reverting the strike zone to its 1962 dimensions. In the 2001 Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James described the 1963 strike zone change in this way:
The effect of this redefinition was dramatic. The action was taken . . . because there was a feeling that runs (and in particular home runs) had become too cheap. Roger Maris’ breaking Babe Ruth’s single-season
home run record contributed to that feeling. The thinking was that, by giving the pitchers a few inches at the top and bottom of the strike zone, they could whittle the offense down just a little bit.
The action cut deeper than anticipated. Home run output in 1963 dropped by ten percent, and total runs dropped by 12%, from 4.5 per game to 3.9. Batting averages dropped by twelve points. Baseball’s second dead ball era had begun. (2001 Historical Baseball Abstract, p 249)
James has also noted that some teams (the most notable example being the Dodgers) took advantage of the fact that mound height was not closely regulated during the ’60s to build mounds even higher than the fifteen inches the rules then permitted, giving power pitchers even more of an advantage. Santo’s best years coincided exactly with this period.
———————-
But you’re right, since people hit a lot of home runs in his first full season in the league, he shouldn’t get credit for playing the majority of his career in a pitcher’s era. Now, i’ll sit around and wait for the savior to do some research for me, since any unbiased look at the numbers comes to the conclusion that Santo should be in… so i can count on Jesus to support my case.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Don’t sell The NY Times short, Chad. It may have a couple of liberal columnists but the paper itself is almost comically pro-big business and its editor finally apologized last year for the paper’s uncritical look at the evidence leading up to our invasion of Iraq.
In fact, it could be argued that the Times’ Judith Miller did more to help the case for the Iraq invasion than anyone outside the government.
If the NY Times is your idea of an enemy, everyone should have such an enemy. Add the anti-intellectual baseball writing of Murray Chass and I think you should sign yourself up for a trial subscription.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:19 am
NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02.....f=baseball
February 28th, 2007 at 10:19 am
two things: 1. please go away joe morgan and 2. mike schmidt should be expelled from the hof because his giddy scamper down the first base line upon swatting #500 was bush AND pansy-like-check it out sometime…
February 28th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Chris DeLuca
http://www.suntimes.com/sports.....28.article
February 28th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Bruce Miles
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/cubs.asp
Can anyone confirm that it was Bruce that asked a question regarding the process during the media conference call that got Morgan offended?
BTW, Morgan seems to have confirmed that he voted for Santo. Reggie Jackson seems to be a no.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:45 am
18 times on a HOF ballot. Not once, not five times, not 10 times. 18 friggin times.
As someone PLEASE explain why they expect the Veterans Committee to so readily admit candidates who were rejected a whopping 15 times previous by the BBWOA. The function of the Veterans Committee should be to evaluate managerial, front office, umpiring and broadcasting candidates.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Can anyone confirm that it was Bruce that asked a question regarding the process during the media conference call that got Morgan offended?
Yes…I can confirm it. ESPN 1000 has been playing it for the last day. it was quite amusing. Not only did he offend Morgan, but he (Levine) kept going.
Silent Towel…I have been thinking about one of your arguments. You continue to say that who are we to disagree with these hall of famers. They know more than us about who is a hall of famer, right?
If this is the case, why do you disagree with the majority of those veterans? Because a majority of veterans did vote for Santo…
The function of the Veterans Committee should be to evaluate managerial, front office, umpiring and broadcasting candidates.
Ugh…that is even worse than them evaluating players. These players have little clue about most of those things, and Morgan essentially admitted as much in that teleconference where he got offended by Levine’s question.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Here is the audio of Levine calling out Morgan and the rest of the veterans
February 28th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
If the Hall of Famers have “little clue” on how to evaluate prospective candidates, then who on bloody earth is more qualified?!? A bunch of 35 year old pimply faced virgin cyber geeks with their reams of stats sheets who never even saw Ron Santo play in a friggin baseball game, let alone even play the sport (at any level, to include 5 year old t-ball) personally?!?!
Give me a friggin break. A sizeable majority of the living Hall of Famers have direct perspective on the playing career of Ron Santo. And despite your viewpoint to the contrary, 99% of them are literate and able to grasp the lofty concepts of batting average, home runs, OBP, slugging %, etc.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
The BIGGEST argument for why Ron Santo and the legion of his Hall of Fame supporters should shut the frig up.
ONLY ONCE in 15 years of eligibility on the BBWOA ballot did Ron Santo receive more than 40% of the vote. Let that sink in for a minute. Then take a look at all those “stats” and all those deeply disappointing Cub teams of the 1960’s and early 1970’s.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
A sizeable majority of the living Hall of Famers have direct perspective on the playing career of Ron Santo. And despite your viewpoint to the contrary, 99% of them are literate and able to grasp the lofty concepts of batting average, home runs, OBP, slugging %, etc.
You really are incapable of having an argument without pretending people have arguments that they don’t make. I never said anything about the veterans’ understanding of statistics.
The majority of those on the veterans committee believe Santo is a hall of famer, but you believe that the minority keeping him out know better, because they are hall of famers. That really doesn’t make sense…
February 28th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
“18 times on a HOF ballot. Not once, not five times, not 10 times. 18 friggin times.
As someone PLEASE explain why they expect the Veterans Committee to so readily admit candidates who were rejected a whopping 15 times previous by the BBWOA. The function of the Veterans Committee should be to evaluate managerial, front office, umpiring and broadcasting candidates. ”
Isn’t this a similar rationale to:
You’ve used the above argument about a dozen times, and still haven’t convinced anyone that you’re right. The repeated disagreements with this argument is evidence for its lack of validity.
Leave a comment