Does Ron Santo belong in the HOF?

[Warner2BruceTD]

To illustrate the relative lack of usefullness of the error statistic, I refer you to W2BTD's softball career.

I play 3B. I have ZERO errors this season. Awesome, I might win the College Station TX co-ed D League Gold Glove.

Except I never make a play on a ball that isnt hit directly at me. I have ZERO range. I never move an inch laterally, with my perpetually pulled quad muscle, and rapidy post 30-year-old fading reflexes.

All errors tell you, is that the player catches what is hit to them. Fielding percentage & errors are a guide. They tell you who isn't terrible.

 

[Youk]

BUT HE DOES THE JUMP-AND-THROW!!!11!! AND HE DOVE INTO THE STANDS THAT ONE TIME [after catching the ball then taking 15 steps to get to the wall]!!!1!!!

God I hated watching that replay over and over again. What makes that catch so special?

 

[FedEx227]

Gold Gloves often go to the best offensive player at his position that can make a fancy catch every once and awhile. Let us not forget Rafael Palmerio is a GG recipient.

Nate McLouth won one last year when he was largely regarded by every list, including The Fielding Bible to be the worst defensive CFer in the game.

 

[Senser81]

Well, actually, Santo only played every game in a season 4 times in his 15 season career, so in all actuality he usually did not play every game.

I hope you are joking.

So really it is Santo that would be lucky enough to be considered in the class of Brooks Robinson, and with a FRAA of -6, I would say that Santo isn't even close to being in the class of Robinson.

What are you arguing? Did anyone claim that Santo was just as good a fielder as Brooks Robinson? Nope. You sure do have a hard time following along in a debate.

Better? What I'm trying to say is: Santo wasn't as good of a fielder as you want to make him out to be.

I never said Santo was as good as Brooks Robinson in the field. In fact, I said the opposite...so I don't know why you compared Santo to Robinson (and Youkilis).

And Gold Gloves are an indicator of a player's defensive abilities...how, exactly? Derek Jeter has 3 of them, I rest my case.

That makes sense...Santo shouldn't be in the HOF because Derek Jeter won 3 Gold Gloves. I enjoy arguing with people, but you've given me nothing to go on here. Your counter-points are completely illogical.

Santo's career EqA (pretty much a player's batting average and offensive out put normalized for league factors) is only .297, so it's not like he was out-performing his counterparts in that era by all that much.

HUH? Why do you need to 'normalize for league factors' when comparing him to his contemporaries?! Wouldn't everyone who played at the same time as Santo have the same 'league factors'? Again...completely illogical. Nice comparative data, too.

I have been the one that has been objective in showing that Ron Santo really is not HOF worthy (with the use of non-made up statistics [side bar: aren't all statistics technically made up?] and such), whereas you have relied on an extremely subjective approach to all things Santo, with retorts like "he was a great defender, I don't care what your nerdy numbers say" and "he played in a shitty offensive era thus he was an amazing hitter in his time".

But I'm not saying that Santo wasn't a good player in his time. Do I think he is an overrated defender and a so-so hitter? Yes, very much so, but that does not make him bad or horrible at baseball. He was good, but HOF worthy? No, not by a long shot.

Actually, you said that Santo had a "middle-of-the-road career". Nice one.

 

[dell71]

No, Santo should not be in the HOF.

Comparing him strictly to his peers, he's was a very good player - definitely better than middle of the road. However, his accomplishments don't qualify him as one of the best to ever play the game.

Yes, his career BA of .277 is pretty strong for his era yet, he only finished top 10 in that category 4 times in 15 years; 5 each in OPS & SLG. He did lead the league twice in OBP & 4 times in walks, but that's hardly earth-shattering. And the 5 gold gloves (I'm not one to totally discount them) are nice, but he's won no other major awards.

Most impressive to me is his 8 top 10 finishes in RBI. I'm an RBI guy more than any of those newfangled complicated stats. However, that's still not enough to get him over the hump.

 

[FedEx227]

Most impressive to me is his 8 top 10 finishes in RBI. I'm an RBI guy more than any of those newfangled complicated stats. However, that's still not enough to get him over the hump.

Yes, OBP is a real toughie (Times on Base / Plate Apperances). :confused2:

RBI is the worst possible stat you can use in evaluating a player... the absolute worst. While it shows that you can get hits in a timely manner it's also completely dependent on those around you aka who bats before you, how they get on base, etc. There have been plenty of great players that have had sub-par RBI seasons because those hitting in front of them are terrible.

You can only drive people in if they are on base, so it's absolutely no way to judge a player individually because there is no equality... Scott Brosius had 98 RBIs on the 1998 Yankees...

 

[FedEx227]

And even if you wanted to justify the numbers that he was CLOSE or should be in. It's still ran as a private club. Santo was a dick to those around him and he's not really respected by many baseball circles... in fact he's even hurt himself more by bitching and moaning that he's not in the HOF. Thus, even if you wanted to justify the numbers (which you really can't) he won't get in anyway.

 

[dell71]

Yeah, I get it.

But if they keep putting in the "pretty good" players like Santo, you inevitably get someone like Phil Rizzuto or Bill Mazeroski in, lowering the bar even further.

Milestone numbers don't help, either. Don Sutton? Really? Right next to Sandy Koufax and Walter Johnson?

Sadly, Scooter & Mazeroski are in. But Rizzuto is like the opposite of Santo: his bitching & moaning actually got him in.

Yes, OBP is a real toughie (Times on Base / Plate Apperances). :confused2:

I really wasn't referring to that particular stat but to some of the other "metrics" that were brought up. And while I do understand them, for me RBI is more tangible. I can see it happen when I watch a game, not wait until the game is over and then calculate it.

RBI is the worst possible stat you can use in evaluating a player... the absolute worst. While it shows that you can get hits in a timely manner it's also completely dependent on those around you aka who bats before you, how they get on base, etc. There have been plenty of great players that have had sub-par RBI seasons because those hitting in front of them are terrible.

You can only drive people in if they are on base, so it's absolutely no way to judge a player individually because there is no equality... Scott Brosius had 98 RBIs on the 1998 Yankees...

True, RBI depends a lot on having guys ahead of you get on but you still have to get the hits. And when evaluating a guy's whole career it shows whether or not a player in the heart of the order (where a large majority of HOFers bat) can consistently get timely hits. So, I realize Scott Brosius had a good year in '98 but bringing that up is using an exception to discount a rule - this season Washington, Arizona and Cleveland have players in the top 10 in RBI in their respective leagues and I would hardly say those guys are always coming with people on, but good hitters drive in runs when presented the opportunity.

To provide some of that equality across the board, another stat I like is BA with runners in scoring position.

 

[Senser81]

Nope, just correcting one of your many moronic generalizations.

Santo’s games played by season: 154, 162, 162, 161, 164 (!), 155, 161, 162, 160….you get the idea.

Yeah, it was you, when you said this:
:confused2:
YOU made the original comparison! How hard is that to understand? And even if I was just pulling the name of Brooks Robinson out of a hat (which I wasn't, because you brought him up), your attempt at a straw man is utterly laughable.

I don’t understand your confusion. I never said Santo was a better fielder than Robinson. Here is what I said…

He was easily the best 3rd baseman in the NL when he played. Very good all-around player. Brooks Robinson was a great fielder, but Santo was a much better hitter and a good fielder in his own right. Robinson had the postseason heroics, which gave him a huge advantage over Santo.

I think Brooks Robinson holds the best fielding 3B title, not Santo.

Do you even know what a “straw man” is? What are you talking about?

Then apparently I grossly underestimated your powers of inference, I apologize. But did you see nothing of the debate that ensued after my post where more than a few people have chimed in acknowledging that Gold Gloves are not the mark of a good defender?

No, I obviously got your inference. I just disagreed with your sentiment. I don’t really care if other people “chimed in”. I admit that Jeter’s GGs were bogus, but that doesn’t mean that Santo’s were bogus.

Oh jesus, really? YOU were the one that brought up the notion that Santo played during a time when offense was way down across the league, implying that his career batting line is actually better than it looks because of the lack of offense around the league. Normalizing for league factors allows you to see how much a player actually contributed to a ballclub without having to add on stupid little disclaimers like "he played in an era where offense was down across the board."

Are you retarded? Seriously. Again, why do you need to 'normalize for league factors' when comparing Santo to his contemporaries? You actually concluded “so it's not like he was out-performing his counterparts in that era by all that much.” Couldn’t you just compare Santo’s actual stats to his contemporaries? What is the purpose of ‘normalizing’?

So now that you know all of this, go back, read my posts, and understand that Ron Santo was not that good of a defender at his position (even for his time) and his offensive production wasn't really that spectacular, even in the shitty offensive era, and come to the only logical conclusion that Ron Santo should not be in the HOF.

Actually, you said that Santo had a "middle-of-the-road career". I'm not even arguing for Santo to be enshrined, I'm arguing your contention that Santo was an average player who played a long time and nothing more.

 

[ZAN]

If Rice gets in....

Then the "Hawk" and "This Old Cub" deserve it as well....

And Sandberg > Joe Morgan, to boot....

 

[zack54attack]

Lefty-please dont tell me you listen to 670 The Score.

 

[FedEx227]

Since we're letting everyone in, how about Harold Baines?

:hahaha:

 

[FedEx227]

With Carter too you have to realize his position as well. Catchers are always more highly valuable then any other position on the field.

 

[Senser81]

Baines: .289 avg, .356 obp, 384 hrs.
Carter: .262 avg, .335 obp, 371 hrs.

I say put Harold in the Hall and kick Gary Carter out.

I hated Carter, but he was probably the best all-around catcher of his era. Very good defensively, and actually an extremely good hitter for a catcher. I don't think its fair to compare an outfielder's batting stats to a SS and a C.

 

[zack54attack]

Thats where you get your Ron Santo hate from then..

They are Anti-Cubs station,

 

[Senser81]

Yes I do, and I'll save you the trouble of asking the question that I am sure would follow: I listen to Boers and Bernstein every day.

I didn't think it was humanly possible to listen to Boers and Bernstein every day. I thought the human brain would turn to mush.

 

[zack54attack]

I have.


But for the most part that station is Anti-Cubs.

 

[FirstTimer]

Thats where you get your Ron Santo hate from then..

They are Anti-Cubs station,

Boers and Bernstein both think Santo deserves to be in the HOF......

 

[Senser81]

I don't get why so many people do not like B&B. Just because they aren't overblown homers for all things Chicago and actually have rational sports thoughts? I don't get it.

I like it when they have a sports-related guest on the show, because thats the only time they actually discuss sports. Dan Bernstein has been fired in short order from every job he's had. In fact, this very show was canceled because once Boers & Bernstein became a distant 2nd place in the afternoon ratings to the absurd "Mac, Jurko, & Harry", the station had no need to put up with Bernstein's bitchiness. I'm surprised they put this POS show back on the air.

 

[The Buddha]

I used to love listening to Mac, Jurco and Harry....it didnt offer much in sports knowledge but it was hilarious. Waddle & Slivy was also a good listen in the morning