Is Sosa one of the top 5 Cubs ever?

[Mizzou]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

[TruffleShuffle]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

 

Thanks for the convincing counter-argument.

[Rob]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

 

That's what the numbers say. Though Santo has played in 3 more games than Sosa... so if Sosa were to go 16 for 16 with 16 HRs, maybe he'd take it up to about even.

[TruffleShuffle]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

 

That's what the numbers say. Though Santo has played in 3 more games than Sosa... so if Sosa were to go 16 for 16 with 16 HRs, maybe he'd take it up to about even.

 

Rob is moving up my list of favorite posters with his efforts in this thread.

[Mizzou]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

 

Thanks for the convincing counter-argument.

 

I don't really have the time right now to give too convincing of an argument, but I'll say a couple things.

 

Ron Santo was a very good ballplayer, an admittedly better one than I had always thought after I just checked his numbers again. But to say that he was better than Sosa is just ridiculous. First off, can we please throw this WARP crap out the window? We're simply talking about a ballplayer, not who was better at his respective position relative to his peers, but the "greatest Cub."

 

Sammy's career OPS: 882, which is 122 points higher than the league average.

Santo's career OPS: 826, which is 93 points better than the league average.

Also, Sammy's career OPS+ is better than Santo's.

 

Another thing which begs discussion is what makes a player "great." Is it simply being a monster at the plate? Or are more variables involved? Does being a baseball icon make you greater than a non-icon? I think so, and Sammy clearly was an icon during his glory years. He was one of the top 2-3 hitters in all of baseball from 1998 to 2001. I'll tell you right now that I don't know how big of a "star" Santo was, but based on his stats, I'm going to wager that he wasn't ever one of the game's elite players. Good, certainly. But one of the best? I doubt it. I'm sorry, and its just my opinion, but I think its absurd to say that Ron Santo was a greater Cub than Sammy Sosa.

[BWcubs21]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

 

Sosa's getting knocked of because he was on the roids, which IMO is deserved. As for Santo, I could name quite a few other players more deserving.

[USSoccer]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

 

Sosa's getting knocked of because he was on the roids, which IMO is deserved. As for Santo, I could name quite a few other players more deserving.

 

Sosa's name has never been linked to any investigation. He never failed a drug test. To suspect him is perfectly reasonable given his numbers in an offensively inflated era, but to conclude he was on performance enhancing drugs with nothing more than circumstantial evidence such as photos is a little harsh. You wouldn't punish Santo or Sandberg for being on greenies (as they likely were), right? It's reflective of the era.

[Rob]

Ron Santo was a very good ballplayer, an admittedly better one than I had always thought after I just checked his numbers again. But to say that he was better than Sosa is just ridiculous. First off, can we please throw this WARP crap out the window? We're simply talking about a ballplayer, not who was better at his respective position relative to his peers, but the "greatest Cub."

 

Sammy's career OPS: 882, which is 122 points higher than the league average.

Santo's career OPS: 826, which is 93 points better than the league average.

Also, Sammy's career OPS+ is better than Santo's.

 

Ok, I hardly mean to be rude, but how can you propose not taking into effect the efforts of their peers, but then go spouting off OPS+ and league averages? What you're using are simply crude metrics compared to WARP.

 

But even if you want to play your way... Santo's career OPS+ is 125, Sosa's 129. Then factor in defensive ability. By all accounts, Santo was an excellent defender. Sammy was, at his best, slightly above average. Over the years, Santo definately would come out on top in value. 4 points of OPS+ is nowhere near enough to cover the difference in defensive value.

 

Another thing which begs discussion is what makes a player "great." Is it simply being a monster at the plate? Or are more variables involved? Does being a baseball icon make you greater than a non-icon? I think so, and Sammy clearly was an icon during his glory years. He was one of the top 2-3 hitters in all of baseball from 1998 to 2001. I'll tell you right now that I don't know how big of a "star" Santo was, but based on his stats, I'm going to wager that he wasn't ever one of the game's elite players. Good, certainly. But one of the best? I doubt it. I'm sorry, and its just my opinion, but I think its absurd to say that Ron Santo was a greater Cub than Sammy Sosa.

 

And Santo is still an icon for sportsfans everywhere.

 

Just as Sammy came out of the Dominican and took the Latin world by storm... Santo was one of the first professional athletes to come out and let the world know he had diabetes. He was an inspiration to sick children with dreams of batting in game seven of the world series. But where Sosa has failed to live up to his billing as a role model, Santo has continued to excell in his for decades now.

 

Nobody save perhaps Ernie Banks has ever shown the adolescent love of baseball and the Cubs that Santo has.

 

Oh, and back to stats...this is Santo's rank in OPS...

 

1964 - 2

1965 - 6

1966 - 4

1967 - 6

 

I'd say he had a pretty good stretch where he was feared too. And damnit, he deserves respect for it.

[1908]

Anson's reputation is a big-time racist who played a huge role in baseball segregation might be part of what kept him off the list.

 

Yeah, he pretty much created the need for the Negro Leagues.

In addition to that, for the first 13 years of Anson's career, batters got to tell the pitchers where to pitch the ball, high or low, and a foul ball caught on the fly wasn't an out.

[TruffleShuffle]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

 

Thanks for the convincing counter-argument.

 

I don't really have the time right now to give too convincing of an argument, but I'll say a couple things.

 

Ron Santo was a very good ballplayer, an admittedly better one than I had always thought after I just checked his numbers again. But to say that he was better than Sosa is just ridiculous. First off, can we please throw this WARP crap out the window? We're simply talking about a ballplayer, not who was better at his respective position relative to his peers, but the "greatest Cub."

 

See, I don't buy that. If you move Michael Barrett to 1B, all of a sudden he's not that valuable, because he's playing a position which isn't as difficult defensively. What makes a player like Miguel Tejada so valuable is that he puts up huge offensive numbers at a position where most players don't produce very much.

 

Think of it in terms of the HOF. Is Yogi Berra a hall of famer if he played first base his whole career? It's pretty borderline. Is he a hall of famer as a catcher? Undoubtedly, yes.

 

Or, here's another way to look at it. Who do you consider a better player, Raul Ibanez or Miguel Tejada? I'm not talking about just this year, I'm talking about overall. In terms of career OPS and OPS+, they're very close. But you ask anyone who is better, and they'll tell you Tejada, and it's not even that close. It's because Tejada is great for a shortstop, while Ibanez is not really much better than the average RF.

 

I guess I can't put it any more clearly than that. If you're going to compare players to their peers when rating them for the HOF or in transactions, why should this not be taken into account when comparing Santo and Sosa?

[TruffleShuffle]

1964 - 2

1965 - 6

1966 - 4

1967 - 6

 

And Sosa...

 

1998 - 4

1999 - 6

2000 - 5

2001 - 2

2002 - 6

 

 

Really not a huge difference there. Sosa in his prime was slightly better than Santo, but Santo was better outside his prime than Sosa. When you factor in position and defensive ability, I'm siding with Santo. To be honest, it's not even that close in my mind.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

 

Sosa's getting knocked of because he was on the roids, which IMO is deserved. As for Santo, I could name quite a few other players more deserving.

 

So, should we knock off Jenkins because he did greenies? What no proof? Well, Jenkins was caught smuggling drugs into Canada. That alone should be circumstantial enough to believe he would use performancing enhnacers during his career.

[Wsmith]

This is a great discussion and I’d like to add my two cents…. When talking about the greatest Cubs of all time, I don’t have a problem with the focus being on Cubs who played in our lifetime. While there were certainly great ballplayers that played for the Cubs in the 1900 – 1930 time frames, the game was so different then it would hardly be recognizable today. Moreover, when evaluating players for such an austere recognition as “greatest Cubs” it seems to me that you have to had seen them play (I recognize that under my bias 50 years from now there will five new players on the list, but I’m OK with that) . There should be no doubt in any one’s mind that Ernie “Mr. Cub” Banks is the greatest baseball player ever to wear the Cubs uniform. Please don’t forget that during the late 50s - early 60s he was the only reason many people went to Wrigley Field. After Ernie it doesn’t make much difference how you rank them, but the best Cubs I’ve ever seen play were Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins, Ryan Sandberg and Sammy Sosa.

 

Now a lot of people are throwing around stats to make a case for Santo vs. Sosa as the better baseball player. I have nothing to add on that account. However, if the question ever becomes who was more important to the Cubs and their fans during their respective eras, Santo wins hands down. All you have to do is look at each of them --what kind of man are they, what kind of ballplayer were they, what kind of Cub were they.

[Mizzou]

See, I don't buy that. If you move Michael Barrett to 1B, all of a sudden he's not that valuable, because he's playing a position which isn't as difficult defensively. What makes a player like Miguel Tejada so valuable is that he puts up huge offensive numbers at a position where most players don't produce very much.

 

Think of it in terms of the HOF. Is Yogi Berra a hall of famer if he played first base his whole career? It's pretty borderline. Is he a hall of famer as a catcher? Undoubtedly, yes.

 

Or, here's another way to look at it. Who do you consider a better player, Raul Ibanez or Miguel Tejada? I'm not talking about just this year, I'm talking about overall. In terms of career OPS and OPS+, they're very close. But you ask anyone who is better, and they'll tell you Tejada, and it's not even that close. It's because Tejada is great for a shortstop, while Ibanez is not really much better than the average RF.

 

I guess I can't put it any more clearly than that. If you're going to compare players to their peers when rating them for the HOF or in transactions, why should this not be taken into account when comparing Santo and Sosa?

You make some good points, but if we're talking about the better player, replacement players aren't relevant. You're talking about value, whereas when you're discussing who is better, all that matters is production. I won't argue that Sosa was more valuable than Santo. I will say that Sammy was more productive than him though, and therefore he was better. And that's what the list is all about, right - who was more productive?

 

I'd say he had a pretty good stretch where he was feared too. And damnit, he deserves respect for it.

No doubt. And I wasn't trying to take anything away from Santo. He belongs in the Hall, in my opinion. I just think that Sammy was a better player.

[ConstableRabbit]

The sentimantality over Santo has gone insane. He should not be on that list.

 

Bill James has Santo as the 6th greatest third baseman of all time. Sosa's ranking at RF is 19th greatest of all time right fielders through 2003, and it's pretty clear that what he did in 2004-2005 did not boost him much. His win shares per year are basically equal to Sosa, and his OPS+ is only 4 points lower than Sosa. When you consider that Santo played a premium defensive position, and played it at a Gold Glove level, while Sosa was no better than average in RF. It's really easy to argue that Santo was better than Sosa.

 

Is it unthinkable that outfielders might be so much better offensively than third basemen that maybe the 19th best RF is still better than the 6th best 3B?

 

Yes, because the stats I gave you above suggest that Santo was just as good offensively as Sosa. If you want to make a direct comparison between third basemen and right fielders, or right fielders and catchers, be my guest. I think it's much more fair to rate a player versus his peers - those who played his position.

 

That is a fair way to look at this question.

 

I do have a non-sarcastic question for you though: why wasn't Santo a first-ballot hall of famer? If he's the 6th best shortstop and someone like Sosa, 19th RF I think you said(?) is no question, HOF material, potentially first ballot (assuming no roid stuff comes out) why not Santo?

[BigbadB]

I do have a non-sarcastic question for you though: why wasn't Santo a first-ballot hall of famer? If he's the 6th best shortstop and someone like Sosa, 19th RF I think you said(?) is no question, HOF material, potentially first ballot (assuming no roid stuff comes out) why not Santo?

 

I think you're asking this question to the wrong group. There probably aren't a lot of Cub fans who believe Santo does not belong in the HOF, excluding everything he has done since he retired.

[ConstableRabbit]

I do have a non-sarcastic question for you though: why wasn't Santo a first-ballot hall of famer? If he's the 6th best shortstop and someone like Sosa, 19th RF I think you said(?) is no question, HOF material, potentially first ballot (assuming no roid stuff comes out) why not Santo?

 

I think you're asking this question to the wrong group. There probably aren't a lot of Cub fans who believe Santo does not belong in the HOF, excluding everything he has done since he retired.

 

Right, but can everyone be THAT wrong?

[jjgman21]

obviously a list completely geared to the modern era, and besides Fergie geared to guys considered career Cubs. for that, I think Fergie has to be left off the list.

 

many mentioned Anson, Frank Chance had a career OPS+ of 135, six points higher than Sosa. Grover Cleveland Alexander had an amazing run with the Cubs. Gabby Hartnett gave about 20 years of his life to the Cubs, and had a 126 career OPS+ as a catcher versus Sosa's much shorter run and 129 OPS+ as a rightfielder.

 

on Santo, I really don't think there has been a big sympathy plight for him other than by Cubs fans. the numbers relative to the league at the time show that he was an amazing player. it almost seems his induction to the HOF has been attributable to a bit of a backlash for the sympathy he did get. I heard many commentators say "he should bnot e voted in just because he has diabetes and had his leg amputated." they are right. he should be in based on numbers alone.

[frostwyrm]

Cubs fans are in a sour mood because of this horrible season. Negativity reigns. If the team were playoff-bound the fans would be more charitable to Sammy.

[TruffleShuffle]

I do have a non-sarcastic question for you though: why wasn't Santo a first-ballot hall of famer? If he's the 6th best shortstop and someone like Sosa, 19th RF I think you said(?) is no question, HOF material, potentially first ballot (assuming no roid stuff comes out) why not Santo?

 

Well, Santo was a third baseman, but I will answer your question in two parts.

 

One, hitters in pitchers eras tend to be rated unfairly. Hall of Fame voters are pretty simple minded, and in terms of history, they tend to not differentiate between numbers of one era or another. Think about the home run chase... people talk about Bonds versus Aaron, not Bonds in the smallpark era versus Aaron. Players don't have their raw numbers adjusted based on the era that they played.

 

So, as Bill James notes, the most overlooked players in the HOF discussion are (a) hitters in pitchers eras, and (b) pitchers in hitters eras. As Rob and I discussed above, Santo's numbers, when taking the era into account, are comparable to Sosa's. But when you look at their raw numbers, clearly Sosa is ahead.

 

OK, so there's one explanation for what you talked about above. The other is that third basemen are the most under-represented group in the HOF. There are a few undeserving HOFers at 3B - see Fred Lindstrom - but there are also a few third basemen who belong in the Hall who are not in there. People have the impression that the corner positions on the diamond are the offensive positions - LF, RF, 1B and 3B - but the truth is that 3B is much less of an offensive position than the other three. Compare the best third baseman of all time (we'll say Mike Schmidt) to the greats at 1B (Gehrig, Foxx), LF (Ted Williams, Musial, Bonds, Henderson) and RF (Ruth, Aaron). The top guys at other positions are better.

 

Finally, players who have monster years get more recognition than players who are consistently good for many years. People remember Sosa and McGwire in 1998, and that year will be talked about in 30 or 40 years down the road. Santo was consistently good for many years, but didn't have the one signature year that people remember him by. And, while it's unfair to blame the Cubs' incompetence on Santo, they didn't make the playfoffs during his time on the team.

 

So, combine the facts that Santo was a hitter in a pitcher's era, played an the most underappreciated position, didn't have a signature year, and didn't play for a winner, and he's probably the most glaring omission from the HOF.

[FadeToBolivia]

And that's what the list is all about, right - who was more productive?

 

No... According to the link in the first post:

 

The criteria used for the selection of players, according to an MLB news release, are "on-field contributions (including but not limited to: overall statistics, postseason performance, All-Star Game appearances, awards, longevity and Hall of Fame credentials) … character and leadership.

[jjgman21]

Santo better than Sosa? Please.

 

Sosa's getting knocked of because he was on the roids, which IMO is deserved. As for Santo, I could name quite a few other players more deserving.

 

So, should we knock off Jenkins because he did greenies? What no proof? Well, Jenkins was caught smuggling drugs into Canada. That alone should be circumstantial enough to believe he would use performancing enhnacers during his career.

 

pot smokers tend to not be into speed.

[jjgman21]

And that's what the list is all about, right - who was more productive?

 

No... According to the link in the first post:

 

The criteria used for the selection of players, according to an MLB news release, are "on-field contributions (including but not limited to: overall statistics, postseason performance, All-Star Game appearances, awards, longevity and Hall of Fame credentials) … character and leadership.

 

it that case, the debate should not be about Sosa, it should be about Hartnett. one of the five greatest catchers of all time, 6 all star games, 1 mvp, 18 years as a Cubs player, 3 as player manager, 4 WS (one as player manager) and a Hall of Famer.

[TruffleShuffle]

I do have a non-sarcastic question for you though: why wasn't Santo a first-ballot hall of famer? If he's the 6th best shortstop and someone like Sosa, 19th RF I think you said(?) is no question, HOF material, potentially first ballot (assuming no roid stuff comes out) why not Santo?

 

I think you're asking this question to the wrong group. There probably aren't a lot of Cub fans who believe Santo does not belong in the HOF, excluding everything he has done since he retired.

 

I don't think it's fair to say that. Bill James, who isn't a Cub fan, writes:

 

Ron Santo towers far above the real standard for the real Hall of Fame

 

and

 

In the 1940s, many players were selected to the Hall of Fame who were nowhere near as good as Ron Santo. Players who were nowhere near as good as Ron Santo were elected to the Hall of Fame in the 1950s, players who were nowhere near as good as Ron Santo were elected to the Hall of Fame in the 1960s, players who were nowhere near as good as Ron Santo were elected to the Hall of Fame in the 1970s (lots of them), players who were nowhere near as good as Ron Santo were elected to the Hall of Fame in the 1980s, and players who were nowhere near as good as Ron Santo were elected to the Hall of Fame in the 1990s. It is preposterous to argue that the Hall of Fame standard is Ted Williams, after six decades of honoring players like Tommy McCarthy, Rabbit Maranville, Elmer Flick, Dave Bancroft, George Kell, and Tony Lazzeri. The Ted Williams/Bob Gibson/Honus Wagner standard for Hall of Fame selection has never existed anywhere except in the imagination of people who don't know anything about the subject.

.

 

 

If you believe Bill James, Rob Neyer, and numerous other baseball writers, Santo belongs in the Hall. According to James, Santo is easily the highest ranked player at his position who isn't in the Hall of Fame. Yes, I'm a Cub fan, but I can discuss this subject objectively. Ron Santo was a Hall of Fame third baseman.

[jjgman21]

Cubs fans are in a sour mood because of this horrible season. Negativity reigns. If the team were playoff-bound the fans would be more charitable to Sammy.

 

for some reason I don't remember feeling the same way about Sandberg in 1999 during that 95 loss campaign.

 

Sosa had the best 6 year run of any Cub in history. the other seven years as a Cub, he was what we all feared Jacque Jones would be this year, a non-walking, toolsy, strikeout machine with massive holes in his swing. plus, his 'bezball beane berry berry guud tu me' routine was pretty much shown to be a big facade after his true character was exposed. alot of people bring up steroids, but there was also the flaming toe, the fear of getting on the plate after being beaned, the corked bat, the embarassment of the HR derby when he swung and missed, the unwillingness to be moved down in the lineup, followed by the alleged walk out.

 

sorry, but many of us judge Sammy by Sammy, not by what is going on with the current Cubs team. some of us were amazed by his baseball exploits during the six year run, yet were not big fans (he was never at any point my favorite Cub). and most of the people in the thread must not be in a sour mood, because they love Sammy and think he should be on the list.