Point/Counterpoint: Ron Santo and the HOF

[UMFan83]

I just read 2 pretty good articles regarding Ron Santo's HOF candidacy. One was for Santo in the HOF and one was against it. I figure with the postseason failures still causing bitterness, we'll switch topics and discuss something that will come up before the next Cubs game.

 

For Santo: http://www.dugoutcentral.com/blog/?p=1919

 

Excerpt:

 

Santo’s best years were 1963-1968 and during that time he was either the best third baseman in the game, if you buy the argument that he was better than Robinson, or second best if you don’t. From 1964-1967 only Dick Allen was a better offensive third baseman (as measured by VORP), but Santo was clearly superior in the field. If we use Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP), which includes offensive and defensive contributions, Santo was worth about 52 wins over these four years and Allen was worth 43 wins. Of course, after these four years Allen’s behavior overwhelmed his performance on the field and his career went into decline. Tony Perez is a close second to Santo in WARP in 1968 and then surpasses him thereafter. Brooks Robinson? From 1963-1968 he was 49 wins above replacement. Santo was 72 wins above. For the six years from 1963-1968 Ron Santo was the best third baseman in the majors. For two or his remaining four years he was in the top five.

 

Against Santo: http://www.dugoutcentral.com/blog/?p=1933

 

Excerpt:

 

First there is the matter of the statistics. Ron Santo’s supporters frequently point out that his numbers – while good – were also suppressed by playing in the pitcher-dominated 1960s. This is correct; no one knowledgeable on the subject is going to deny that the 1960s were an awful decade to be a hitter. However, fewer fans address how dramatically Santo’s performance was inflated by playing in Wrigley Field.

 

The numbers that have always led me to doubt Santo’s candidacy are simple – 216 home runs at home (212 in Wrigley), 126 on the road. After Wrigley Field, Santo’s next favorite home run venue was Cincinnati’s Crosley Field, where he hit just 16 home runs. We should also add that Santo hit .296 at home but only .257 on the road. Slugging percentage? .522 at home, .406 on the road. OPS? The numbers are .905 and .747. For perspective, Santo’s tOPS+ home/road imbalance (118/82) is similar to Colorado’s Todd Helton (121/79).

 

I'm guessing 99% of posters here (myself included) support Santo in the HOF, but lets try to have a balanced discussion, with some playing devil's advocate and making points for both arguments.

[CubinNY]

I just read 2 pretty good articles regarding Ron Santo's HOF candidacy. One was for Santo in the HOF and one was against it. I figure with the postseason failures still causing bitterness, we'll switch topics and discuss something that will come up before the next Cubs game.

 

For Santo: http://www.dugoutcentral.com/blog/?p=1919

 

Excerpt:

 

Santo’s best years were 1963-1968 and during that time he was either the best third baseman in the game, if you buy the argument that he was better than Robinson, or second best if you don’t. From 1964-1967 only Dick Allen was a better offensive third baseman (as measured by VORP), but Santo was clearly superior in the field. If we use Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP), which includes offensive and defensive contributions, Santo was worth about 52 wins over these four years and Allen was worth 43 wins. Of course, after these four years Allen’s behavior overwhelmed his performance on the field and his career went into decline. Tony Perez is a close second to Santo in WARP in 1968 and then surpasses him thereafter. Brooks Robinson? From 1963-1968 he was 49 wins above replacement. Santo was 72 wins above. For the six years from 1963-1968 Ron Santo was the best third baseman in the majors. For two or his remaining four years he was in the top five.

 

Against Santo: http://www.dugoutcentral.com/blog/?p=1933

 

Excerpt:

 

First there is the matter of the statistics. Ron Santo’s supporters frequently point out that his numbers – while good – were also suppressed by playing in the pitcher-dominated 1960s. This is correct; no one knowledgeable on the subject is going to deny that the 1960s were an awful decade to be a hitter. However, fewer fans address how dramatically Santo’s performance was inflated by playing in Wrigley Field.

 

The numbers that have always led me to doubt Santo’s candidacy are simple – 216 home runs at home (212 in Wrigley), 126 on the road. After Wrigley Field, Santo’s next favorite home run venue was Cincinnati’s Crosley Field, where he hit just 16 home runs. We should also add that Santo hit .296 at home but only .257 on the road. Slugging percentage? .522 at home, .406 on the road. OPS? The numbers are .905 and .747. For perspective, Santo’s tOPS+ home/road imbalance (118/82) is similar to Colorado’s Todd Helton (121/79).

 

I'm guessing 99% of posters here (myself included) support Santo in the HOF, but lets try to have a balanced discussion, with some playing devil's advocate and making points for both arguments.

There are no points for the other side. Each player should be judged by the era in which they played. If that's the case Santo is a no brainer. The problem is that he was sort of a jerk when he played and it has cost him, dearly. The anti-santo guy is a dill-weed. You cannot penalize a guy for where he played his home games. Helton will be in the HOF someday, so if that's your comp, you lose.

[1908]

It's difficult to improve upon the for arguments presented by Bill James on pages 541-542 of his Historical Baseball Abstract.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=mUzTJ4-8N0EC&pg=RA1-PA542&lpg=RA1-PA542&dq=ron+santo+essay+bill+james+historical+baseball+abstract&source=web&ots=UEjgbOleUz&sig=GTrIC9IAsfztYEBoZSGqhAf17xc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PRA1-PA541,M1

[UMFan83]

There are no points for the other side. Each player should be judged by the era in which they played. If that's the case Santo is a no brainer. The problem is that he was sort of a jerk when he played and it has cost him, dearly. The anti-santo guy is a dill-weed. You cannot penalize a guy for where he played his home games. Helton will be in the HOF someday, so if that's your comp, you lose.

 

I've never heard of Santo being a jerk when he played. That's interesting, can you enlighten me?

 

If you read the whole article, he brings up the point of win shares of the 1960s. This is what he said about the win shares:

 

Steve Caimano argues, convincingly, that Ron Santo was fifth behind Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson and Roberto Clemente in 1960s Win Shares. This is a strong argument, Santo did collect 247 Win Shares in the 1960s – and zero in the 1950s and 75 in the 1970s. Santo’s position as fifth highest Win Share holder in the 1960s is greatly aided by the fact that his career centered on the 1960s; many players with greater Win Shares divided their careers more evenly between decades. More, Santo is fifth – but not by much. Right after him there’s a cluster of players with similar Win Share totals in the 1960s. Who’s a better match for Santo (247 1960s Wins Shares, 322 in his career) – Aaron (340, 641), Mays (337, 641), Robinson (307, 520), Clemente (260, 375) or Norm Cash (229, 311) and Vada Pinson (224, 321)? Santo’s closer to Cash and Pinson than he is to Aaron, Mays, Robinson and Clemente.

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate here though. That article is probably the most convincing I've read as to why he shouldn't be in the HOF, but not nearly enough to change my mind.

[Garwilly]

 

I've never heard of Santo being a jerk when he played. That's interesting, can you enlighten me?

 

 

While I have nothing linkable at this moment, I have heard several similar contentions. Both in print, and from people I know.

[CubinNY]

There are no points for the other side. Each player should be judged by the era in which they played. If that's the case Santo is a no brainer. The problem is that he was sort of a jerk when he played and it has cost him, dearly. The anti-santo guy is a dill-weed. You cannot penalize a guy for where he played his home games. Helton will be in the HOF someday, so if that's your comp, you lose.

 

I've never heard of Santo being a jerk when he played. That's interesting, can you enlighten me?

 

If you read the whole article, he brings up the point of win shares of the 1960s. This is what he said about the win shares:

 

Steve Caimano argues, convincingly, that Ron Santo was fifth behind Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson and Roberto Clemente in 1960s Win Shares. This is a strong argument, Santo did collect 247 Win Shares in the 1960s – and zero in the 1950s and 75 in the 1970s. Santo’s position as fifth highest Win Share holder in the 1960s is greatly aided by the fact that his career centered on the 1960s; many players with greater Win Shares divided their careers more evenly between decades. More, Santo is fifth – but not by much. Right after him there’s a cluster of players with similar Win Share totals in the 1960s. Who’s a better match for Santo (247 1960s Wins Shares, 322 in his career) – Aaron (340, 641), Mays (337, 641), Robinson (307, 520), Clemente (260, 375) or Norm Cash (229, 311) and Vada Pinson (224, 321)? Santo’s closer to Cash and Pinson than he is to Aaron, Mays, Robinson and Clemente.

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate here though. That article is probably the most convincing I've read as to why he shouldn't be in the HOF, but not nearly enough to change my mind.

From what my dad told me he was a talker on the field and smart alec to the sports writers. I don't think other teams cared too much for the heal clicks either. It was a different time. Players on the other team didn't talk to one another and the game still had a little of the old intensity to it (spikes up slides, brain balls, etc.).

[Little Slide Rooter]

 

I've never heard of Santo being a jerk when he played. That's interesting, can you enlighten me?

 

 

While I have nothing linkable at this moment, I have heard several similar contentions. Both in print, and from people I know.

 

I havnt heard any specific examples, but I remember once when I was listening to the score, I dont even remember who it was, but they were saying that Santo wasnt particularly well liked in his playing days.

[SouthSideRyan]

Only specific story I can remember about Santo is him going off on Don Young for misplaying a flyball. People speculated that Santo ruined Young's confidence, and may have been actively campaigning against him behind the scenes. As I said though, pretty much just speculation.

[imb]

anyone who argues that he shouldn't be in the HoF doesn't have a leg to stand on

[Tracer Bullet]

If you want a real debate about Santo's HOF candidacy, you probably need to look somewhere other than a Cubs board, especially one with as many knowledgeable fans as this one.

 

This is an odd request.

I'm guessing 99% of posters here (myself included) support Santo in the HOF, but lets try to have a balanced discussion, with some playing devil's advocate and making points for both arguments.

[UMFan83]

If you want a real debate about Santo's HOF candidacy, you probably need to look somewhere other than a Cubs board, especially one with as many knowledgeable fans as this one.

 

This is an odd request.

I'm guessing 99% of posters here (myself included) support Santo in the HOF, but lets try to have a balanced discussion, with some playing devil's advocate and making points for both arguments.

 

Why not? I love playing devil's advocate. It causes you to step out of your bias and look at things from a different perspective.

[CubinNY]

If you want a real debate about Santo's HOF candidacy, you probably need to look somewhere other than a Cubs board, especially one with as many knowledgeable fans as this one.

 

This is an odd request.

I'm guessing 99% of posters here (myself included) support Santo in the HOF, but lets try to have a balanced discussion, with some playing devil's advocate and making points for both arguments.

 

Why not? I love playing devil's advocate. It causes you to step out of your bias and look at things from a different perspective.

Sometimes there are two sides and sometimes there are not two sides.

 

The only debate would be is if Santo was the best 3rd baseman of his era or the 2nd best. Either way, he deserves to be in the HOF.

[UMFan83]

If you want a real debate about Santo's HOF candidacy, you probably need to look somewhere other than a Cubs board, especially one with as many knowledgeable fans as this one.

 

This is an odd request.

I'm guessing 99% of posters here (myself included) support Santo in the HOF, but lets try to have a balanced discussion, with some playing devil's advocate and making points for both arguments.

 

Why not? I love playing devil's advocate. It causes you to step out of your bias and look at things from a different perspective.

Sometimes there are two sides and sometimes there are not two sides.

 

The only debate would be is if Santo was the best 3rd baseman of his era or the 2nd best. Either way, he deserves to be in the HOF.

 

So in your estimation, there is 0 room for debate? The other 60% of the people that didn't vote for him in previous HOF votes (pre-veterans committee) didn't vote for him soley because he was a jerk?

[Outshined_One]

The most consistent argument I've ever heard against Santo was that he was a garbage time stat compiler, meaning most of his production came at times when "it didn't matter" or when games were effectively out of hand.

 

In other words...he wasn't clutch. Guh.

[UMFan83]

The most consistent argument I've ever heard against Santo was that he was a garbage time stat compiler, meaning most of his production came at times when "it didn't matter" or when games were effectively out of hand.

 

In other words...he wasn't clutch. Guh.

 

See now that makes sense why stupid writers wouldn't vote for him if he got that reputation.

[CubinNY]

So in your estimation, there is 0 room for debate?

Yes. It is not just my estimation though.

 

I guess that's the debate. It's a meta-debate. Why would people not think Santo is worthy for the HOF. There are the arguments I've heard:

 

1. No WS victories

2. O_O's one

3. People didn't like him

4. Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins, and Ernie Banks are already in.

 

That's it. If one goes by the standards by which players are judged, he's in. He's not border line.

[UMFan83]

So in your estimation, there is 0 room for debate?

Yes. It is not just my estimation though.

 

I guess that's the debate. It's a meta-debate. Why would people not think Santo is worthy for the HOF. There are the arguments I've heard:

 

1. No WS victories

2. O_O's one

3. People didn't like him

4. Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins, and Ernie Banks are already in.

 

That's it. If one goes by the standards by which players are judged, he's in. He's not border line.

 

And the arguments/numbers posted in the article from the original post have no value? I am not saying you are wrong, I just want to hear your thoughts since you have a decided opinion on the topic

[OleMissCub]

The writers obviously had something against him because he only got about 15 votes during his one and only year of original eligibility DESPITE the fact that when he retired he ranked second or third in most offensive output ever for a third baseman.

 

He should have been in long, long ago. It's pretty mind boggling how you can consistently rank as the 5th, 6th, or 7th greatest player of all time at your position and not be in the HOF.

[rocket]

The most consistent argument I've ever heard against Santo was that he was a garbage time stat compiler, meaning most of his production came at times when "it didn't matter" or when games were effectively out of hand.

 

In other words...he wasn't clutch. Guh.

 

or in other words, he was a chicago cub for 90% of his career.

[bhogg]

Santo and Blyleven should give the HoF voting committee the finger when (or if) they ever get to the podium on induction day.

[jersey cubs fan]

You cannot penalize a guy for where he played his home games. Helton will be in the HOF someday, so if that's your comp, you lose.

 

Why can't you take into account where a guy plays his home games?

[TruffleShuffle]

really, the valid arguments are the one above - home stats versus road stats - and the counting stats. the counting stats are a bad argument, because his counting stats were hurt by the era he played in, and they are still excellent for a third baseman. the home/road argument - wrigley played as a hitter's park, though not an extreme hitter's park, so santo's splits are larger than one would expect given the hitter's advantage of wrigley. this would suggest, i guess, that his game was tailored more to wrigley than most guys. that isn't something to penalize him for - if he was able to gain a bigger advantage there than the average hitter, that's something that benefits the team. it's not just padding the stats at a home park because it's a hitter's paradise, a la coors in the '90s.

 

plus, a lot of guys have better home career numbers. that's not a reason to invalidate their stats. yaz had a career .779 road ops, and much of his career was played in a more offensive era than santo. nobody argues against him being a hall of famer, because he was still a very good player.

 

a couple more notes. a look at santo's clutch stats and leverage stats shows that the "non-clutch" label is garbage. also, wrigley may have helped him as far as his splits, but over the course of his career, he was significantly worse in september than in most other months. the cynic would say that it's because he choked or whatever, but playing most of his games under the hot summer sun probably caused him to wear down. the fact that he was a diabetic in a time when the disease was not especially well-understood or well-treated makes this even more likely.

[SouthSideRyan]

You should definitely take into account where a guy plays his home games, but too often people look at home/away splits, take the away #s and consider that a guy's true ability.

 

Additionally, there isn't just one factor in looking at the splits. You have the hitter's park situation, but it's also a comfort level. Players shouldn't be penalized for being much better when playing in their home city. The entire discrepancy in Santo's #s can't be chalked up to Wrigley's small gaps. He couldn't have hit that many HRs in the first few rows. There's also something to be said for a hitter adapting his game to fit his home park. If Santo saw the value in getting under a pitch and letting the wind carry it out, then good for him.

 

Again that's not to say to discount the Wrigley in the 60s factor, but I don't think it's as big of an issue as his detractors make it out to be.

[OleMissCub]

Rarely brought up (in fact I've never heard it mentioned), but I think one reason why his road splits weren't as good as they should have been might have to do with the fact that he was a diabetic. Traveling as a diabetic in modern times can be tricky, much less doing so in the 60's and trying to hide it from everyone. Just a thought.

[Tracer Bullet]

Rarely brought up (in fact I've never heard it mentioned), but I think one reason why his road splits weren't as good as they should have been might have to do with the fact that he was a diabetic. Traveling as a diabetic in modern times can be tricky, much less doing so in the 60's and trying to hide it from everyone. Just a thought.

 

except by Truffle 2 posts above yours...

 

:wink: