Sox on Veterans HOF ballot/results tuesday

[StatManDu]

Tuesday the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee releases the results of its voting. There is a chance that the voters, made up of living Hall of Famers, will not elect anyone to the Hall as they did in their last election. I commend them for that. I think part of the reason the current Hall members took over the Vets voting was because it was getting too easy to gain induction.

 

There are 10 people on the ballot with Sox ties: Paul Richards, Dick Allen, Bobby Bonds, Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito, Jim Kaat, Sparky Lyle, Marty Marion, Minnie Minoso, Ron Santo.

 

Clearly, the two most qualified candidates on the above list are Santo and Kaat.

 

I used to be really adamant about Santo's candidacy but I have kind of turned on Ronnie over the years. While his Cubness has influenced me, the fact that the revamped Vets Committee -- Hall of Famers -- did not deem him worthy swayed me more than anything. There was all the buildup and all the love and all the campaigning and the big push to educate people about Santo. After all that, he did not get in. That says a lot.

 

I really like Kaat's resume and I think he fits a lot of the criteria that many Hall voters use: Good stats (283 wins) and he was a dominant performer of his era in at leat one fact by winning 16 consecutive Gold Gloves. I know there may be sentiment that Kaat hung on too long but if you look at his stats in the early 1980s, he was still a contributor out of the bullpen for the Cardinals

 

Minoso's candidacy is an interesting one. If sentiment could get one into the Hall, Minnie would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. He does not have the stats to get in, that's obvious. However, there is more to Minoso's career than what he did on the field. This man was a pioneer and I don't think that has been stressed enough. Like Chico Carrasquel, Minoso, a Cuban, was an early minority performer in the big leagues. His candidacy could be viewed similar to Larry Doby's or Monte Irvin's. In addition, there is no understating what a tremendous ambassador Minoso has been for both the White Sox and the game of baseball. You have to wonder, though, if the Hall voters view a player in these terms.

 

Looking forward to the results!

[Hideaway Lights]

There is no question Santo should be a hall of famer

 

And I f***ing hate Ron Santo

[Baines3]

Santo belongs in the HOF, so does Minnie Minoso IMO.

[Al Lopez's Ghost]

Bill James has for a long time stated that Minoso is deserving of enshrinement, citing how many years he was delayed in reaching the majors because of color. I think Minnie has been hurt by the memory that some people have of him - an old guy hanging around to have an at bat in several decades, hiding what a dynamic player he really was.

 

Kaat is also a very deserving candidate.

[The Critic]

Santo and Allen both played 15 seasons.

Here are some of their numbers:

AVG:

Santo .277

Allen .292

 

HR

Santo 342

Allen 351

 

RBI

Santo 1331

Allen 1119

 

Stolen Bases

Santo 35

Allen 133

 

Fielding %

Santo .954

Allen .975 (but only .927 as a 3B)

 

Comparing these numbers, I must come to the only logical conclusion - Dick Allen is a more worthy HOF candidate than Ron Santo.

 

Of course, my conclusion has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the fact that Dick Allen is probably my all-time favorite White Sox player.....

[retro1983hat]

Ron Santo: "Uh, oh, uh, ohhhh noooo, uhh, who, what, um, ahhh, oooooo, well, uh, um, oh, no, well, uh, wahhhhh."

 

Pat Hughes: "Thanks Ronny."

[Pants Rowland]

I am not trying to be condescending, but how many of you actually saw Santo play in his prime or even at the end of his career?

[The Critic]

I am not trying to be condescending, but how many of you actually saw Santo play in his prime or even at the end of his career?

I was 6 years old and WAY into baseball in 1969, so I saw a fair amount of "Primo Santo".

He was a very good ballplayer, but probably only the 4th best player on that team.

Banks, Williams, and Jenkins were all definitely better.

[southsideirish71]

Maybe Santo should of ditched the clicking of the heels a bit earlier in his career, and he might of made a few more friends on the HOF ballot.

[Pants Rowland]

I was 6 years old and WAY into baseball in 1969, so I saw a fair amount of "Primo Santo".

He was a very good ballplayer, but probably only the 4th best player on that team.

Banks, Williams, and Jenkins were all definitely better.

 

Thanks. We obviously are all fairly anonymous on this site but too often I hear people in their mid-30s to younger who only have the paper statistics to argue Santo's behalf. I get tired of people beating up on the veterans committee for not being more lenient. It seems that if a player could not make it within the eligibility period, then he should have a fairly small grace period to be reviewed by his peers. I know the press falls in love with some players on the big stage sometimes and neglects the stars who never made it the the world series. However, Santo seems to have had plenty of media attention during his playing days.

 

If the press and his peers have not elected him by now, there is probably good reason. My dad saw him play and said he was a good third baseman, similar to a Robin Ventura in the field. He also said he hit a lot of his HR when the pressure was off and he remembers Ronnie going down on strikes with the game on the line a lot. My dad is not a biased Sox fan and watched both teams for years. He scoffs at people comparing Santo's fielding to Brooks Robinson because of the similarity in the paper numbers. The fact that Santo continues to lobby on his own behalf also is troubling to me. If you need to argue your own case so passionately like Santo does, then maybe there is a reason you have not made it on your credentials.

[The Critic]

Thanks. We obviously are all fairly anonymous on this site but too often I hear people in their mid-30s to younger who only have the paper statistics to argue Santo's behalf. I get tired of people beating up on the veterans committee for not being more lenient. It seems that if a player could not make it within the eligibility period, then he should have a fairly small grace period to be reviewed by his peers. I know the press falls in love with some players on the big stage sometimes and neglects the stars who never made it the the world series. However, Santo seems to have had plenty of media attention during his playing days.

 

If the press and his peers have not elected him by now, there is probably good reason. My dad saw him play and said he was a good third baseman, similar to a Robin Ventura in the field. He also said he hit a lot of his HR when the pressure was off and he remembers Ronnie going down on strikes with the game on the line a lot. My dad is not a biased Sox fan and watched both teams for years. He scoffs at people comparing Santo's fielding to Brooks Robinson because of the similarity in the paper numbers. The fact that Santo continues to lobby on his own behalf also is troubling to me. If you need to argue your own case so passionately like Santo does, then maybe there is a reason you have not made it on your credentials.

Your dad is on the money regarding Santo. He was a very good ballplayer, but Brooks got more notoriety because he did his thing on the larger stage. Blame the Cubs for not getting to the playoffs if you'd like, but them's the breaks.

Santo was an umpire baiter, his heel-clicking and hollering was not well-received by his peers, he held grudges against teammates, and therefore was not well-liked by teammates, opposing players or umpires. It can't be that everyone else was wrong and he was a wonderful person, could it? Doubtful.

The only benefit to his making the Hall is that we'd be spared the annual hand-wringing by the Cub propaganda machine about it. That alone might make it worthwhile to give him his jacket, let him cry onstage for an hour or so at the inductions, and be done with it. He's a borderline candidate, and if he gets in so be it. I really don't care either way.

[StatManDu]

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your dad is on the money regarding Santo. He was a very good ballplayer, but Brooks got more notoriety because he did his thing on the larger stage. Blame the Cubs for not getting to the playoffs if you'd like, but them's the breaks.

Santo was an umpire baiter, his heel-clicking and hollering was not well-received by his peers, he held grudges against teammates, and therefore was not well-liked by teammates, opposing players or umpires. It can't be that everyone else was wrong and he was a wonderful person, could it? Doubtful.

The only benefit to his making the Hall is that we'd be spared the annual hand-wringing by the Cub propaganda machine about it. That alone might make it worthwhile to give him his jacket, let him cry onstage for an hour or so at the inductions, and be done with it. He's a borderline candidate, and if he gets in so be it. I really don't care either way.

Borderline is the key word here. The reason why the players/members were given the Veterans vote was because too many "borderline" candidates were getting in. Bill Mazeroski was the vet that broke the camel's back, I believe.

 

Santo is a borderline candidate as is Kaat. As stated above, I think Kaat's 283 wins and 16? Gold Gloves should carry some weight with voters. Minoso should get the kind of consideration mentioned in another post concerning his late start because of discrimination, etc.

 

I grew up watching Santo. He was a very good player but it never dawned on anyone while he was playing that he was a Hall of Famer. I can never recall anyone referring to Santo as a future Hall of Famer during his playing days. The comparison to Ventura is a good one.

 

It's the old argument: If Santo gets in, then you have to let Dick Allen in (great post above), what about Vada Pinson or Tony Olivo. The list could go on. In a way, this argument doesn't apply to Kaat because there are few pitchers with 283 wins and 16? Gold Gloves that arent' in the Hall.

 

HOF talk is my favorite hot stove topic, btw

[Pants Rowland]

Borderline is the key word here. The reason why the players/members were given the Veterans vote was because too many "borderline" candidates were getting in. Bill Mazeroski was the vet that broke the camel's back, I believe.

 

Santo is a borderline candidate as is Kaat. As stated above, I think Kaat's 283 wins and 16? Gold Gloves should carry some weight with voters. Minoso should get the kind of consideration mentioned in another post concerning his late start because of discrimination, etc.

 

I grew up watching Santo. He was a very good player but it never dawned on anyone while he was playing that he was a Hall of Famer. I can never recall anyone referring to Santo as a future Hall of Famer during his playing days. The comparison to Ventura is a good one.

 

It's the old argument: If Santo gets in, then you have to let Dick Allen in (great post above), what about Vada Pinson or Tony Olivo. The list could go on. In a way, this argument doesn't apply to Kaat because there are few pitchers with 283 wins and 16? Gold Gloves that arent' in the Hall.

 

HOF talk is my favorite hot stove topic, btw

 

Mine, too. Thanks to you and The Critic for the insight. I like the fact that it is difficult to get into the HOF. It should be difficult otherwise it is a ceremonial and sentimental farce. Occasionally the system slights a deserving player but for the most part it rewards greatness on several fronts. I have debated the HOF credentials of many players whose entire careers I watched since I started following baseball in the early 80s. Over those 25 years, there are probably no more than 10-15 players that merit the discussion in my book. Annual voting by the media validates that type of scrutiny. When you apply that type of criteria, my guess is Santo's career does not match the spin doctors' story to get him in.

 

On a related note, I assume Nellie Fox got in prior to the recent veterans system was put in place. Do you think he deserved the second look and eventual induction by the VC?

[Texsox]

I think it is time to create a "best of the best" in the hall. Let's provide some distance from Hammerin Hank, Mantel, Ruth and guys like Schmidt, Carter, etc.

[StatManDu]

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is time to create a "best of the best" in the hall. Let's provide some distance from Hammerin Hank, Mantel, Ruth and guys like Schmidt, Carter, etc.

 

Nellie Fox did get in before the current system was in place. There were some extenuating circmustances with good ol' No. 2. The most notable was the fact that one year he actually received 74.8 percent of the vote (or something like that) from the writers but the Hall would not round up (as you would do in every other facet of your life) claiming Fox did not get a pure 75 percent of the vote. Come on. In addition, I think, too, he was one of those players with Hall-like numbers that slipped through the cracks for a variety of reasons: He didn't play in many World Series, he didn't hit for a lot of power, he wasn't flashy or flamboyant in the media, he didn't play in New York (hello, Phil Rizzuto).

 

Fox's candidacy was one that deserved a lot of study to make him a Hall of Fame. Non-glamor stats like total hits, fielding pct. and strikeout ratio had to be put in play to really examine the true essence of this player. As we have found out, writers (and I am one of them) don't always do their homework.

[scenario]

I was 6 years old and WAY into baseball in 1969, so I saw a fair amount of "Primo Santo".

He was a very good ballplayer, but probably only the 4th best player on that team.

Banks, Williams, and Jenkins were all definitely better.

 

4th best player on the team in 1969??? Give me a break. I was 11 years old and REALLY into baseball that year. Santo was the star of that team.

 

Look at the stats if you need confirmation of that. Lead the team in homeruns, rbi's, OBP, slugging... he WAS the reason the Cubs made a run in '69

 

Stats for the '69 Cubs on baseballreference.com - http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1969.shtml

[zimne piwo]

Nellie Fox did get in before the current system was in place. There were some extenuating circmustances with good ol' No. 2. The most notable was the fact that one year he actually received 74.8 percent of the vote (or something like that) from the writers but the Hall would not round up (as you would do in every other facet of your life) claiming Fox did not get a pure 75 percent of the vote. Come on. In addition, I think, too, he was one of those players with Hall-like numbers that slipped through the cracks for a variety of reasons: He didn't play in many World Series, he didn't hit for a lot of power, he wasn't flashy or flamboyant in the media, he didn't play in New York (hello, Phil Rizzuto).

 

Fox's candidacy was one that deserved a lot of study to make him a Hall of Fame. Non-glamor stats like total hits, fielding pct. and strikeout ratio had to be put in play to really examine the true essence of this player. As we have found out, writers (and I am one of them) don't always do their homework.

 

Very well said, StatManDu. That final 1985 Baseball Writers' vote where he missed by 2 measly votes was downright cruel, and their insisting on the "pure 75%" vote total was asinine, so the Veterans' Committee did right by Nellie (although it took them FOREVER once Nellie was once again eligible in 1989; let's not forget he actually could have made it in one year earlier since he had 75% of the Veterans' vote, however Jim Bunning had more total votes and they were limited to enshrining one candidate ONLY). I was in Cooperstown for the 1997 induction ceremony when Nellie finally got his due, and it's a memory I'll cherish forever.

Edited February 28, 2007 by zimne piwo

[palehose23]

There is no question Santo should be a hall of famer

 

And I f***ing hate Ron Santo

 

 

Santo is NOT a Hall of Famer- He has hit as many home runs as I have since he retired and if he could not get in on the writers ballot then he's SOL. Hall of FAME, not Hall of Decent, Above Average, Sentimental Pick.

[TLAK]

4th best player on the team in 1969??? Give me a break. I was 11 years old and REALLY into baseball that year. Santo was the star of that team.

 

Look at the stats if you need confirmation of that. Lead the team in homeruns, rbi's, OBP, slugging... he WAS the reason the Cubs made a run in '69

 

Stats for the '69 Cubs on baseballreference.com - http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1969.shtml

 

Its the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Cub

 

Here's his great year Vs the league leader in 1969

 

HR 29, McCovey 45

RBI 123, McCovey 126

OBP .384, McCovey .453

Slugging .485, McCovey .656

 

He did lead the league in one area, GDIP 21 and was second in the league for 3B errors 27 (lead all positons for the cub in errors, though).

 

One can spin the numbers any way they want, in the end Santo was a good player, not a great player. He deserves appreciation, but was a cut below the best players of his own era.

[The Critic]

4th best player on the team in 1969??? Give me a break. I was 11 years old and REALLY into baseball that year. Santo was the star of that team.

 

Look at the stats if you need confirmation of that. Lead the team in homeruns, rbi's, OBP, slugging... he WAS the reason the Cubs made a run in '69

 

Stats for the '69 Cubs on baseballreference.com - http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1969.shtml

He did have the best statistical season of any Cub in 1969, that's true.

I should probably have been more specific in saying that he was the 4th best player on that team in that era, not that singular season. Banks, Williams and Jenkins all had better overall careers than Santo in my opinion.

 

And as much credit as he deserves for his offensive stats, he deserves equal amounts of blame for his whining, complaining, showboating and his locker-room burial of Don Young. Quite the teammate.....

 

I just think the guy is a bitter, humorless man, and it's REAL hard for me to root for a guy like that, especially when he's propped up to be this lovable, sympathetic teddy bear figure that he clearly is not.

[StatManDu]

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 07:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He did have the best statistical season of any Cub in 1969, that's true.

I should probably have been more specific in saying that he was the 4th best player on that team in that era, not that singular season. Banks, Williams and Jenkins all had better overall careers than Santo in my opinion.

 

And as much credit as he deserves for his offensive stats, he deserves equal amounts of blame for his whining, complaining, showboating and his locker-room burial of Don Young. Quite the teammate.....

 

I just think the guy is a bitter, humorless man, and it's REAL hard for me to root for a guy like that, especially when he's propped up to be this lovable, sympathetic teddy bear figure that he clearly is not.

I just think it says a lot too for Santo that there has been this protracted, emotional campaign to get the man into the Hall of Fame and it just isn't happening. What was yesterday? The 20th try to get Santo into the Hall?

 

Someone may be trying to send a message on this one.