Id be interested in seeing the home/road career splits of some hall-of-famers such as Sandy Koufax who also surely benefitted favorable home fields for their position.

Fine, kick out Ryne Sandberg. Never vote for Jim Rice or Larry Walker. Wade Boggs hit 60 points higher at Fenway; turf him while you are at it. Since Nettles is almost a Hall of Famer, and Schmidt is the greatest 3B of all time, halfway between the two is an easy Hall of Famer. In my opinion, if a player is better than half the players enshrined at that position, he needs to get in. In other words, Santo would RAISE the level of Hall of Fame 3B. We're not talking Dave Concepcion/Andre Dawson borderline here.

In Santo's Prime (63-69) here are the people ahead of him in OBP:

Mickey Mantle
Frank Robinson
Carl Yastrzemski
Harmon Killebrew
Al Kaline
Willie McCovey

Close to him, but not ahead (Willie May, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente).

Same period, in HR's:

Harmon Killebrew
Hank Aaron
Willie McCovey
Frank Howard
Frank Robinson

Same period, in RBI's:

Hank Aaron (by 5)

in Hits:

Pete Rose
Roberto Clemente
Billy Williams
Curt Flood
Lou Brock
Hank Aaron
Maury Willis

Gold Gloves in that timeframe: 5

If someone can find me somebody who over a 7 year time frame won 5 Gold Gloves, was 8 or higher in hits, 6 or higher in HR's, 2 or Higher in RBI's, and 7 or higher in OBA and is not in the Hall I will stop talking about Ron Santo, but I don't think that person exists. This is a guy who dominated his position for a long period of time. He needs to be in the Hall of Fame.

Let's not forget that during that time frame he also started 1119 out of the 1120 games he played while suffering from Diabetes.

Also, it would be interesting to know if this is a Wrigley vs Away thing or a Day vs Night thing as Diabetes usually manifests itself greater at night.

GRAIG Nettles.

*looks around uncomfortably*

Well I don't know if Helton will make the hall or not, but his best 7 years so far would be 98-04.

10th in HR's
3rd in OBP
5th in RBI's
2nd in Hits
3 Gold Gloves

Playing in Colorado, and a 1B.

David,

1) What do you think of BP's JAWS system? And if your issue is with WARP3, would rejigging it with, say, Win Shares makes for a good system to suss out who's a HoFer and who isn't?

2) What about Banks? He's subject to the same splits as Santo, and arguably his peak was not as good. And by the time Santo was an everyday player Banks was playing first... I know Banks gets cred for having played shortstop, but half a career at SS and half at 1B is surely no more an overall defensive contribution than an entire career at 3B?

Bill K,

That's an interesting theory:

Home 4724 PA .296/.383/.522
Away 4673 PA .257/.342/.406

Day 6512 PA .288/.376/.500
Night 2885 PA .253/.331/.385

As much as Santo sucked on the road, he was practically useless at night. Would need to look into how it affected the rest of the Cubs' lineup before we knew one way or the other.

I have followed this Ron Santo HOF debate for years now, and I'm puzzled by it. The HOF is not just about statistics (though I agree they're important) but about impact on the games, integrity to the game and, to a lesser extent, their effect on baseball from outside the game.

I started following baseball in 1963. I was and still am a die-hard Phillies fan. However, in the late 1960's I fell in love with the Chicago Cubs. What a great line-up and not one of them was a primadonna. Ron Santo was hands down the best 3rd baseman in the National League. In fact, if I had to rank them I'd put Santo ahead of Brooks. If you look at the ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia (mine is the 2005 Edition) you can compare the 2 players with some interesting statistics. Santo was consistantly better offensively and surprisingly, better on the defensive side as well. One of the most telling statistics from ESPN is their BFW. This is their Batter-Fielder Wins stat. This is the sum of a player's batting wins, base stealing wins and fielding wins and compares it against an "Average" player. In Brook's 17 years of at least 400 at-bats he had 7 years with a negative number and his highest year (1967) was only 5.3. His MVP year of 1964 was only 3.8. His final career total was only 14.3.

Santo had 13 years with over 400 at-bats and had only 1 year with a negative number. He had 4 years with totals over 6 with a high of 7.6 in 1967. In fact, he led the NL in BFW 3 times. His career total was 45.3.

To compare with other top third basemen since 1950:

Mike Schmidt - 78.6
Eddie Mathews - 52.1
Ron Santo - 45.3
George Brett - 43.5
Dick Allen - 39.2
Harmon Killebrew - 32.6
Buddy Bell - 28.7
Pete Rose - 23.9
Graig Nettles - 21.6
Chipper Jones - 21.6 (thru stats of 2004)
Ken Boyer - 19.7
Brooks Robinson - 14.3

This alone should qualify Santo for the HOF. However, let's compare Brooks & Santo in one other aspect. Both were the inspirational leaders of their clubs. Both played with utmost professionalism and both cherished the game higher than themselves. Amazingly, both spent hardly any time on the DL. Robinson spent only 58 days on the DL in his career while Santo, even with his Type 1 Juvenile Diabetes, never spent a day on the DL.

In his era only Dick Allen is close to Ron Santo. Even the great Brooks Robinson pales in statistical comparison. Santo fulfills all the other non-statistical measures on which a player is to be measured. I can't see how you keep him out of the Hall.

Dave, you need to do some re-evaluation.

I think it's worth mentioning that every NL'er played 10% of their games in Wrigley, so a fair measure of Santo, considering park effects, would still give him some of those lofty numbers.

(I know it's a cheapy stat, but it takes into account park effects)

OPS+

Schmidt - 147
Mathews - 143
Brett - 135
Boggs - 130
Santo - 125
Evans - 119
Kell - 111
Nettles - 110
Robinson - 104

Ron Santo still does well.

I think the case for Santo rests on a belief that every position should be represented (relatively) equally. I don't see how Santo gets into the Hall otherwise. He never finished higher than 4th for MVP, never led the league in runs or RBIs or the like. Looking at more advanced stats, he's 92nd all time in Win Shares, 115th in Win Shares Above Bench. That puts him in the general hunt, but doesn't make him a lock by any means.

IMO, Sherry Magee is the one player who's been robbed.

Studes

Magee played in a pretty crappy league. I let him in my Hall because I am a 'Big Hall' advocate, but he has way less a case than Santo.

Santo's case has nothing to do with equal representation - it has to do with standards. I'm fune with 11 3B and 17 RF (or thereabouts in the Hall). But, SINCE Santo is better than half the 3B in the Hall, THEN he should also be elected to the Hall. Even the doubters put him at about the 100th best player in history (see the Win Share poster) - I have no problem with that. Since there are about 270 players in the Hall, being in the top 100 DOES make you a lock

On the Santo's stats dropped at night because he was diabetic....

The Cubs played all their games during the daytime, so Santo ONLY played night games when he was on the road. His nighttime numbers thus mirror his road numbers, and they reveal only a slight downward tick, something that I doubt has much to do with his diabetes.

Hey John,

Interesting. How do you quantify and/or justify how "crappy" the NL in the 1900's and 1910's was? Isn't it hard to call the league of the Cubs and Giants in those days crappy?

My Win Shares ranking was misleading. Santo ranks 92nd in total Win Shares among everyday players who played since 1900. No pitchers are included, no players from before 1900, no Negro Leaguers, etc. There are probably about 100 equivalent players in the Hall now. As I said, that rank puts him in the hunt, but doesn't make him a lock. And I haven't addressed the question of home advantage that David raises.

Don't get me wrong: I don't have a problem with Santo in the Hall, but he's hardly the lock the local Chicago sports writers claim he is.

Personally, I have qualms with the "large Hall" approach. It's relatively easy to pick out the 50-100 best players ever, because they clearly outplayed everyone else: they won MVP's, etc. Once you make the Hall bigger, you get into lots of grey (read arbitrary) lines between players. And the bigger you make the Hall, the more the arbitrariness (word???).

can yall separate out santo's wrigley stats and day games played away?

that might could be a little more revealing bout the effect of wrigley vs day/night

and me i think there's too many people who are not really counting santo's defense, just his hitting...

Going just by road batting, the comparison to Nettles isn't the best. As much as I love Nettles, I have to admit he wasn't Santo's road equal: .235/.315/.388. Even Santo road vs. Nettles overall - .248/.329/.421 - isn't a great match (though OPS is good: Santo .747, Nettles .750).

I ran a road comparison from 1957 through 1989, minimum 600 games (see here) sorted by SLG (alas, no OPS in the comparisons). The comparison that leapt out at me is with Sal Bando, who's not quite on Santo's level defensively but isn't too far off (as opposed to, say, Bob Bailey and Richie Hebner, good matches offensively but nowhere near as good with the glove).

Santo BA .257, OBA .342, SLG .406
Bando BA .251, OBA .342, SLG .406

Better third basemen than Santo not in the HOF: Ken Boyer, Darrell Evans. Third basemen as good as Santo not in the HOF: Ron Cey, Doug DeCinces.

The calls to change the Veterans Committee standards have started. I believe that would be a mistake. http://valentinesviews.blogspot.com/2007/02/dont-change-veterans-committee.html

In a way this argument mirrors the Alan Trammell v. Ozzie Smith one. Smith's defense reached mythical level as did Brooks Robinson. Trammell was a very good defensive SS just as Santo was a very good defensive 3B. Both Trammell and Santo were much better offensively than their contemporary who made the Hall of Fame based on flashy defense.

Win Shares seem to put Santo somewhere between 90th and 130th all-time; I don't have qualms with that figure, and I'm not sure how it would be impacted by home/away or day/night splits. I've never seen anyone list those, it might be interesting. But if WS is a decent crude measure of a players impact on his team winning, and he's in the top 100 or so, and there are more than 100 players in the HOF, seems there might be a argument for inclusion regardless of how his WS were split between H/A, D/N, or S/M/T/W/T/F/S (Ted Lyons did win a disproportionate number of Sunday games toward the end of his career).
A larger question might be what sort of committee is set up not to elect people? Or for that matter, why trust sportswriters to select players during the first 15 years of eligibility when they can't even be consistent on a player's worth from year to year? It is a process that is presently dominated by the arrogant self-righteousness of the selecters more than anything else. Richie Ashburn got less than ten votes his first year, later he became a HOF caliber outfielder and lead off man.... I guess he worked out in the winters after he retired.

I appologize for the last post, I was looking at things wrong. What we shoudl be wondering is why 57 of the 82 voters got it wrong and voted for Santo. What's wrong with that 69% of the voters? Why don't they accept the minority opinion?

One last comment, then to sleep for two years. Yaz's splits are pretty close to Santo's. Yaz was 779/904 A/H OPS vs Santo 747/905 and if you use the 1.8 ops+Sa/4 their splits are even closer with Yaz 266/311 and Santo 255/302. Very similar home field advantages.

Yes, but Yaz was a lot more durable.

Just hard for me to ever say the best offensive and defensive player at a position for 7-10 years in their prime isn't a hall of famer when the hall lets in a lot of people who are above average, but never great.

Santo was the clean up hitter on a team with two Hall of Famers (who got their with their bat). He did this while winning Gold Gloves through his prime.

I think my original post holds some weight still. During his prime he was great in the hitting stats (basically placing only behind lock hall of famers in all main categories) and won a gold glove 5 out of 7 years.

Just don't understand the counter arguement here.

Huh? It seems to me that numbers are numbers, and that ALL the games count. You can't just say Santo doesn't belong because he did much better at Wrigley. If anything, he belongs in the Hall of Fame BECAUSE he did best at Wrigley, since he played far more games there than any other individual stadium, and pleased the fans who paid to see him!
You're a moron, no offense.

ISTM that Santo is more deserving than his teammate Billy Williams, who is already in the HOF. However, that' may not be saying much, because I don't think Williams belongs in the HOF.

Bill K writes:
- If someone can find me somebody who over a 7 year time frame won 5 Gold Gloves, was 8 or higher in hits, 6 or higher in HR's, 2 or Higher in RBI's, and 7 or higher in OBA and is not in the Hall I will stop talking about Ron Santo.

*************
Bill: See DALE MURPHY, 1981-1987.

Will you now stop talking about Ron Santo?

re: Ron Santo

and you said Santo was good to you at Christmas!!!!

seriously, Ron Santo merits inclusion in the hall based
on;

(1) win shares
(2) defensive and offensive ability during his peak
(3) win shares during his peak 3 and 5 best seasons
(4) his being the best NL 3d basemen during a radical pitchers' era.

While his numbers were helped by Wrigley, his road numbers were destroyed by playing in the 1960s.

At some point, you have to decide if Ron Santo is a case of Matt Williams, who was great as could be for a couple years but not a HOF career, or if he's more like a Mike Schmidt or Brooks Robinson or Eddie Matthews, who did it for a long time.

Williams, you will recall, hit more than 60 homers during a one year stretch over the strike year, and was a feared hitter on a great team, the Giants that reached the series in 1988, and other good teams, but was not the defender that Santo was.

Darrell Evans, Toby Harrah, Buddy Bell start to crop up when you mention these guys--good glove, power and OBA men who were durable and played a long time at a high level.

My thought is that none of them is George Brett or Mike Schmidt, but one of them could get to the HOF.

--arthur j kyriazis, philly

Dale Murphy, nice call. I don't think it is a fair comparison, but I will at least stop posting to this thread.

Murphy was 9th in Hits, 2nd in HR's, 5th in RBI's, 24th in OBA, and won 5 Gold Gloves. So he didn't exactly beat the bar on all accounts, but he was close. And, he received two MVP's in that timeframe so that should count for something.

That being said Santo was an all-star three more years besides his 7 year span and hit 20 HR's four other times. Murphy wasn't even good in all seven years mentioned and he only had one other serviceable year in his career.

In 81 he was .247/.325/.390
In 88 he was .226/.313/.421
In 89 he was .228/.306/.361

Re: the effect of Wrigley Field on Santo's numbers, a career park-adjusted OPS+ of 125 is pretty good, isn't it? Ernie Banks' number was 122.

(I haven't read through all the other comments, so apologies if I'm repeating this.)