11/21/24
February 27, 2003
A bunch of guys who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame: were in fact not admitted to the Hall by the Veteran's Committee yesterday. Sorry Gil, Ron, Tony, Jim, and...Marvin Miller?!?! Would you make a case for any of these guys?
Marvin Miller should definitely be in the HoF in the builders/executive category. He might be hated by the owners and fans might think "union=strikes=bad", but what he did for the players is probably the second most important thing that happened to baseball in the 20th century. (re-integration of the sport being the most important) Ron Santo seems to be the concensus choice of "should've been elected" among the sabremetric crowd.
posted by grum@work at 09:40 AM on February 27, 2003
Ron Santo seems to be the concensus choice of "should've been elected" among the sabremetric crowd. Um, that how you get into hall, so the sabremetric argument is the relevant argument. Hence: Ron Santo has as good or better stats as every hall of fame third baseman, even Brooks Robinson. His only knock was that he played for the cubs. grum@work, what's the argument to keep Santo out? The only one I can think of is that he never won a ring; but that is defeated because there are plenty of players in the Hall that have not won a World Series.
posted by Bag Man at 02:33 PM on February 27, 2003
Santo, who recently had a leg amputated because of diabetes, said he was "devastated." Although the article does not focus on Santo, I like that vito used an article from NY. Another fact has kept Santo out of the Hall is the fact that Eastern sports writers think the country ends at the Alleghany Mountains.
posted by Bag Man at 02:40 PM on February 27, 2003
Ron Santo has as good or better stats as every hall of fame third baseman, even Brooks Robinson. His only knock was that he played for the cubs. if that were true he'd be in the Hall of Fame..his stats don't compare to the 3 great ones in the hall George Brett, Eddie Matthews and Mike Schmidt. Ray Dandridge and Judy Johnson don't have MLB stats to compare with but there is little doubt that Dandridge was one of the great players of the Negro Leagues. Johnson, I've heard doubts about him but he was also a groundbreaking scout after the color line was broken. And when you take a look, quite a few of the 3b in the Hall have notable accomplishments as managers and such. Personally, I think George Kell and Pie Traynor are better players too, but there's an argument there at least. What Santo has going for him is that he's probably better than Frank Baker, Jimmy Collins and Freddie Lindstrom. But, who wants Santo to be in the HOF just because they're better than players who don't deserve to be there in the first place? Well, you do (and Ron Santo does too) but I'd like Darell Evans to be in the Hall, and that ain't gonna happen...
posted by pastepotpete at 03:55 PM on February 27, 2003
Sabremetric sports writers are rare. I don't think there are too many among the voters for the Veteran's Committee. It's more about "reputation" than stats for some of these guys. I think the argument against Ron Santo is that noone every really thought he was: 1) The best player of his day 2) The best player at his position When you check his stats, go to the bottom of the page. They have a bunch of statistical comparisons: Black Ink, Grey Ink, HOF Standards, HOF Monitor and Similar Batters (click on those links on the page to get an idea of what they mean). Out of all those comparisons, only one (the very liberal Grey Ink) has him as being HOF material (and just barely). Now compare it to Mike Schmidt, Brooks Robinson (who doesn't fair well, but is considered the greatest fielding 3B), Eddie Matthews and George Brett. I think that nostalgia got Pie Traynor and George Kell into the hall. And with Wade Boggs and Paul Molitor soon to be eligible, Santo starts to fade further into the memories of the existing voters. That said, I don't think the HOF would be lessened by him getting into it. It just seems that proponents of the "small hall" concept on the Veteran's Committee won out.
posted by grum@work at 04:51 PM on February 27, 2003
If you haven't read anything about these arguments from Bill James, go do it. The bottom line is, you don't put someone into the Hall because a lesser player has already been enshrined. Ron Santo was a damn good ballplayer. He just isn't good enough for the Hall. Voters throughout the years have made that clear. I also don't like the implication in one of the articles that we should somehow give Santo a little more consideration because he had a leg amputated. Other guys have it sllighty worse — they're dead. Drop it. Marvin Miller should be, though. The guy probably screwed up baseball as much as anyone, but he has had a HUGE impact on the game. Give him a plaque ... just mount it in one of the urinals in the men's room.
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:03 PM on February 27, 2003
Although I generally agree that many hall of famers don't deserve to be there, I'd have to make a case for one of these guys, Ron Santo. I used to think he didn't deserve it, but was persuaded by a local sports talk DJ and a great interview with Mr. Santo.